RE: Comments on LNT as a "prudent upper limit"

[Free Spirit <FRANK@rover.bsd.uchicago.edu>]

>From:	SMTP%"radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu"  5-FEB-1996 13:42:47.91
>To:	FRANK

>I disagree with Frank's interpretation. ...       However, there was
>one very good "epidemiological study" which showed clearly that  the
>carcinogenic effects of alpha particles in the skeleton had a huge
>threshold of 10 Gy (200 Sv). . (Robley Evans Radium in Man, HPJ November
>1974 pp 497-510). In science when there is overwhelming experimental
>evidence contradicting an assumption, one must abandon the assumption. The
>ICRP did not do so. 

	John, I stand corrected. 

        The LNT was undoubtedly adopted by the ICRP with good intentions
but the net effect of its great exaggeration of risk at trivial doses has
cost the world a fortune.  John Cameron.

	The money is almost trivial compared to what the government
	pixxxx away in other ways. What aggravates me to the wall is that
	I have to run around changing signs from "Warning, High Radiation
	Area" to "Grave Danger, Very High Radiation Area" when I could be
	spending that time doing something useful to improve patient treat-
	ment and hopefully save a few lives.

Frank R. Borger - Physicist     ___      What's the best way to tune a Banjo?
Michael Reese - U of Chicago   |___      With an Axe! -  What's the difference
Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   between a dead skunk and a dead banjo
net: Frank@rover.uchicago.edu    | \|_)  player on the road? The skunk was on
ph: 312-791-8075 fa: 791-2517       |_)  his way to a gig!