[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.
Ted,
I also view the NCRP regulations as recommendations, but we have to live,
and die, by the regulations.
I really do not think that one exception disproves a hypothesis, but may set
limits on it. Of course, what is a hypothesis anyway, but a theory. See
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/12/2 which discusses Karl Popper's
"principle of falsigiability" and the fact that science is not as simple and
clear-cut as we would like it to be. Particularly biology. On this point I
think that the LNTH is a good example of this idea. While it probably works
at the cellular level, it does not at the macro-biology level.
Unfortunately, those who write regulations would like our world to be so
simple, that one size fits all.
-- 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 11:58 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.
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.
. . .
************************************************************************
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/