Re: Radon's linear dependency

[AndrewsJP@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/16/2002 3:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, bill-field@uiowa.edu writes:



> But,
>
>  
>
> Bernie says he is testing the LNT theory, not an hypothesis, right?  
>
>  
>
> Just so I am clear, what do you think is the proof that it does not?
>
>  
>
> Maybe, I am missing your point.
>
>  
>
> Bill


Bernie says he is testing the LNT theory, when he means that the theory is "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of arguement or investigation or an unproved assumption" (from my New Collegiate Dictionary).  What I believe we should be arguing is that the LNT theory is not in fact a theory meaning "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" (ibid).  I do not see a phenomena that needs explaining.  What I see is a conservative assumption that is having huge and expensive impact on the body politic and on the urgent need for safe electricity for the world that has minimal environmental impact.  The assumption of the linear no-threshold theory is really a hypothesis, not a proven theory yet.  It may be a long time before we know enough to prove this as theory.  The LNT hypothesis is according to my dictionary: "a : an assumption tor concession made for the sake of arguement or b : a!

n interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action."  This to me seems to be the case for LNT, and until we can show definitely that there are predictable excess cancers or other effects that actually reduce mortality, the LNT remains a hypothesis, not a theory.


John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee