[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Limit to Survival - Effect of Radiation
Ruth,
I think what you said is very valid. "Common sense" says that data should
not be taken out of context. Studies, like the British radiographers study,
and the Calabrese and Baldwin article, are be mined for results that may not
exist or be relevant to radiation safety issues, which is what I thought
this list is about. In some cases, as John Cameron will tell you, the
conclusions he reached are not those reached by the original investigators
who he contacted. Is this extrapolation or even (inadvertent)
misrepresentation of the data? Sometimes wishes cloud judgment. What we do
know is that current data does not support adverse health effects below
about 100 mSv (10 rem), which the British radiographers study supports: no
more, no less. Studies that do show effects, harmful or beneficial, are not
unequivocal. As professionals, I think we fail if we ignore statements
that fly in the face of "good science," which also requires the use of
common sense in its use. The use of the LNT may be not "good science," but
is useful from a common sense (conservative) point of view of risk
management.
Another, personal issue for me, is that when information is presented on
this list, we should understand that there will be disagreements, like the
practical benefits of ALARA. I think it is great that we can hold this
discussions. I just question when our beliefs are viewed as religious
doctrine, and those who disagree are heretics.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: RuthWeiner@aol.com [mailto:RuthWeiner@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:53 AM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: "Limit to Survival - Effect of Radiation
. . .
John, I keep trying to fit common sense into this, even though "common
sense" can be wrong. But let me try:
. . .
Now everybody is doing this (mindless) linear extrapolation to zero, and
that is part of the problem.
The other part is: it seems pretty hard, if not impossible, to separate the
effect on increases or decreases in public radiation exposure from
fluctuations in background, cosmic ray exposure, etc. That effect can be
separated for occupational exposures, perhaps, but not, it seems to me, from
public exposure.
. . .
************************************************************************
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/