|
Jerry,
Glad I can help you. The
exchange of ideas and information is a very important aspect on this and most
list servers.
As I asked, was any of the
information and comments you sent to the NCRP new and relevant? Did you
provided any unique research findings? Were your views, which they are,
not addressed in the report? My impression is that the report attempted to
present all of the information that was relevant to the question of dose and
response at low doses. It was a review of the science, not the politics of
the LNT. As part of the report, I am sure you say their reviews and
comments on such topics as adaptive response, hormesis, genomic istability,
cluster studies, ecological studies, radiation sensitivity, linear and dose
thresholds, etc. I presume that while you may not agree with their
conclusions, they did try to provide a balanced view of the data by pointing out
the limitations. Again, if the information you supplied was already
considered, what did you expect to accomplish? Brow-beat the committee
into accepting your views?
I think we both agree that some
of the regulations are non-sense. I just do not think that the science
surrounding low-dose and low-dose rate effects is the problem as much as the
implementation of the science. I certainly do not profess to have a
superior knowledge of the biology and epidemiology associated with radiation
risk. The chance to learn about the issues is how I get my
enrichment.
Hope you had a good
holiday.
-- John
|