Re: RADSAFE digest 1623

[Wes Van Pelt <VanPeltW@idt.net>]

Ron L. Kathren wrote:
> 
> 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

Whooooh Ron!

That NRC graph shows radiation induced risk to be about 5 to 10 times
the "zero dose" risk. Any real dose, below an acutely fatal dose, would
produce only a VERY slight increase over the "zero dose" risk.  In other
works, that phony NRC graph should be MUCH flatter.

Best regards,
Wes
-- 
Wesley R. Van Pelt, Ph.D., CIH, CHP                KF2LG
President, Van Pelt Associates, Inc.     
Consulting in radiological health and safety.
mailto:VanPeltW@IDT.net        
http://shell.idt.net/~vanpeltw/index.html