Ed,
First of all, these values are based on staticis, and we know how reliable they are. This has nothing to do with the LNT. Except for the EPA of 2%, they are all about the same. (Is this for radon, which is not low-LET radiation?)
If you read the summary of BEIR V, http://books.nap.edu/books/0309039959/html/index.html, they extimate the population-weighted average of death (not incident) following an accute exposure as 0.8% due to acute dose equivalent to all body organs from 0.1 Sv. This works out to 8 X 10^-4/rem, or 0.08% per rem. For protracted exposure over weeks or months, the risk is reduced by a factor or 2 OR MORE. So the risk from a low dose rate can be 0.04%/rem or more from a protacted exposure. See page 6 in the executive summary.
I believe that any time you take a single value and do not say what qualifiers are associated with it, you are fooling your audience or do not appreciate the uncertain of the value,
RadSafeInst <RadSafeInst@cableone.net> wrote:
Recent comments on the list caused me to look up some of the cancer factors used by different organizations. Here are some I found: (All of these are for additional fatal cancers per whole body dose per year in rems)AFRRI: 0.08%Text Book of Military Medicine: 0.012% to 0.03%EPA: 2% (That appears to me to be two orders of magnitude higher than other organizations).ICRP: 0.05%In EPA 400-R-92-001, Oct 91, they quote BIER III as 0.03% per Rem.Did I foul this up or are these people using random number generators (in addition to using unproven LNT assumptions)? Ed Battle