[ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

    Just as you can't prove a negative, you can't convince anyone who
doesn't want to be convinced. In the case of the NAS panel, their
conclusions are supposed to be  based on their review of all available
scientific evidence, and not just those studies they choose to review (i.e.
those that support a preconceived conclusion). Certainly they had to be
aware of the multitude of literature on hormesis and studies indicating the
existence of a dose threshold. Whatever their reason for rejecting that body
of evidence, I think we deserve to know what it is.
    As one example of what was ignored, there are at least five studies
correlating background radiation levels with cancer incidence. These
studies, in the USA, China, India, etc., all indicate a negative
correlation. At the 1980 IRPA conference, a paper was presented which took
the BEIR estimated cancer/man-Sv. rate at the time (essentially the same as
the current estimate and indicating that ~10% of all cancers are due to
exposure to bkgd. radiation), and statistically tested the probability of
getting the observed negative distribution, given that the BEIR estimate was
indeed correct. The probability for such an occurrence was <0.01 indicating
that hormesis might be a possibility, and LNT is extremely unlikely. This
was enough to convince at least me that LNT is nonsense, but then I am not
being paid to promote the status quo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"


> Could it be that the hormesis studies are, indeed,
> unconvincing.  Either you accept epidemiology as a
> science, or not.  Either you accept the judgement of
> the report or you don't.
>
> The real issue is what are the policies.  Will the
> findings of this report result in more restrictive
> legislation?  Will the findings result in no future
> nuclear power plant constructions?  I think not, but I
> may be wrong.
>
> --- jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:
>
> > Jim, Gary, Eric & anyone else who cares,
> >     I disagree. Epidemiology, properly done, can be
> > a science that produces
> > useful insights. It is a science that doesn't
> > provide certainty, but deals
> > in statistics and probability which can be very
> > useful in evaluating disease
> > incidence.
> >     I am willing to concede that the NAS panel
> > members may be  good
> > scientists and well-intended people, but what
> > bothers me is how they can
> > ignore or summarily dismiss as "unconvincing" all
> > the studies supporting
> > hormesis, and/or existence of a dose threshold
> > without offering any cogent
> > rationale for doing so. Just a cursory review of the
> > RSH summary document
> > shows that they are ignoring an awful lot of
> > information. Certainly, they
> > are not obligated to accept it, but it would be nice
> > to at least get some
> > reasonable explanation on why they reject that
> > information
> > Jerry.
> >
> > . . .
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never
shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/