Re: Low dose radiation, or ...

[damcclure@Lanl.GOV (Donald A. McClure 7-3243 DX)]

Seems to me that we could at least STOP saying that we know even a little
bit will kill you!

>
>A little bit of what you fancy does you good.
>
>I am surprised to be continually informed via radsafe that 
>small amounts of radiation are *probably* good for you.   
>I know radiation hormesis is a very attractive theory for 
>health physicists because it means that if we make a mistake 
>nobody is harmed.   I was there once.   I even got a copy of 
>the "Health Physics" issue devoted to radiation hormesis in 
>humans.   I would suggest that those who are saying small 
>amounts of radiation are *probably* good should read those 
>papers.   In my opinion the most that can be said is that 
>small doses may *possibly* be good for you.   And very few 
>people are going to run even a theoretical risk of cancer 
>on the strength of evidence like that.
>
>Radiation hormesis is proven for simple systems like plants,  
>but when international agencies like the ICRP say that the 
>probability is that small doses do increase cancer & genetic 
>risks in humans,  then you need strong evidence to the contrary 
>to ignore that advice.
>
>BTW,  with the inclusion of a dose & dose rate effectiveness 
>factor (DDREF) of two in the ICRP risk factors (ICRP 60, 1990),  
>it seems to me that they are no longer applying the LNT model 
>as such.   This indicates that they are no longer either:
>
>1.  persisting with a discredited risk model;  or
>2.  taking a conservative position in the presence of conflicting data.
>
>HP's will have to decide for themselves which of the above 
>options applies.
>
>
>
>Alex Mitchell
>hospam@wnmeds.ac.nz
>
>