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

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/19/2003 12:32:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, 

liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:

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. 

Sadly, the anti-nuclear contingency does present it as "fact."  Witness 

Michael Levi's response to Ted Rockwell's editorial, projecting that one in ten 

people WILL die of cancer if left in an area that has 1,000 times the "EPA's 

'squeaky-clean levels.'"  This one in ten number is 1000 times the EPA's 

recommended upper bound of one in ten thousand for CERCLA sites.  The anti-nuclear 

contingency routinely represents the LNT as fact.  It is unfair to the public to 

do so, and particularly so, when Mr. Levi, himself a physicist, should know 

better than to take a regulatory convenience and promote his own anti-nuclear 

agenda by turning it into a real life "fear factor" for the masses.



That is why "disproving" the LNT is important.  It is being used in a 

wreckless manner, even by those who should know better.



Barbara