Re: linear hypothesis

["Wesley M. Dunn" <WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>]

Alex makes several good points in his note.  I would like to add
another comment or two:

1) This is =radsafe=, not a discussion among members of the public.
The open discussion discussions that belong here are not necessarily
the same ones we would give members of the public (where the HP is
"The Expert", as opposed to one of several able to give an informed
opinion).  HPs have historically placed a hoard of caveats on any
statements made to non-HPs. (This also responds to Rich's earlier
"ethics" note)

2) The linear-no-threshold model is a MODEL and a HYPOTHESIS.  It
may be true.  It may not be true.  It certainly has not been proven.
One might question whether it is even a consensus opinion AT LOW
DOSES.  (Sorry for the bold, but mailers don't do fonts very well)

Wes

> Date:          Mon, 16 Oct 95 00:13:04 -0500
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          a.zapantis@qut.edu.au (Alex Zapantis)
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       linear hypothesis

> As professional HPs, I believe that it is our responsibility to provide
> advice based on the current accepted state of knowledge. Those of us who
> quote individual studies which include the words "radiation hormesis" in
> their conclusions as a basis for discrediting the linear model remind me of
> the lobbyists who use certain studies into ELF health effects (and ignore
> the majority) to attempt to stop the erection of transmission lines in their
> suburbs.

*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, C.H.P., Administrator      512-834-6688
Licensing Branch                           512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control        wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************