[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]- Caveman NORM dos
On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, David Walland wrote:
> Can I agree heartily with this viewpoint. It takes me a long time to wade
> through my E-mail every morning. If it continues to be full of .........,
> I will have to (as a responsible employee) unsubscribe from radsafe. It
> takes time to tease out the few grains of wheat from the vast amounts of
> chaff.
> Can I also make a plea for everyone to actually read what the other person
> writes. I sent a reply pointing out that someone was making a false
> point by mixing stochastic and non-stochastic effects. I got a reply
> suggesting that if _I_ didn't know the difference I shouldn't say so on
> radsafe!!!!! I do - the guy with his 100 tablets didn't! This sort of
> thing is rather galling! Things like this happen repeatedly, not just to
> me. Some things on radsafe are very useful and I would be loath to
> unsubscribe and lose this source of information. How about tightening
> things up a bit?
>
> David Walland
> University of Bristol (UK)
David, you compliment one person, and criticise another. The strange
thing is, there aren't two individuals involved.... just me.
(And I do know the difference between stochastic and non-stochastic!)
The point of the 100 tablets was that, at low enough levels, there is
insufficient data to prove that an effect (e.g.the chance of getting cancer,
from radiation exposure) does still obey a law of linear relationship.
In fact, there are many studies which show an entirely different
relationship. I then (conservatively, not invoking hormesis) implied
that there might be a threshold for both stochastic _and_ non-stochastic.
(And there was a _third_ person who said that you didn't know the
difference.)
Chris Davey, RSO, Cross Cancer Institute
> On Tue, 24 Oct 95 12:21:11 -0500 Chris Davey wrote:
>
> > From: Chris Davey <cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 12:21:11 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Re[2]- Caveman NORM dos
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> >
> > Creation... .... Evolution
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1 Let's not be insulting, it degrades the professionalism
> >
> > 2 Millions or billions of years, or just 6,000 - let's use the
> > theory of long, long timescales for discussion, and see where it leads.
> > Any other approach upsets so many preconceived notions that
> > interpretation of radiation levels and hazards would be impossible, IMO.
> >
> > Chris Davey, RSO Cross Cancer Institute