|
Jerry,
Have you read the report, or
are you basing your comments on what you have heard or want to
believe? The report is based on the knowledge that was known
when it was written (pre-2001). Of course our research and understands
expand and become more refined. That is how science moves forward.
I would encourage you to keep
to remember that
biology and epidemiology is not physics. Studies done with one model (cell
or animal) may not hold true for another. I know a researcher who says
they can cure cancer in mice, but not in humans. It is also certainly true
that some people who have genes that put them more at risk for developing
cancers than other people. To suggest that all data that does not fit your
view is bogus is, well, shortsighted.
Have a good
weekend.
-- John
John P.
Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: jenday1@msn.com
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.
. .
.
|