RE: The "right" answer

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Ted,

I apologize if I have not make my comments clear, and

certainly do not want to imply that all who advocate

LDR are extremists.  I assume that you accept the fact

that people may have differences of opinion about

regulations and scientific studies.  However, I do

believe that SOME LDR advocates are extremist by

charging government regulators, NCRP, ICRP, etc., as

self-serving groups who surpress research for their

own gain.  Obviously, regulators are all part of "the

big conspiracy."  This is opposite of some of the "LDR

group" who selectively choose studies that on the

surface support THEIR selective view of the truth. 

When anyone questions the "LDR group" studies, they

are bombarded with accusations of being conspirators,

not reviewing the "science," etc.  I see little

different with what is done by the anti-nuclear group

who make similar charges against the same government

agencies.  How are they different?  Is it because the

"LDR group" wear suits and have degrees?  When

epidemiologists question a study, such as the Navy

Shipyard Nuclear Worker study, they are attacked as

not believe the "truth."  Of course, they are only

scientist who have studied, practiced and reported on

epidemiological studies.  What do they know about the

"truth?"  



Obviously, I do not read the same selected literature

that you do.  Of course, I can do a MEDLINE search and

find lots of hits on hormesis.  You can also find lots

of literature on DNA single- and double-strand breaks

and increased cancer risks.  I view all good studies

are relevant to our understanding of the effects

radiation, but do not accept any single or selected

set of studies a providing a defining result.  For one

thing, a study can show that a certain bioassay

produces a change, e.g., increase in granulocytes, may

not represent the whole picture.  When I studied

physiology I understood that there was often a

"rebound effect."  The body constantly tries to

restore itself.  This transient effect is seen

following a low dose of irradiation. It is not new. 

You can "prime" the body to release certain immune

compounds, but their levels eventually to normal.



Furthermore, what are some of the long-term effects of

LDR?  LDR has certainly shown to be beneficial in some

cases.  However, I am sure you remember the studies of

children irradiated for Tinea capitis (ringworm). 

Irradiation cured their infection, but at the price of

increased cancer. Another case of "exordinary claim"

of a cure.



My comment about the claims of the Taiwanese

researchers is based on the reported low cancer rate. 

Like Jerry Cohen, I think the data needs to be

reviewed.  I do not think we should look for the

"right" answer, but for the results that are truely

express what is happening.



I do agree that many in the radiation protection

community recognize that LNT may not be the best

predictor of low dose radiation effects.  Even NCRP

136 says that the LNT is not the only form that the

dose-response relationship can follow.  I also

subscribe to that idea, but recognize that it is the

easiest to understand.  (I actually believe that the

rsponse is sigmoidal in shape.)  The LNT is what we

have in the regulatory theater, and I feel that it is

my duty to understand all of the issues around it. 

However, I do not blast those who disagree with me

like some of the "LDR group."  



I am glad you gave me an opportunity to respond.



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

> John:

> 

> I can't let stand your repeated characterization of

> those who recognize the

> beneficial effects of LDR as a fringe group.  Once

> you get outside the

> literature controlled by the radiation protection

> establishment, and look at

> Science, Nature and the mainstream biological

> journals such as the Quarterly

> Review of Biology, you'll see statements such as

> "homesis is not the

> exception to the rule, it is the rule."  So the

> demand for "extraordinary

> proof" for "extraordinary claims" should be applied

> to the LNT

> premise--never even claimed by its advocates to be

> proved--that LDR is

> harmful.

> 

> But even within the RadProt community the truth is

> recognized, if not

> implemented.  Both ANS and HPS have issued formal

> position papers, after

> several years of open discussion and word

> engineering, that the LNT is not

> suitable for predicting health effects below 10rem

> (orders of magnitude

> above the regulatory figures in question).

> 

> Add to all that explicit statements by the French

> Academy of Medicine,

> UNSCEAR and WHO,  and...what DO you need to avoid

> the "fringe" label?

> . . .





=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

http://sitebuilder.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/