Jerry,
Actually you just proved Barbara's point. If you reread NCRP 136, you will see evidence of their rejection of some, but not all, of the "abundant evidence contradicting LNT." You not only disagree their conclusions, but dismiss their analysis of the "evidence."
Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
Not necessarily. I imagine that most supporters of LNT are simply following the guidance of NCRP, EPA or the other self-serving policy groups. The dishonesty applies to these groups who purport to have done a comprehensive review of scientific evidence on radiation effects while summarily rejecting or ignoring the abundant evidence contradicting LNT. I am not suggesting that they were obligated to accept the validity of this contrary evidence, but they should at least have offered some sound rationale for rejecting it.----- Original Message -----From: William V LiptonTo: Jerry CohenSent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:32 AMSubject: Re: hospital contamination incidentAre you implying that anyone who supports the use of LNT as a prudent precaution for planning purposes is dishonest? Such moral certainty and intolerance for other points of view is NOT an indication of good science.