Re: Dirty Bombs

Unless I've missed something, I do not recall anyone on this list presenting logical reasons in support the continuing application of LNT in our radiation laws, regulation, policies, etc. Even the HPS policy statement attempts to dissuade use of LNT to estimate low dose effects. I have to wonder why LNT based policies (ALARA, Collective dose, etc.) persist. I am sure we are all familiar with assessments indicating massive expenditure of resources pursuant to LNT with little or no resulting public benefit. Can anyone please offer any scientifically based arguments to justify why the public might be better off for our continuing use of LNT?

----- Original Message -----

From: Brickner Dov

To: Ted Rockwell ; Rad Safety Institute ; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM ; jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:54 AM

Subject: RE: Dirty Bombs

The argument I use in these situation is : if every citizen of Chaina will recieve 1 mSv we expect an excess of 50000 cancer cases! Wow what a genocide...Dov (Dubi)Brickner   MD
Beer Sheva    ISRAEL

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Ted Rockwell
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 5:49 PM
To: Rad Safety Institute; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Dirty Bombs

> I do not object to their use of 0.05% per Rem: we have to use something!

Ed:

Watch it ! That's how you create thousands of deaths when no individual gets a significant dose. You give everybody a dose one-thousandth of the lethal dose, then multiply it by millions of by-standers! As you know, that's not science, it's nonsense.

Ted Rockwell

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Rad Safety Institute
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:08 PM
To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Dirty Bombs

    Agreeing with Ruth, I would add that they (FAS)tell us the precise amount of dynamite (10lbs) used in one scenario, but NOT the Curies of radionuclide distributed. That proves conclusively that: (1) either they do not understand the true discriminants in this calculation, or (2) they are simply publicity seekers inamoured with their own important image/consultant contracts.

    I also suspect they ASSUMED all radioactive material was completely aerosolized!!!! Not likely!!!!!

    For those of us old enough to vote, we recall Dept of the Army Pamphlet No 50-3, Mar 1977, page 425, which has just such curves (only for Mega Curies). I believe FAS is emulating, but grossly distorting such calculations (if ,indeed, an actual/accepted computer  program is involved). BTW, I do not object to their use of 0.05% per Rem: we have to use something!

                                                    Ed Battle