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

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>]

MessageMike:  No one I know is against being prudent.  But I think it can be

easily demonstrated that (e.g.) it is not prudent to keep all the former

inhabitants around Chernobyl from returning home because their land is

nearly as radioactive as my sister's front yard in Denver, or scare people

away from mammograms and other life-saving techniques, and from smoke

detectors that fire-chiefs say save lives, or building coal plants instead

of nuclear plants or throwing billions of dollars into Yucca Mtn when some

kids don't have school books....etc.  You know the rest.  These are all the

direct result of telling people that tiny doses of radiation will kill them.

No, you don't quite say that.  But it is a reasonable conclusion from what

is said, and reasonable people act accordingly.



No, I think the onus is on the people who claim that there is a problem,

despite evidence to the contrary.  They have cheerfully refused to accept

that burden, saying there is no evidence, but insisting we proceed as if

there were, all in the name of prudence.  That's not science.



I repeat: If you know of any good data showing deleterious effects in

organisms (not isolated cells with no defense system) from LDR, pls cite it.

NCRP and ICRP have not done so.



Ted Rockwell

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

  From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Stabin, Michael

  Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:39 PM

  To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

  Subject: RE: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!





  From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@starpower.net]



  >I don't know of any good data that show deleterious effects from LDR.



  But there is some evidence, and some logical arguments, that create a

reasonable doubt about dose and effect at low levels, IMHO.



  >And they rely only on the demonstrably false argument that it is prudent

to assume the worst.  That is not science.  It is transparently politics.



  I guess "they" here are the NCRP and ICRP. What they are doing is

transparently setting policy. These policies are based on science, but no,

they are not "science". I think it is good policy to be prudent until we

have the clear evidence or a unified and well confirmed model that

eliminates this reasonable doubt. I agree that funding should be fairly

distributed to different groups, although I've never seen real fairness in

funding in any area of science. The burden is and should be on those who

believe in a threshold to show convincingly that it exists and what its

numerical value is, before public policy should be shifted away from

prudence. I found Mossman's "the debate is over" unpalatable, as I do the

arguments of those who say "low levels are clearly harmless". This

scientific discussion is clearly not resolved, and my point (in the context

of this thread) was that we should be honest about that among ourselves and

when dealing with the public and others.



  Mike



  Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

  Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

  Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

  Vanderbilt University

  1161 21st Avenue South

  Nashville, TN 37232-2675

  Phone (615) 343-0068

  Fax   (615) 322-3764

  Pager (615) 835-5153

  e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

  internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com