RE: Re[2]: textbook correct?

[ALEX MITCHELL <HOSPAM@wnmeds.ac.nz>]

Date sent:  14-FEB-1997 15:00:16 

Alex Zapantis wrote:

>Given the mountain of work that has been done and the continent of work that
>would be required to demonstrate the existence (or otherwise) of the effect at
>low doses, the effect must not be significant, all things considered, or we
>would have seen it by now.
>
>Compare with the power line debate. If there was a significant risk associated
>with living near power lines, the studies done would not diverge so markedly in
>their conclusions!
>
>Regards from down under

Well,  it's a signal to noise problem,  isn't it.   We are trying to
detect 1E-4 lifetime cancer risks due to radiation (the signal) in a 
noise of a 1 in 4 natural incidence of fatal cancer.

So in this particular case,  no,  I don't agree that because we
can't detect the risk that it doesn't exist.   

You could say that a 1E-4 risk is insignificant in comparision with
a natural risk of 1 in 4,  but would you really take a 1E-4 risk
if there wasn't a good reason to?

It seems to me that by arguing that low doses of radiation are
safe all we will achieve is to lose credibility with the general
public.   I think it would be much more profitable to show that
the risks of many practices,  even computed with the LNT risk
factors,  are less than the non-nuclear alternatives.   Nobody
can rationally argue against that one.

Regards,

Another Alex from downunder (or "up over",  depending on your
                             frame of reference).

--------
Dr Alex Mitchell, Medical Physicist, Radiology Dept, Wellington Hospital,
                  Private Bag 7902, Wellington South 6002, New Zealand.

hospam@wnmeds.ac.nz           phone + 64 4 385 5849   fax + 64 4 385 5829