RE: Radon, smoking and LNT

[Ted, Rockwell]

> If you cling to both the differing results and the

different methology, how can you reconcile the

disparity?



Until you face up to the fact that there is no disparity between Cohen's

results and other low-dose data, this argument will keep going around in

circles.  There are no good data showing that low-dose radiation, from radon

or any other source, produces deleterious effects.  This is conceded even in

the NCRP reports, as we have previously and frequently cited.  The LNT

advocacy argument has always been, "since there are no good data at low

doses...we'll stick with LNT"



And there are, in fact, good data showing that it is not deleterious and may

be beneficial, as noted on page 6 of NCRP-136: "It is important to note..."

So note it, already!



TR



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of John Jacobus

Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:20 AM

To: BLHamrick@AOL.COM; crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Radon, smoking and LNT





I think that you say is true.  However, if you arrive

at a conclusion different from one arrived by other,

accepted methods, you have the added problem of

evaluating not only the results but the methodology.

If you cling to both the differing results and the

different methology, how can you reconcile the

disparity?  If a person has no doubt his methodology

and results are correct, how can other researchers

break the impass?



Philosophically speaking, there are three factors that

can affect a study, such as predicting the path of a

hurricane.  First, the science does not exist to

correctly measure the data.  Can you measure every

temperature point in the atmosphere and ocean?

Second, you misinterpretate the data.  You chose to

base your analysis on data from sea surface

temperatures, but temperatures at 30 meters below the

surface have a bigger influence on the path of the

hurricane.  Third, the is a big unknown.  That is,

atmospheric and water temperatures in the path of the

hurricane have little or no influence on the path of

the hurrican.  Each storm is a unique event that

defies prediction.  (I realize that the example may a

stretch, but I hope you understand what the problems

may be in analyzing the data.)







--- BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:

> In a message dated 6/30/2003 8:29:09 AM Pacific

> Standard Time,

> crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM writes:

>



> . . .

> If the results of the alternative formulation

> counter the results of the

> traditional methodology, then what should be done is

> to identify the differences

> in the methodologies and design an independent

> experiment to test which theory

> has better predictive powers, preferably outside of

> the sphere of the original

> experiment - i.e., turn the problem into a

> "spherical cow" problem, and

> compare the math and logic of each methodology in an

> idealized frame of reference.

> . . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

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/