[ RadSafe ] Hormesis - Necessary for Public Protection

[howard long]

"Hormesis as likely as LNT"? We must be more explicit about INCREASED cancer and panic deaths from excess  "clean up" after an attack, as currently planned by DHS.
 
I have just reviewed the DHS Planning Scenarios for nuclear attack kindly sent me by Gerry Blackwood. As much loss of life and cost appears likely from panic response as from the attack. Fear of actually beneficial doses of radiation is expected to cause, far beyond the area of radiation overdose, traffic disaster, lawlessness, avoidance of safe water, shelter and emergency supplies long after real danger from radiation. Chernobyl is still a wasteland because of fear, not actual danger for most of the area. 
 
LNT dinosaurs like John Jacobus stall realistic public protection.
 
Howard Long

If it fails at low doses as you say below, then it is a bankrupt concept. 
If you concede that, then what are we arguing about? All I put forward is 
the modest proposition that at very low doses, hormesis is about as likely 
as LNT to be true. You call it cherry picking when Long does it, but it is 
even worse cherry picking when EPA does it to support LNT based public 
policy that costs us all a huge fortune.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" 
To: "Syd H. Levine" ; "howard long" 
; "Gerald Nicholls" ; 
; 
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's Work. Medical Ethics?


> Maybe I am not being clear. The LNT is a model, which
> can be changed. I feel that it does fail at low doses
> and dose rates.
>
> However, the proponents of hormesis what to have it
> their way. Hormesis is good. However, not all of the
> data supports that conjecture. If they jump and down,
> and yell about bias and "hidden" agendas by the
> radiation safety community, they expect to win. This
> is what I oppose.
>
> You say you do not believe in hormesis or the LNT, if
> would encourage you to keep and open mind and read
> both sides for the arguements. It took me a while to
> get where I am, and I am still learning.
>
> By the way, the fact the Earth is round was known
> since the times of the ancient Greeks. Why would
> anyone support such a silly notion.
>
> --- "Syd H. Levine" wrote:
>
>> The flat worlders need you to defend their position.
>> Maybe hormesis is a
>> load of crap with respect to ionizing radiation, but
>> to defend LNT at this
>> late date seems peculiar indeed.
>>
>> Syd H. Levine
>> AnaLog Services, Inc.
>> Phone: 270-276-5671
>> Telefax: 270-276-5588
>> E-mail: analog at logwell.com
>> URL: www.logwell.com
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Jacobus" 
>> To: "Syd H. Levine" ;
>> "howard long"
>> ; "Gerald Nicholls"
>> ;
>> ; 
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 11:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Do better than John Snow's
>> Work. Medical Ethics?
>>
>>
>> >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.