RE: Radon, smoking and LNT

[John, Jacobus]

Ted,

In case you missed the comments made in the past, the

issue is not his results, but the appropriateness of

the data to arrive at those results.  



If we expect to be taken seriously, we must ensure

that the data, analysis and conclusions of these

studies clearly show that the results are beyond

doubt.  There can be no "wiggle" room for accusations

that the information we present is unsound.



As a scientist, I expect that you would understand

this point and what the issue is.





--- Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org> wrote:

> > 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!

> 

. . .



=====

-- 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/