[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "prudent precaution"
Bill,
    Please explain why you consider 
assumption of LNT to be a "prudent precaution". If 
 LNT is not a valid concept, it would seem that a lot of limited 
resources are needlessly squandered to protect against something that's not a 
hazard to begin with. How can that be considered prudent?
    Also, society simply does not have the 
resources to protect against all things that might 
be dangerous. (as per ICRP, NCRP, etc.), 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Scientific responsibility
 
> The NCRP, ICRP, ... 
are NOT claiming that LNT is a valid model.   All they say
> is 
that it should be used for planning purposes, in the absence of 
sufficient
> information  to disprove it.
> 
> I don't 
see how these convoluted arguments that, at best, show an association
> 
(NOT cause/effect) inconsistent with the linear, no threshold (LNT) 
hypothesis
> are sufficient reason to abandon this prudent 
precaution.  Politically, they
> won't convince anyone outside of the 
small circle of "true believers."
> 
> The opinions expressed are 
strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Curies 
forever.
> 
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
> 
> 
> William Prestwich wrote:
> 
> > The proponent of any 
theory or hypothesis is responsible for showing how
> > that theory can 
reproduce observations, in the domain of science. It is
> > incumbent 
on the adherents of the LNT to construct a model based upon that
> > 
theory to quantitatively reproduce the observations made by Dr. Cohen. 
The
> > argument over whether the study is ecological or not is 
irrelevant within
> > the framework of science. The ecological nature 
can be introduced into the
> > model. This is the time honoured 
approach of science since Newton, and is,
> > I believe , Dr Cohen 
refers to as the approach of a theoretical physicist.
> > If a such a 
model cannot be constructed then ending the debate is
> > 
scientifically irresponsible.
> > Bill Prestwich
> >
> 
> 
************************************************************************
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
************************************************************************
> 
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/