[ RadSafe ] Re: LNT now NOT "reasonable"

[John Jacobus]

You will have to be more specific.  I am not going to
chase are data when I do not know what the source is. 
Either reference an article, or Web site, or have
someone do it for you.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright

-- 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