Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 5/13/02 7:26:16 AM Mountain Daylight Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:



> ) Regardless of what they they may think, the anti-LNT folks don't possess
>
> "scientific truth," but simply a hypothesis which they believe has better
>
> evidence.


The published  evidence refuting the LNT is growing.  Conversely, there is no evidence supporting the LNT in organisms (as distinct from single cells), nor has there ever been -- it was a conservative assumption that made some sense in the absence of evidence.


Regulations are hard to weaken even when there is little no emotion atttached.  Some years ago, EPA tried to weaken the air standard for ozone on the basis of evidence, and was slapped down.  Moreover, we cannot even stop DOE from reporting radiation impacts as "latent cancer fatalities" and this is not a regulation but a mindless application of the LNT.  The latter is the kind of thing that, in the light of evidence, should just STOP.   we should report rem as rem (or Sv) and person-rem as person-rem (or person-Sv) and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion.  


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com