[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: dose limits for members of the public
Sure,
Ruth, just keep confusing the issue w/ facts. See how you
are?
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
In a message dated 2/14/02 4:05:50 PM Mountain Standard Time,
sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
It's sort of like saying, I drive a car, and I have
not not
been injured, and obviously not been killed in one. THEREFORE, cars are
safe and do not injure people ... by reason of my personal experience.
As long as you are using the
car analogy --- a driver can minimize his or her risk, by how and when and
where he or she drives, the condition of the car, etc. Moreover, we do
not apply the linear non-threshold theory to driving. By the same token,
we do not consider mitigating factors with benzene inhalation -- EPA
just says "benzene is a carcinogen" and applies the LNT.
In
applying the LNT to the carcinogenesis of ionizing radiation, is background
ever considered? I don't believe so, because the EPA standards are
negligible compared to, and indistinguishable from, background.
Moreover, there are many applications of diagnostic x-ray in which
potential carcinogenesis is never considered. (No, it isn't always done the
way it is in the dentist's office). So it is perfectly reasonable to
think "I have been exposed to so-and-so much x-ray, over decades, with no
apparent ill effect, so isn't it possible that the relationship between x-ray
and cancer is more complex than just a simple linear extrapolation back to
zero?"
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com