Re: Re[2]: Averill's Editorial

[bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

> ---We don't necessarily have to replace it with something if science 
>can't give the necessary info. For example, there is no widely used model 
>for air pollution from coal burning, so there is very little public fear 
>of it, especially after partial clean up technologies are emplaced. If it is 
>accepted that LNT grossly exaggerates the risk from 
>low level radiation --- my paper shows that and no one seems willing to 
>challenge it, at least in public or to me in person --- and we stop 
>saying how many poeple will die from various low level exposures, maybe 
>the public fear will decline and we can proceed rationally with burying 
>high level waste and low level waste, operating nuclear plants, transporting 
>radioactive materials, etc.
>
>
Over the past year or so, I've seen quite a bit of traffic on Radsafe
(called the AM talk radio of health physics at the HPS meeting) about the
LNT model, and the statements above by Dr. Cohen are the best I can recall.
The use of the model to estimate/predict effects from low exposures has only
served to create fear of something that we cannot prove exists. And that
only serves to divert precious limited resources away from other, very real,
more easily identifiable threats to human health.

Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(415) 926-3793     bflood@slac.stanford.edu
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.