Re: British radiologists

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

John,

    Thank you for supplying the BJR paper. I've given it a cursory review

and must disagree with your view that, because it lacks dosimetric data, the

report is useless. Perhaps it doesn't PROVE anything, but it does provide

useful insights. As I discussed in a previous post, sometimes precise data

is unavailable and reasonable assumptions must be made. Accordingly, I think

it is reasonable to assume that radiologists in recent decades received

sugnificantly lower doses than those who practiced in the early years of the

"radiologic age' when radiation exposure was not considered to be very

harmful. Also, it is reasonable to assume that radiologists receive much

lower doses than other medical practitioners. If these assumptions are

valid, as I am sure they are, then it appears that the LNT hypothesis is

bogus, and hormesis is a likely  possibility.

    No degree of precision can compensate for a basic lack of insight.

Perhaps we should try to look at the "big picture".    Jerry



************************************************************************

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/