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

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

My error!  I view all NCRP publications as some sort of recommendation. 

Even a "review of the science" can look like a recommendation by the

selection of what is reviewed and conclusions suggested.  So - I'd have

to say that "my point" was based on my mis interpretation of the NCRP

document.



It seems that the attitude is that LNTH is IT - until there is

conclusive and compelling proof that it is not.  I thought that the way

science worked is that it took only ONE exception to exclude a

hypothesis!  The hypothesis could of course be reformulated in response

to contrary findings - but then its a new hypothesis.



I really should look at 136 again - but what I have generally seen is

that much of the micro biology bares out LNTH but the macro biology does

not and there is simply not enough evidence in the macro biology

experiments to say for sure - but last time I checked - the regs etc.

applied to the macro biology!



When the regs choose control levels that are within the variation of

natural background - then they are going too far.



"Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" wrote:

> 

> Ted,

> I may have missed your point.  The recommendations of the NCRP are in Report

> 116, not Report 136.  If you look in Report 116, I do not think you will

> find a reference to the LNT.  You do find references to ALARA, but that is

> another issue.  In the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, ALARA is

> considered, not the LNT.

> 

> Report 136 reviews the science behind the dose/dose reponse assumptions at

> the low dose and low-dose rates.  The only recommendation that I found is

> that "more research is needed."  What the science suggests is that the

> effects follow that LNT, but there certainly may be other relationships.

> Based on the studies and analyses considered in Report 136, the LNT appears

> to fit the data.

> 

> Again, this is separate from the regulations which should be based on risk

> v. benefits.  When you try to control doses below 100 mrem/y (1 mSv/a), that

> is where the problem lies.

> 

> Personally, I believe that the anti-nuclear forces misuse the LNT to try and

> make the regulations more restrictive than they have to be.

> 

> -- John

> 

> John P. Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

> 

> The comments presented are mine and do not reflect the opinion of my

> employer or spouse.

> ------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc@xrayted.com]

> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 10:23 AM

> To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)

> Cc: 'Jerry Cohen'; '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 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/