Re: RADSAFE digest 1623

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

Wes ---

As I recall, the NRC plot did not have dimensions, magnitudes, or any
numbers attached to it, nor even a specified end point, and was merely
illustrative, not meant to be precise or definitive.  To interpret otherwise
seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. 

Ron 



 At 03:11 PM 12/3/97 -0600, Wes Van Pelt wrote:
>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
>
>