[ RadSafe ] NAS "impartiality"

[John Jacobus]

I think they indicated why they rejected the hormesis
studies.  If you do not accept their reasoning, maybe
you have a preconceived conclusion and cannot accept
their conclusions.  

--- jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:

>     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.
> >. . .

+++++++++++++++++++
"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


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com