Re: Science and LNT

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Howard,

What is the point of your queston.  The use of

radiation is based on risk v. benefit.  That has and

remained the underlying principle.  As a physician, it

you withold a treatment, whether it is medication, a

surgical procedure or the request for an x-ray

examination, the physician has no one to answer to.  I

realize that there are medical licensing boards and

review committees at hospitals and at the state

levels.  But let us be honest.  How effective are

they?  When were your treatment plans reviewed?  Did

you ever have to justify a course of treatment to an

outside inspection team?  If you want to prescribe

twice the recommended dose of a narcotic to a patient,

who will stop you?



HPs and those in the radiation safety programs have

much more oversight.  What "errors of omission" do you

know of?



--- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> John,

> Please answer the crucial question.

> Why are radiation regulators allowed to neglect

> benefit, (2 way test) in

> risk analysis?

> 

> Errors of omission are just as serious as errors of

> commisssion!

> It is time for HPs to lead changes in those

> "codified - exposure controls"!

> 

> Howard Long

> 

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

> To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>;

> <niton@mchsi.com>;

> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 7:29 AM

> Subject: Re: Science and LNT

> 

> 

> > Howard,

> > Unfortunately, regulations are not medicine. 

> Issues

> > like exposure controls, EPA decommission, etc. are

> > codified.

> >

> > In medicine you have a wide latitude to make

> decisions

> > on whether or not to operate.  You should be

> grateful

> > you do have to deal with interpretation of

> regulations

> > and periodic inspections.  (When was the last time

> > inspections reviewed your records on how you

> treated

> > your patients?)

> >

> > --- Howard Long <hflong@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > > LNT is NOT "the best we can do today- unless

> that

> > > possibility [it disproven]

> > > were a virtual certainty".

> > >

> > > Do you have "virtual certainty" of safety when

> you

> > > drive your car?

> > >

> > > What is the harm from NOT driving your car, or

> of

> > > NOT having the now likely

> > > benefit of 10 X the usual background radiation

> (less

> > > cancer and better

> > > longevity)?

> > >

> > > Is it prudent to not operate on appendicitis

> because

> > > of the risk of surgery?

> > > Sometimes.

> > > Competent risk analysis requires the 2-tail

> test,

> > > weighing BENEFIT against

> > > harm and considering individual variation.

> > >

> > > . . .

> >





=====

"Self-criticism is the secret weapon of democracy, and candor and confession are good for the public soul."

Adlai Stevenson



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

http://shopping.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/