Re: Stochastic threshold, editorial by J.A.Dennis in Rad Prot

[mgoldman@ucdavis.edu (Dr. Marvin Goldman)]

>Rad Safers,  I don't know how many of you subscribe to and read
>the journal called Radiation Protection Dosimetry, but there was
>a particularly interesting editorial in the latest issue (Is
>There a Threshold? by J.A. Dennis) and it contained a poignant
>quotation from an editorial by P. H. Abelson published in
>Science, 265, 1507 (1994) --
>
>"The current mode of extrapolating high dose to low dose effects
>is erroneous for both chemicals and radiation. Safe levels of
>exposure exist. The public has been needlessly frightened and
>deceived, and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. A
>hard-headed rapid examination of the phenomena occurring at low
>exposures should have a high priority."
>
>        The editorial by Dennis then states, "This editorial was
>followed some weeks later by the publication of a series of
>supporting letters in the same journal.  However, it was notable
>that most of these referred to chemicals and curiously, given the
>strength of feeling and the existing evidence, hardly any of the
>letters contested the view in relation to radiation.
>
>   I recommend this editorial to those of you who are really into
>the LNT thread on RadSafe.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Bill Schadt a.k.a. Mr. QUEST
>Radiation Technology, Inc.
>P.O. Box 10457
>Silver Spring, MD 20914-0457
>              (301) 622-9644 (voice)
>              (301) 622-1582 (fax)
>              info@chammp.com (email)
>
>
Reply:
See  Perspective in this week's Science, 3/29/96 issue.
Marvin Goldman