[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.



Jerry,
I am glad you had the time to review and comment to the NCRP.   Actually, I think the NCRP reviewed a broad spectrum of papers and articles.  Were the ones you cited listed?  If so, what comments were made about them in the report.  If you and other intended to "flood" the NCRP with "relevant" material that was already reviewed, I am not surprised you received no reply.  In reviewing the report, I think that the NCRP adequately addressed the state of the literature and complexity of the data at the time it was written.  They certainly cited numerous reports, as noted in chapter 9 which shows a number of studies and the conflicting estimates of risk.  I guess they did not have your clear insight into the results which you obvious drew from the selected literature you reviewed. 
 
I think that the report adequately addressed or, at least, laid out the problem with many of the studies.  Of course, the selection was politically unacceptable to your political agenda.  You have your opinions and I have mine.
 
Have a good holiday.

-- John
John P. Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 5:04 PM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'Ted Rockwell'; BLHamrick@AOL.COM; John Cameron; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.

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