[ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Report

[John Jacobus]

Maybe I not looking at this issue as you are.  I
really do not consider the LNT to be the issue in
developing safey regulations.  We argue that all human
activity, e.g., driving cars, farming, mining coal,
nuclear power production, etc., have some risk.  Thus,
exposures to radiation should and does carry some risk
and some benefits.  We intuitively accept risks or
outright ignore many in our lives.  Do you calculate
the risk of driving to work every day you get into
your car. Has anyone considered the relationship
between driving and death.  Does it follow an LNT
curve?  

We should rather focus on the epidemiological studies.
 Do they show risks below 0.1 Sv?  Do the benefits at
those levels outweight the risks?

I see the LNT as being a mathematical model that gets
really fuzzy at low doses.  At those levels, cellular
effects, e.g., hormesis, genomic instability, etc.,
can be demonstarted.  However, do not see
epidemolgical data to support the LNT?

As a point of interest, does anyone know what was the
result of the BEIR V report?  What changed after its
publication?

--- "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org> wrote:

> Epidemiological studies cannot determine the true
> shape of the
> dose-response curve for cancer induction at low
> radiation doses (e.g.
> low-LET radiation doses < 100 mGy).  This raises the
> question as to
> whether a committee comprised largely of
> epidemiologist is the best
> choice of experts for such a determination.  Basic
> research (including
> mechanistic modeling) at low doses is required to
> determine the shape
> (or shapes) of the dose-response curve for cancer
> induction.  Such
> research is currently underway around the world. For
> example, in the US,
> the Department of Energy Low Dose Radiation Research
> Program involves
> such research which is being carried out by many
> outstanding basic
> researchers.  The indicated basic research appears
> to have been given
> considerable weight in the recent report by the
> French Academy of
> Sciences entitled "Dose-effect relationships and
> estimation of the
> carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing
> radiation" which found the
> LNT model invalid.  It will be interesting to see
> how much of the
> published basic research associated with low-dose
> irradiation was
> considered in the BEIR VII report which concluded
> that the LNT model was
> valid even for doses < 100 mSv.  Interestingly, it
> appears that only one
> member of the BEIR VII committee is currently
> conducting basic research
> that relates clarifying the shape of the
> dose-response curve at low
> doses for cancer induction by irradiation.
> 
>  
> 
> Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
> . . .

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