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

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

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



> 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.



Thank-you for that reference - it was good reading.



>  Particularly biology.



I'd always taken this as so - at least in macro biology - due to the

complexity and variation of the subjects and the difficulty/expense it

getting together a large enough experimental population with adequate

control.





> On this point I think that the LNTH is a good example of this idea.



Yes - of course.





>  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.



Unfortunately.

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

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/