defense of my comments

[William Prestwich <prestwic@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>]

	I do not argue about the appropriateness of regulatory practices

at all-they certainly encompass more considerations than science. Leaving

monetary issues aside however, the misuse of the concept of the

LNT-whether it is valid or not-certainly can lead to detrimental effects

on mankind by, for example, convincing the medical profession to

overestimate the risks of diagnostic procedures involving radiation. So I

believe it is an important scientific issue. When I said that the

ecological study is irrelevant in the domain of science, that did not

imply that it had no effect, but that it is not valid to simply dismiss

the data. It is also not acceptable to say that the data can be ignored

because it is somehow "bad". It is necessary to devise a model that

reproduces the data, incorporating the ideas one has that underlie the

reasons for rejecting Dr. Cohen's single interpretation, that the results

call into question the validity of the LNT. The data is should not be

questioned. The interpretation of the data is quite rightly open to

question, but alternative explanations have not adequately shown any

quantitative consistency with the results. Therefore I repeat my assertion

that closing the debate is scientifically irresponsible.

Bill



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

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/