Cancers defined as "radiogenic diseases" -Reply

[Keith Brown <KDB1@nrc.gov>]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While the fact that prostate cancer has not been shown to be a result of
radiation exposure is certainly germane to this action, let's not overlook the
point of broader significance that, because radiation has been associated
with the occurrence of some cancers, they should be labeled as radiation
phenomena. This is somewhat akin to calling any puncture in which a
foreign object enters the body through impact and penetration (be it a slug,
knife, scalpel, hypodermic needle, etc.) a "gunshot wound" and awarding a
purple heart and other benefits, despite that the vast majority of such
occurrences are not associated with projectiles (much less firearms), and
many, if not most, are associated with the receipt of some benefit (medical
procedures). This Orwellian mis-speak must be eliminated or we will all
suffer from the result of skewing of risk-based decisions and policies due
to political or other selfish motivations, not to mention the redistribution of
our tax dollars.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The original posting does not state that the VA wants to consider all
prostrate cancers as radiation induced.  Rather it states that the list
identifies diseases that MAY be radiogenic in origin.  I would still disagree
with the VA's assessment that any malignancy may be radiation induced,
but I think it is important to deal with what was actually said.

Standard disclaimers apply.

Keith Brown
kdb1@nrc.gov