[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!
You are confusing scientific relevance with regulatory relevance. While
searching for truth, with no fixed mind set, is great, as health
physicists we have an obligation to protect workers and the public.
This requires a conservative interpretation of consensus data. At this
point, LNT is the best we have. In my opinion, it would take proof,
"beyond a reasonable doubt," to change this. If you consider this a
"fixed mind set," so be it.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Fritz A. Seiler" wrote:
> Dear Bill, I must disagree with you on your remark that supporting
> or contradicting the LNT is "largely irrelevant". I think that your
> opinion, that an experimental demonstrationof a threshold for
> radiation effects "beyond all reasonable doubt" would be
> more relevant than an interpretration of the data as a parabola or
> some other model, is actually quite unscientific. We do not tell
> natural systems how to react to an insult by radiation, just becauseit
> would be easier to write regulations for that case. We do an
> experiment, observe, and try to interpret the findings, make a model
> and test it. If there are data that indicatea treshold then so be it.
> It there are no such data, then something else will have to do. To
> fault Bernie that his data does not give a value for a threshold is
> not acceptable asreasoning in the spirit of the Scientific Method.
> What is bound to happen when we approach an experiment with a fixed
> mind set like "we would be better off with a threshold value (so go
> find one!)", is more than amplydemonstrated by the use of the LNT for
> an exposure to Radon and its daughters and thewrangling about Bernie
> Cohen's data. Let us all remember that we have come way beyond
> Leonard Euler's attitude, who --when told that the experimental data
> contradicted one of his mathematical models -- is supposed
> to have said:"All the worse for the data!"Now, I will get off my
> computer, and be done with it. Fritz
>
> *****************************************************
> Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D.
> Sigma Five Consulting: Private:
> P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 437
> Los Lunas, NM 87031 Tome', NM 87060
> Tel.: 505-866-5193 Tel. 505-866-6976
> Fax: 505-866-5197
> *****************************************************
>
> *****************************************************
> "This is the hour when democracy must justify
> itself by capacity for effective decision, or risk
> destruction or desintegration. Europe is dotted
> with the ruins of right decisions taken too late."
>
> "America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis"
> Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940.
> *******************************************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:29 PM
> To: Hall, David A.
> Cc: 'Kai Kaletsch'; peter.thomas@health.gov.au; Fritz A.
> Seiler; RadSafe
> Subject: Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!
>
> 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.
>