Re: "Limit to Survival - Effect of Radiation

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

John,

Would it be, "a common sense (conservative) point of view of risk

management." to further deprive people in a goiter-deaf-retarded area (Great

Lakes, Himalaya foothills, central Mexico) of iodine, as called for by LNT and

ALARA?

Or would your common sense deprive most American children of the fluoride that

could save tooth drilling? ALARA would do more harm than good (i.e. NOT common

sense or "conservative") in these or sunshine. The preponderance of data

suggests that ALARA damages.



Howard Long



"Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" wrote:



> 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/



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

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/