Re: Letter to Shirley Jackson

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

I wanted to make an observation about the "Great LNT Debate" and its
implications for public policy.  In some cases it seems to me that the
participants in this debate are not really communicating because they are
using the same words with different meanings.

The question is about whether the LNT model is true.  The problem is that
there are at least three definitions for truth:

1.  correspondence (the statement corresponds to objective reality, e.g.
"The wall is white."  This can be tested.)
2.  coherence (the statement is internally consistent, e.g. "All men have
been created equal."  This and other statements for a self-consistent
structure.)
3.  pragmatic or utilitarian truth (the statement is useful; it fulfills
its intent, e.g. "Drunk driving kills."  In fact, only the probability is
greater.)

All three definitions are useful in appropriate situations, but we need to
know which one is being used.  When someone says LNT is false, they are
usually using definition 1; LNT does not address all the data, so it does
not correspond to reality.  When people defend LNT they may by using
definition 3; LNT is useful for radiation protection because it does not
underestimate the risk.  Perhaps this is the nub of Al's disagreement with
Dr. Jackson et al.

Regards,
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu