[ RadSafe ] Re: LNT now NOT "reasonable"

[howard long]

Look at data, not conclusions (dicordant, as with Kyota data and conclusions)
 
Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
I always offer to provide others information to make
up their own minds. I would suggest that if you do go
the the Radiation Safety and Health Web site you read
the information critically. I would also suggest that
people, including Howard, read the NCRP Report 136 to
understand the underpinnings of the LNT. 
http://www.ncrponline.org/rpt136.html I do not know
how one can make an intelligent decision without
understanding all of the facts. 

Despite what Howard says the LNT is reasonable, not
perfect. It is a hypothesis. Research being
undertaken by DOE may further expand our understanding
of such phenomenons as the bystander effect. 
http://lowdose.tricity.wsu.edu/ 
Such work may even provide evidence that hormesis is
not what its proponents suggest. As the McGregor and
Land report of 1977 shows, low does of radiation do
increase cancer. I believe that this report was
published before there was any LNT/hormesis
controversy. Therefore, its result are not biased to
support the LNT, even if Howard says it is. 

By the way, I must thank Howard Long for leading to
the paper. Again, if anyone wants a copy, let me know.

--- howard long wrote:

> John has kindly corrected my address for rad-sci, at
> which there IS ample data that LNT and ALARA are now
> NOT "reasonable": 
> http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/index.html
> 
> 
> Howard Long
> 
> John Jacobus wrote:
> I will conceed that the LNT is a hypothesis that
> attempts to fit known data to some mathematic model.
> 
> Does it work in all cases? Within the limits of the
> data, it is probably reasonable. 
> 
> As for the number of cases that support hormesis,
> what
> do you mean? Actual data like the McGregor and Land
> study of 1977 that shows no hormetic effect? 
> Ancedotal stories or cherry picking of data? Bits
> and
> pieces of data from other work, like taking one line
> of from the McGregor and Land paper of 1979, does
> not
> really constitute a study. Consider my arguement
> that
> the McGregor and Land article of 1979 showed a
> difference between observed cancers and expected
> based
> on the LNT. Again, the LNT provides an a
> mathematical
> estimate based on large populations. After all
> cancer
> is a stochastic event, of estimates of cancer based
> on
> any model will be estimates. One of the things I
> like
> to see are error bars of levels of confidence in the
> data. They often speak volumes about the work.
> 
> The statement that the estimated risk as an absolute
> shows a lack of understanding of basic science and
> epidemiology. Howard Long claims to have studied
> epidemiology, but does bring any of that knowledge
> to
> the argument. Rather, there is this blind faith in
> what others say. I certainly do not have any divine
> insight, but I am willing to look at the data and
> the
> agruments for and against. I would expect that
> others
> would try to make a similar effort, but I am
> probably
> deluding myself. However, I am willing to give
> others
> what I have so they can ponder the information. I do
> not dislike Dr. Long, just his inability to
> understand
> what he cites. Maybe he is the one who has blind
> faith.
> 
> I am please to hear that you are puzzled. Maybe it
> will lead to looking at the data and asking
> questions.
> Again, if you would like copies of any of the papers
> I mention, let me know.
> 
> --- "Syd H. Levine" wrote:
> 
> > John:
> > 
> > Would you concede that there is sufficient
> evidence
> > to question the validity 
> > of LNT given the number of studies that seem to
> > support hormesis (even if 
> > the science is not sterling)? Or do you simply
> > believe LNT is clearly 
> > correct based on some insight I seem to lack? I am
> > puzzled by your take on 
> > this matter and what seems to be a certain
> > stubbornness (and dislike for Dr. 
> > Long).
> > 
> > Syd H. Levine
> > AnaLog Services, Inc.
> > Phone: 270-276-5671
> > Telefax: 270-276-5588
> > E-mail: analog at logwell.com
> > URL: www.logwell.com