[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: If you do Science, use the Scientific Method!
I'm sure that there will always be enough background radiation to
provide me with my "essential trace energy," whether I want it or not.
I welcome your ideas. IMHO, you have presented a hypothesis which is
worthy of further investigation. Nevertheless, you are obviously an
advocate for this hypothesis. Until more information is available,
standards should be set by consensus, not by advocates; or, as a
minimum, by a balance of advocates.
Until your hypothesis is accepted as a consensus, I'll avoid extra
radiation exposure. You are welcome to obtain as much additional
"essential trace energy" as you want, as long as it's not on my license.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Howard Long wrote:
> Bill,LNT CANNOT be "The best we have", if (as now is abundantly
> clear)ionizing radiation at higher energies (wave lengths) is an
> essential trace energy (like a vitamin or sunshine). Overenthusiastic
> cleaning of a substance or energy that is damaging in high amounts but
> essential in small amounts can also be damaging. You are then
> DEPRIVING. Clear? Dose IS the problem, denied by your standard
> end-note.We TRUST you to preserve the needed dose, as well as to
> remove overdose.You are NOT conservative, or prudent, unless you
> change to this greater security. Howard Long
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William V Lipton
> To: Fritz A. Seiler
> Cc: Hall, David A. ; 'Kai Kaletsch' ;
> peter.thomas@health.gov.au ; RadSafe
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:34 AM
> Subject: 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.
> >