Re: LNT and whose junk science? -Reply

[John Bliss <JBLISS@USUHS.MIL>]

Wade,
While there are uncertainties in the dose estimates assigned to Jananese
survivors by RERF (and they are generally in the range of 25% to 50%
as you indicate), they are not due to assigning doses on the basis of
"radial increments".  DS86 calculates doses to 15 specific organs in
shielded survivors at specific distances from the hypocenter.   Efforts
continue to reduce the uncertainty in the neutron component.  

LTC John L. Bliss, CHP
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Bethesda, MD
(301) 295-3390
(301) 295-3973 (fax)
jbliss@usuhs.mil

>>> "H.Wade Patterson" <hwade@talltown.com> 01/28/97 11:57am >>>
Darryl Kaurin wrote, in part:

> As for the work of Cohen, I was extremely impressed with his
analysis.
> Since the results are extremely surprising, one must question if an
> ecological study is appropriate, since the radon doses assigned are
average
> values for the entire county.

Dr. Kaurin and others:
I'd like an explanation of why the Japanese survivor data is not an
"ecological" study. No Japanese wore a dosimeter. Doses are assigned
solely on the basis of "entire" radial increments. How are radial
increments different than counties? By the way, the errors in doses so
assigned are 30%-50% due to potential inverse quare law differences. 


-- 
Best wishes,

Wade

<hwade@talltown.com>

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