Linear-no threshold question

[HWADE@aol.com]

Greetings to the Radsafe community.
If you wish to respond, please reply to me directly.<hwade@aol.com>
H.Wade Patterson

In the literature one often finds that  UNSCEAR, BEIR, and other reports have
been cited as supporting the linear-no threshold theory (LNT).  Such
reasoning is flawed because UNSCEAR and BEIR have fitted biological data to
or with the LNT, and to fit data to a theory and then state that the data
support the theory is incorrect.

One such example is:
Direct estimates of cancer mortality due to low doses of ionising radiation:
an international study. IARC Study Group on Cancer Risk among Nuclear
Industry Workers, Lancet, 1994 Oct 15, 344(8929):1039-43.

Another example is:
Risk Estimates for Radiation Protection, NCRP Report 115, National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1993

It has now been over a year since Cohen showed the linear-no threshold theory
(LNT) to be invalid.  He showed that lung cancer incidence is inversely
related to radon exposure.  His landmark paper appeared in Health Physics,
68, 2, pp 157-174; 1995.

Cohen's observations and analysis have  now been substantiated by Lubin, Jay
H., et al., Radon-Exposed Underground Miners and Inverse Dose-Rate
(Protraction Enhancement) Effects, Health Physics, v69, 4, pp 494-500,1995.

Bond, V.P., et al. in Health Physics, v68, no.6, pp 786-792 show that there
is no theoretical basis to support the LNT.

Health Physics is a peer reviewed journal so it must be concluded that none
of these papers had errors in fact or in logic, and, there have been no
subsequent papers by any author refuting them.