RE: NRC LNT page and graph

[DamschenGA <damschenga@mkf.ornl.gov>]

Ron,

I think you miss my point. The page that the graph is linked to closes with
the phrase "there is no dose of radiation so small that it will not have
some effect." A link to the graph, which contains no text other than axis
labels "Risk" and "Dose" would seem, to the uninitiated, to certainly
support this statement since even zero dose appears to have some effect
(increased "risk" to whatever consequence you choose to imagine). If the
graph is intended to be a representation of radiation exposure's
contribution to the probability of incurring some effect, then, by
definition, non-radiation induced effects MUST be excluded from the
representation since the effect's expression in an unirradiated population
cannot possibly have been caused by radiation exposure.

Including "natural incidence in a theoretical unirradiated population" in
this graph only confuses the issue and makes about as much sense as
including the general population's probability of breaking a leg as the
y-intercept of a graph purporting to show probability of breaking a leg vs.
hours spent snow skiing. Certainly, there is some calculable probability of
breaking a leg without skiing, but it should not appear that this is due to
there being "no time spent skiing so small that it does not have some
effect."


>>To do otherwise would be misleading, for it would imply that the
>      >entire risk was radiation induced.

The whole point here is that the page and graph are presented in such a way
that they appear to discuss only the risk from radiation exposure. If that
is the claimed subject, then including non-radiation risk in the graph is
misleading PRECISELY because it implies that the total risk is radiation
induced.

-Gary

***usual disclaimers***
>