|
I'll have to agree with Les on this one. If this were, "...the
most enlightening discussion ever on Radsafe," I would have unsubscribed
a long time, ago. Also, I fail to see how, "...the LNT debate is
fundamental to the current practice of radiation safety and its ultimate
resolution will affect us all." Exactly what difference would it
make?
For what it's worth, I have 2 observations: 1. Whatever the merits of the various positions or the importance of this debate, if any, this seems to have degenerated into a contest of egos, rather than of science. 2. Even if the LNT issue were important, it's not going to be proven or disproven by epidemiology. While epidemiology can be used to show associations between parameters (e.g., radiation exposure versus cancer incidence), it does not prove cause and effect. The observed association could be due to some other, unstudied parameter. If there is ever a resolution of this debate, it will have to come from a breakthrough in our understanding of the mechanisms of radiation carcinogenesis. In the meantime, all of those interested in this perpetual cluster should get together in the nearest phone booth (an exaggeration, I'll admit, but only a small one) or establish their own listserv. The opinions expressed are
strictly mine.
Bill Lipton
Wesley wrote:
|