[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NRC LNT page and graph



Ron L. Kathren wrote:

My main concern with this whole thread is the statement, in an NRC
publication, "...there is not dose of radiation so small that it will
not have some (deleterious) effect (parenthetical word added).  For the
NRC to make such a factual statement when there are no data to back it
up is, to me, absolutely wrong!  That is the nub of the matter.  Is that
not so Ron?

Al Tschaeche 
 
> 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--
> >
> >