Re: LNT and whose junk science? -Reply

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

John Bliss wrote, in part:
> 
> 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
> 

John:
Thanks for correcting me. Thanks also for confirming the errors in the
dose estimates. That was what I wanted to convey. I suppose the exact
distance assigned to a survivor depends to some extent on personal
recollection. Are any errors assigned to this?
-- 
Best wishes,

Wade

<hwade@talltown.com>

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

I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  There is
something unfair about it.  It is hitting below the intellect.
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, iii, 1891