Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

It's important to keep in mind that LNT is generally not presented as a

"fact," simply as a prudent precaution for planning purposes, e.g.

setting radiation protection standards.  Thus, "proving" or "disproving"

LNT, whatever that means, is largely irrelevant.  What would be relevant

is someone proving, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that there is a

threshold for radiation effects.  I don't see Cohen's study coming close

to that.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com





"Hall, David A." wrote:



> If I might be so bold......."The data seems to indicate..." misses the

> point of the study, and that is to SUPPORT or REFUTE the LNT theory of

> radiation carcinogenesis.As has been mentioned numerous times here on

> radsafe, there is no ethical nor practical way to determine (by the

> scientific method) the true risk to an individual to induction of

> cancer by radiation.I consider myself a novice in Health Physics

> compared to the true experts here on the list.  When I first learned

> about Dr. Cohen's paper, the conclusion of refuting the LNT was

> obvious from a "common sense" perspective as well and the "scientific"

> perspective.  The "Cohen's Paradox" is truly an interesting

> paradox.... but in my opinion has no bearing on the validity of the

> LNT, nor on individual risks.My simplistic view of the issue is this:

> If the LNT is true (small incremental increase in risk with a small

> incremental increase in dose), then it doesn't matter what the

> distribution of dose is to individuals, just the sum of the doses

> (small and large) divided by the number of individuals, compared with

> the cancer incidence.Has anyone EVER published a peer-reviewed paper

> that supports the LNT based on individual doses in the environmental

> or occupational dose ranges?We, as professionals need to be

> ever-vigilant to guard against mis-applying results of analysis in

> areas they were not intended to be applied.I have indeed learned much

> from this forum over the years.  Thank you all for participating and

> allowing me to observe.David Hall, Las Vegas, Nevada(Speaking for

> myself as an HP novice, and not on behalf of my employer or any future

> employers.)