|
Phillippe,
I do
not know what this has to do with my comments about the NCRP report. But I
think we both appreciate the volume of data that is available and what it says
and doesn't say. Since I am not an epidemiologist, I would not attempt to
correlate cancer rates and radiation exposure based on the data you
supplied. (Would you?) I feel that there are too many confounding
factors. Particularly when you consider that incident rate to due to low
doses of radiation would be difficult to measure above the natural incident rate
of 25%. I don't think the numbers alone will give the answer, as "the
devil is in the details."
Philosophically, I think radiation is a weak
carcinogen, and effect can only be observed at higher dose rates or with very
large populations that are carefully matched. Or by those who want to
believe that radiation is a significant risk. There are certainly other
weak carcinogens in our environment that get hyped in the news, but we never
hear of again. Many of the things we do everyday, such as driving a car,
crossing the street, etc., have risks. Whether we should have regulations
that protect us against such risks is a challenging issue. (I certainly
don't think so. But I don't make the laws.)
By the
way, you say that the annual dose in Denver is more than half of the the dose
limit for radiation workers. That would be 2,500 mrem (25 mSv). My
understanding is that the annual dose rate in Denver is about twice the general
population dose, or about 900 mrem (9 MsV).
Have a
good weekend.
-- John
John P.
Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: jenday1@msn.com
|