RE: RADSAFE digest 1623

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Acting on your suggestion, I checked the web site.  As you indicated, the
plot shows a positive risk at zero dose. This is not at all incorrect but is
actually the proper presentation.  For example, if a specific effect (eg
thyroid cancer) is selected as end point, there will be a natural incidence
in a theoretical unirradiated population.  This then is what the graph
depicts.  To do otherwise would be misleading, for it would imply that the
entire risk was radiation induced.

Ron Kathren

 (eg At 09:08 AM 12/3/97 -0600, DamschenGA wrote:
>This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.  Contact your
>mail administrator for information about upgrading your reader to a version
>that supports MIME.
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BCFFD3.38DE8220
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I was just looking at the NRC web site and came across a section on LNT.
>Without re-opening the debate on the validity of LNT, I was dismayed to
>discover that the graph accompanying the LNT information shows positive risk
>at zero dose (!). This would seem to indicate that even zero dose is a
>hazard. 
>
>If faulty information like this is published under the imprimatur of the
>NRC, how can we hope to make a believable presentation of the known hazards
>of radiation exposure? We MUST have better quality control of the
>information disseminated by recognized authorities. We tend to make the
>anti-nuke position too easy by consistently shooting ourselves in the foot
>with things like this.
>
>The page location is:
>
>http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/REACTOR/06-BIO/part08.html
>
>select the "linear no-threshold model" link to check out the graph.
>
>Gary Damschen
>damschenga@mkf.ornl.gov
>
>usual disclaimers apply...
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BCFFD3.38DE8220--
>
>