|
My own
comments, for the sake of the discussion:
1. The
LNT theory, whether you agree with it or not (I don't), IS fundamental to
current practice in how it relates to ALARA. That should be enough to say it all
- should it not?
2.
Epidemiology is the ONLY tool, as far as I know, that pertains directly
to human organisms as opposed to individual cells. The latter may or may not
extrapolate well to human organisms as a whole. As
such, epidemiology may likely be THE MOST RELEVANT tool to health
physics. Are there cogent arguments against this?
3.
Establishing causality is generally not possible when talking about complex
organisms like humans. If it were, it would not have taken so long to
sue cigarette manufacturers.
I'm
not looking for a backlash here, but I would appreciate cogent/sensible
counter-arguments.
Best
regards,
Grant
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.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Wesley wrote:
Les and All,
The current debate among Cohen, Field
(epirad) and others is probably the most enlightening discussion ever
on Radsafe. Of course it will
not get resolved here, but I for one have learned a bit of
epidemiology.
More importantly, the LNT debate is
fundamental to the current practice of radiation safety and its ultimate
resolution will affect us all.
Please keep the discussion
on Radsafe so that we can all
learn and benefit. I wish more Radsafers would have the
courage of Cohen and Field to post their opinions and knowledge rather than
"go offline".
Best regards,
Wes
Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH,
CHP
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates,
Inc.
http://home.att.net/~wesvanpelt/Radiation.html
wesvanpelt@att.net
snip.....
> More frankly, I'm getting tired of
this argument, that is basically
> between
> only two or three people.
Please take this discussion into the private
> sector and save me from serious
damage to my fingers and wrists from
> having
> to delete all these
messages!!!!!
>
> Les Aldrich,
CHP
|