[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: LNT has been disproved. Some scientists deny it.
John,
It may be defined as a regulatory concept. But even NCRP 136 shows that
responses vary for cell line to cell line. From organism to organism. It
is easy to disprove biologically, but the issue is its use in regulation.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cameron [mailto:jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:25 AM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)
Subject: LNT has been disproved. Some scientists deny it.
John Jacobus wrote: "Phlogiston was disproved. However, the LNT has
not. And probably will not because it not well defined. "
I disagree. LNT is very well defined. How better can you define a
quantity than to say it is a straight line on a graph of dose Vs
cancer graph. Many animal studies in NCRP Report No. 104 contradict
LNT.
LNT was disproved by Frigerio in 1973 and much strongly disproved in
many other cases described in Sohei Kondo's book Health effects of
Low Level Radiation.
I think the best proof is the nuclear shipyard worker study and the
100 years of British radiology.
Best wishes, John Cameron
--
John R. Cameron (jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu)
2678 SW 14th Dr. Gainesville, FL 32608
(352) 371-9865 Fax (352) 371-9866
(winters until about May 15)
PO Box 405, Lone Rock,WI 53556
(608) 583-2160; Fax (608) 583-2269
(summers: May 2002- September 2002)
************************************************************************
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/