|
John and others.
I'm glad to see that there is some support on
Radsafe for the ICRP/NCRP LNT position. I would add an item to what you
wrote.
I've posted this on Radsafe in the past: i.e.,
there are different risks for people with different genetic makeups, and LNT is
intended to give adequate protection for ALL people.
A belated Merry Christmas and a Happy (Risk Free!)
New year
John
_______________________
John R Johnson,
PhD
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 12:52
PM
Subject: RE: Not using LNT to calculate
risk does not mean there is no risk.
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
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.
. .
.
|