RE: NRC LNT page and graph

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

Gary --

I don't think I completely missed your point, and you are certainly correct
in your assertion that the point could be much better made and not so
misleading.  Technically, though, (and from the purist standpoint)I think
the graph is correct, but clearly it is also misleading.  Yes, a casual
observer could easliy conclude that for a given dose the entire risk was
radiation induced, when in fact it is the sum of the radiation induced plus
natural incidence risk and risk from other causes.

Perhaps NRC will take note of our discussion and draw a line through the
origin, and label the x axis "Dose" and the y axis something like
"Additional risk" and note in the text that not all cancers are radiation
induced because of the so-called natural incidence, or production by other
carcinogens.  Hopefully, we are now in full accord, so, NRC TAKE NOTE!!!!!

I have greatly enjoyed our dialogue, which I think is an example of how
RADSAFE should work.

Ron

       
>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***
>
>
>------ =_NextPart_000_01BCFFFB.CCCA5EA0--
>
>