No doubt there were flaws in the nuclear NSWS, why rehash it?

[John Cameron <jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu>]

Dear Colleagues, We cannot correct the flaws in the NSWS but we can 

request that the details of the study be published. Then it will be 

appropriate for scientists to send letters to the  editor to point 

out the flaws. The blame should not be put on those who planned the 

study or even on the PI. There were several senior epidemiologists on 

the Technical Advisory Panel who should have raised these questions. 

I was not happy about the dosimetry but I doubt if its defects caused 

any serious problems. I am convinced that if the NSWS had produced 

data that supported the LNT, there would have been no criticism of 

the study and it would have been published.

	The copy of the final report on the Web is not convenient to 

use and it is tedious to go through hundreds of pages. I feel that 

the article by Ruth Sponsler and me should have been sent to Health 

Physics referees rather than being rejected by the Editor with no 

appeal process.  Apparently in this case there is nothing to do but 

to submit it to another journal where relatively few radiation 

protection scientists will read it.

	In the meantime, I think those who are concerned with the 

flaws of the NSWS should read the article about 100 years of British 

radiologists (1897-1997) and my letter to the editor. I will be happy 

to send pdf files of both articles. It does not suffer from the flaws 

of the NSWS and shows that even the earliest radiologists did not 

have a decrease in longevity.

	I see no point of having more discussion of the NSWS. It 

won't remove the flaws. The question is who in the DOE can we 

complain to about the handling the NSWS?

	If you want pdf copies of the 100 years of Br. radiologists 

study and my letter pointing out the increased longevity, send me an 

e-mail. I will put a copy of Ruth and my NSWS article on my web page 

where anyone can download it. http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~jrc/ I 

plan to put it on the Virtual Radiation Museum but I want to see if 

it can be published in a journal first. 

http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~vrm. When it is on the VRM I will be 

willing to append to it commentaries which are written to journal 

standards, i.e., references.

Best wishes,  John Cameron





-- 

John R. Cameron (jrcamero@wisc.edu)

2678 SW 14th Dr. Gainesville, FL 32608

(352) 371-9865 Fax (352) 371-9866

(winters until  about May  10)



PO Box 405, Lone Rock,WI 53556

(for UPS, etc. insert: E2571 Porter Rd.)

(608) 583-2160; Fax (608) 583-2269

(summer:  until about Oct. 15)

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

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/