|
John and Ted,
Even though I try to stay away from this kind
of thing, I sat on enough working groups and technical subcommittees to know
that the focus of these is on:
Science is often considered a "technicality".
We have to keep that in mind when we read these
reports. A statement that populations exposed to radiation are usually healthier
than others is a simple, factual, scientific observation.
A conclusion that it is not possible to reject LNT
with 100% certainty, because some cellular or fruit fly data seems to support
it, is a subjective judgment call, designed to facilitate consensus and make the
conclusion palatable to the customers. How can you go wrong by saying: "Better
safe than sorry."?
I don't see a giant LNT conspiracy and I don't
blame people who sit on committees for putting some motherhood and apple pie
into their conclusions. We do however have to recognize that health
physics probably has more inertia than any other scientific discipline and
things take time. The HPS position statement, which says that multiplying
trivial individual doses by huge populations is nothing but intellectual
masturbation (I'm paraphrasing here), is a huge and courageous step forward. We
should point this out every chance we get.
If government agencies were to adopt current
thought (the HPS statement), most of the dirty bomb and DU nonsense
would simply go away. We could get on with things, such as figuring out the
true dose response, preventing radiological terrorism and identifying
people who may be sensitive to radiation, so they can be protected.
A happy, healthy and peaceful New Year to all on
the list.
Kai
----- Original Message -----
|