RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

["Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>]

Ted,

I think we should be clear that NCRP Report 136 concludes studies of biological lesions, which may be precursors of cancer, prevent an exclusion of the LNT dose-response relationship.  Further, the epideniological data "suggests" that for some types of cancers there may be no departure from the LNT above the of background radiation levels, and that many of these stuides are inconclusive.  It is further stated that there is no conclusive evidance to reject the LNT, but at very low doses it may not be possible to prove or disprove the LNT.

 

This is what the report says.

-- John
John P. Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:39 AM
To: BLHamrick@AOL.COM; jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Cc: jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET
Subject: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

Barbara:

 

I think you're on a wrong, or at least non-productive, track.  The fact is, that LDR does NOT produce an additional risk.  Most evidence indicates that it reduces the risk of cancer and of shorter longevity.  That's what the data say.  I don't have any data on reindeer tramplings, but I do have data on LDR.  Even NCRP-136, the latest proclamation on LNT, states on page 6, and in the news release on it issuance, that most populations exposed to LDR do not show increased cancer and most show decreased cancer.  That's right in the report. 

 

The fact that they then recommend using LNT anyway is another issue.  But they do not claim that the data show an increased risk from LDR.  We must keep clear on that point.

 

 . . .