Rants

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

Good Wednesday radsafers:

Speaking as one who supports the use of the linear no-threshold
approach to risk estimates and as one who doesn't believe in
hormesis, I am most willing to listen to opposing views. In fact I
enjoy evaluating evidence that challenges these views. 

I am concerned that what might be described as, forgive me for this,
the many unsolicited long rambling opinions on the evils of the
linear no threshold approach and the truth of radiation hormesis are
taking us nowhere.

Might it be possible to narrow the focus and length of these
discussions by considering individual studies or specific pieces of
evidence? This would permit a more informative "scientific" exchange
of information. For example, shoot down the IARC study of 96,000
radiation workers (in Canada, the US and Great Britain) that
indicated excess risks of leukemia. It was in Vol 344 of the Lancet,
Oct 15, 1994 and was referred to by Nuclear News as the "Best
estimates of low-level radiation risks". Radsafers could then learn
the details of an important new (and easy to obtain) paper. Then we
could turn our attention to Cohen's latest report.

Avoiding generalizations and ad hominem attacks would go a long way
to elevate the quality of coversation on radsafe.

Best wishes

Paul Frame