Re: Letter to Shirley Jackson

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Sherer 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.

Actually, Def 1 is "true", Def 2 and 3 are "untrue" except as they conform to
Def 1. 

The term "definitions are useful" is interesting. Untruths are often "useful".

Saying "the wall is black" according to Def 2 or 3 is still untrue. It
originates from: 1. explicit untruth, or 2. ignorance, closing one's eyes and
parroting others. Def 3 can be applied, and "true", when stating "the wall is
white, but we will call it black for 'policy', or 'practical', or for
self-serving reasons". 

It doesn't seem that Al "disagrees" with "Jackson et al". He states simply
that they are not presenting the truth. Moreover, intent is confirmed by their 
explicit actions to suppress and ignore the data. (Of course Jackson
personally most likely operates from "ignorance" rather than "explicit
untruth".) 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide