Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no ri sk.

[maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>]

Nowhere is it written that humans are supposed to be consistent. But as

Jim D. said below: "A Risk-Free New Year sounds pretty dull, perhaps

even unhealthy"  And the indulgence of LNT surely is expensive and

probably also unhealthy. And in any case, consistency is not likely.



Hope you folks are all having a fulfilling holiday season in spite of

coming in and posting work-related emails. The new year might be pretty

dreary, but go home and pretend with your families for a few days

anyway. <grin> Hope you have had a Merry Christmas and that all of you

will celebrate the New Year zestfully.

Best wishes,

Maury Siskel

__________________

If a cow laughs, does it spit milk out its nose?



==========================================

"Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote:



> John, Applying your reasoning to other societal situations, we would

> not allow the use of peanuts, or any other foodstuff to which some

> people are deathly allergic. I am not aware of any genetic makeups

> that predispose individuals to radiation risk, independently of risks

> associated with the wide variety of other agents that cause DNA

> damage.  Regulating radiation with LNT will not protect those

> individuals with DNA repair defects, since there

> -----------------------  snipped ---------------------------



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/