[Fwd: Re: LNT Debate]

["H.Wade Patterson" <hwade@talltown.com>]

R.Ryder@dl.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Dear radsafers,
>
> I have listened with interest to the LNT debate. Although the statistics are
> poor, most people would agree that the case is just about proven and that
> the benefits, if adopted, would be enormous.
>
> However, it is not likely to be adopted ever on a widespread scale  The
> over-riding reason was given by Roger Clarke of the NRPB in the UK in a
> plenary address at the IRPA9 conference in Vienna in April this year.
>
> He summed up many of the arguments put forward in the past months by
> Radsafers. At the end of his talk in answer to a question he said 'if dose
> limits and policies are to err on the safe side, then the LNT must be used.
> I have had to paraphrase my recollection of what he said because the=20
> procedings were published in advance of the meeting and therefore questions=
> and answers were not included.
>
> Roger is a member of several ICRP/ICRU committees and if their memebership
> have like views, then LNT is here to stay.
>
> Roy Ryder
>
> Daresbury Laboratory

Please see Myron Pollycove's rebuttal of Roger Clarke's views in the
October issue of Health Physics. He cites references which Clarke does
not. Clarke's statements are only assertions. Clarke also asserted that
managing radiation protection doses, using a threshold would be
"unwieldy". Evidently he's forgotten that exactly how it was successfuly
done for over 50 years.
Best wishes,
Wade
--
H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974

-- 
H.Wade Patterson
1116 Linda Lane
Lakeview OR 97630
ph 541 947-4974