[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.

To: "Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
From: Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:22:30 -0800
CC: "'Jerry Cohen'" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>, "'Ted Rockwell'" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>, BLHamrick@AOL.COM, John Cameron <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
References: <8B08CB90735BE243B6B7ED7CA0074C140672D341@nihexchange6.nih.gov>
Reply-To: Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

John P. Jacobus wrote:



> 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.



Strange comment in this context!



If the NCRP recommendations which you are so strongly defending are not

"implementations of the science" - then what are they?



If they are - then you are simply saying the same thing many of us are.

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

References:
- RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
  - From: "Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

Prev by Date: Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancerare not surprising
Next by Date: Re: Apparent anti-correlations between geographic radiation and cancerare no...
Prev by thread: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
Next by thread: RE: Not using LNT to calculate risk does not mean there is no risk.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread