|
John,
I beg to differ! The report's conclusions are base only
what on a few individuals interpretation of certain "knowledge" that they
selected to interpret.
Yes, I did review NCRP-136 and submitted comments to the
NCRP prior to its official issue, as did some others on this radsafe list.. My
comments included a list of references of literature showing data indicating
beneficial effects of low-dose radiation, particularly its stimulatory effects
on the immune response system.
Clearly, this information was ignored and I was not even
given the courtesy of a reply. Of course, the NCRP is free to disagree with
this information.. However, they should ,at least, offer some rationale on
why they chose to find it incorrect or irrelevant. They failed to do
so. I suspect the reason is that they found it to be politically
unacceptable. Jerry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 9:39
AM
Subject: RE: Not using LNT to calculate
risk does not mean there is no risk.
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.
. .
.
|