|
John,
Is it "prudent" (NCRP 121S3), or "first, do no harm" (medical aphorism), to prohibit "an essential trace energy" (Cameron)? 1. I just spoke with an HP whose 3,000 rem (in doses of 175 rem daily
to prostate), killed a cancer and only tired him for a few weeks. Everything
else works fine, unlike the most prostate surgery.
ALARA kills! It is not prudent! Howard Long John Johnson wrote: Radsafers Have the critics of the use of LNT read NCRP Publication 121? Section 3 gives the scientific bases for collective dose and concludes with; "... it is prudent to assume the effect per unit dose in the low dose region following single acute exposures or low dose fractions is a linear response." (ie, LNT), and LNT "..is based on our understanding of the basic mechanisms involved." 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. I've made this point before but I thought it was worth repeating given the continued discuss here. Please critique my conclusion. John R Johnson, PhD |