Re: Letter to Shirley Jackson

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, David Scherer wrote:

> 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.

	--As scientists, we are only involved with definition No. 1; we
contend that LNT has been proven to be wrong, grossly over-estimating the
risk of low level radiation. It has also been proven that the 
basis for LNT, which is entirely theoretical, is wrong. Discarding a
theory which has been tested and has failed in that test is at the heart
of "The Scientific Method". Not discarding it is a violation of The
Scientific Method. 

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu