Re: Low dose radiation, or ...

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

ABSOLUTELY! This is the best comment I've seen in this thread in days!
Al.

*** Reply to note of 12/05/95 14:53

From: Donald A. McClure 7-
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: Low dose radiation,  or ...
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
>
>