The NCRP appears to be selectively susceptible to the power of suggestion.
There is also a lot of data that suggest the LNT concept is bogus!
Why not base our radiation policies on those data?
----- 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 epidemiological 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.
. .
.