RE: The "right" answer

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

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?



Ted Rockwell



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

From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:56 AM

To: Jerry Cohen; Muckerheide; Dr. Theodore Rockwell;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Dr. Otto Raabe; rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU

Cc: Jim Muckerheide

Subject: Re: The "right" answer





One should also remember that funding is also given to

research that produces good science.  Afterall, DOE is

now funding low-dose radiation studies in an effort to

answer fundamental questions.  Of course, people do

not like the DOE studies because they do not support

their beliefs or agenda.  If flaws are found with the

Taiwanese, their will be those who charge bias as when

problems with the NSWS were noted.



I am not a big believer in government or regulatory

conspiracy theories.  I am more worried about fringe

groups who try to impose their views and power over

others.



Again, I find it hard to believe that the Taiwanese

investigators cannot produce an adequate study.



--- Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net> wrote:

>     I would agree that in the best of all worlds,

> studies should be judged

> on their scientific merit. Unfortunately in the real

> world this is often not

> the case. Those who fund scientific research can

> have a vested interest in

> preserving their power so that research results

> inimical them would tend to

> be viewed with disfavor. For example, anything

> indicating that radiation

> exposure might not be as harmful as commonly

> believed would not be conducive

> to supporting large budgets for radiation safety

> programs and would

> therefore threaten those involved in these

> programs.The NSWS provides a

> classic example. Those who believe that the current

> DOE funded studies on

> low-level radiation effects will produce unbiased

> results are likely

> deluding themselves.

>     Perhaps the Taiwanese Co-60 investigation may be

>  flawed, but if the

> indicated results could be  verified, it would

> certainly pose a threat to

> the current radiation safety establishment.

> Therefore, in the current

> climate, it is hard to be optimistic that

> confirmatory studies will be

> undertaken.

>

. . .



=====

-- 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/