Re: NCRP Publication 121 and LNT

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

Friends, Otto, John Johnson,



Well, having been away from the list, I see there's still a lot of nonsense

desperately trying and failing to support the LNT, especially the

non-science-ical radon case-control studies propped up by EPA and its

minions!  I owe a number of response to direct msgs.  Unfortunately, time

right now is severely limited.



But re this msg:  First, John, you won't find a credible study showing the

LNT at low doses, Otto is right - there aren't any!  All actual, credible,

low-dose studies refute the LNT.  A recent one being the Br J Radiol report

on radiologists.  



But you can take it also from NCRP-121!?  which states plainly, page 45:



"Few experimental studies, and essentially no human data, can be said to

prove or  **even to provide direct support for the concept**"  And:  "It is

**conceptually possible, but with a vanishingly small probability,**  that

any of these effects could result from the passage of a single charged

particle, causing damage to DNA that could be expressed as a mutation or

small deletion.  It is a result of  **this type of reasoning**  that a

linear non-threshold dose-response relationship  **cannot be excluded. **"





This is pretty dismal for a policy we pretend to be science-based, even

while explicitly ignoring the voluminous data that refute the LNT!



Discussions with NCRP leaders and other rad protection "policy leaders,"

this is clearly another statement that they would/should have expunged, as

they do with many statements that some Committees make (through honesty

accidents :-) . But as NCRP-136 shows, they don't consider such statements

anyway, even to "correct" them.



Regards, Jim Muckerheide





> From: "John Johnson" <idias@interchange.ubc.ca>

>

> 

> Otto

> 

> No, not without reviewing the references given in the NCRP report. This was

> done by the committee and our review resulted in the quoted text. Not finding

> one would not change the conclusion.

> 

> John

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Otto G. Raabe

>

> 

> At 09:36 AM 1/26/02 -0800, John Johnson wrote:

> 

> My conclusion from all the discussions we had during drafting the report is

> that unless we can prove that ALL cancers have a threashold in ALL people it

> is prudent to assume LNT for radiation protection. This does not mean it

> should be applied to cost analysis, etc.

> 

> *****************************************

> January 26, 2002

> Davis, CA

> 

> Dear John:

> 

> I have never found any radiation-induced cancer that has a true linear

> dose-response relationship at low doses. Can you direct me to one?

> 

> Otto



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/