|
John,
Shame on me! I had thought that my views on
low-dose radiation effects were derived from a clear and objective evaluation of
scientific information. Now, as you point out, it appears that my views are
biased by political considerations.
I don't know how, but I must have imagined that somehow I would be
enriched if only the world understood that LNT-based radiation
policies are nonsense. Thank you for showing me the light. Maybe some day I
and others who share my biased opinions can develop the superior wisdom
and insight that you and the NCRP must possess:-)
Happy New Year.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:24
AM
Subject: 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
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
|