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

["Hall, David A." <halld@nv.doe.gov>]

This example gets even better!

 

Since 1000 aspirin is dangerous, then if 1000 people take 1 aspirin someone

will "get" the dangerous results (as in collective dose or 'person-rem').

 

or

 

If "I" take 1000 aspirin over say 3 years (one a day) then I too should

expect the same dangerous results (as in chronic low dose versus acute high

dose).

 

In all seriousness, LNT and ALARA and collective dose ARE being mis-applied

in the regulatory arena to the detriment of the taxpayers that foot the bill

for government inefficiency and private industry cost pass-alongs.  The "R"

part of ALARA seems devoid of any common sense.  ALARA is beginning to look

like ALAP (As Low As Possible) or ALAWCD (As Low As We Can Detect) or even

ALAWCGSETPF (As Low As We Can Get Someone Else To Pay For).

 

My thoughts only

David Hall

 



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

From: Tom Mohaupt [mailto:tom.mohaupt@WRIGHT.EDU] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:39 AM

To: William V Lipton

Cc: BLHamrick@AOL.COM; michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

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





Let's look at your example a little more realistically. Your physician says

take an asprin. The consensus of LNT physicians says that taking 1000

asprins is dangerous to your health; therefore, the effect of one asprin

could be dangerous. Your experience is that one asprin has always worked on

the ailment for which you sought the physician. I would take the asprin as

the physician prescribed.

Tom



William V Lipton wrote:





What you seem to be saying is that if one physician says that a pill will

benefit me, while the consensus of physicians says that this pill will kill

me, I should take the pill.  Not me, thank-you. 



The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 

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

Curies forever. 



Bill Lipton 

liptonw@dteenergy.com <mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com>  



BLHamrick@AOL.COM <mailto:BLHamrick@AOL.COM>  wrote: 



 In a message dated 9/23/2003 9:41:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,

michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu <mailto:michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

writes: 



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.



And, I think if the consensus is that we do not know the effects in the low

dose or low-dose rate region, and those effects could include benefits, then

it is not accurate to say that assuming harm is prudent. Barbara





-- 



Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP



Radiation Safety Officer



Wright State University



937-775-2169



tom.mohaupt@wright.edu <mailto:tom.mohaupt@wright.edu>