Re: Letter to Shirley Jackson

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Dave Scherer said,

> Dr. Cohen said:
> 
> >       --As scientists, we are only involved with definition No. 1 [i.e., a
> > correspondence definition of truth]; 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. 
> 
> 1.  Scientists use a functional definition of truth (no. 3 in my previous
> post) all the time.  We use classical electrodynamics even though we know
> quantum electrodynamics is more accurate.  We use the ideal gas law even
> though it fails in precise measurements.  In "The Scientific Method" ALL
> theories and models are approximations, accepted tentatively to make
> predictions and/or decisions.  These approximate models are accepted in the
> domain for which they are developed.

Not relevant. NCRP 121 says LNT should be used in the domain to which it
applies. Above 20-50 rem depending on studies and philosophy, and 100s in
studies of, eg, radiologists and radium burden populations. But the issue is
using it at mrem levels. 

> 2.  As I understand it, LNT is used as for safety purposes, to limit
> exposures below hazardous levels.  Do most radiobiologists actually believe
> that _all_ late, stochastic effects are precisely linear?

It may be used as you understand it. But its also used as Al and others
pointed out from the NRC and NCRP and EPA and DOE, etc., (even some HPs) as
defining radiation dose-response. Radiobiologists don't see linear models
anywhere, much less all late stochastic effects. (And current biology finds
that there are essentially no stochastic effects, but that will take a little
longer to register.) 

> 3.  Regardless which definition of truth one uses,   Dr. Cohen is correct;
> all theories and models must be refined as our knowledge is improved.
> Perhaps it is time to refine our model of radiation biological effects.
> But a specific, numerical alternative must be proposed and tested.  It is
> not enough to say there is a threshold, there must be consensus on the
> numerical value of that threshold.  This requires positive evidence, i.e.
> measured phenomena actually showing the emergence of biological effects at
> a given dose absent at a lower dose.  

This exists in hundreds of studies. Even BEIR V is replete with such
statements. Medical patients, from Thorotrast and I-131 diagnostics (eg,
thyroid) and therapeutics (eg, leukemia to 10-15 rem whole-body), etc etc demo 
your point. 

It is disingenuous to call for results that are explicitly precluded by the
control of funding, publications, and review committees committed to suppress
and ignore the data, including people in HPS and other well-funded and
self-interest groups. 

(It is not enough to say that effects
> have not been observed when the statistical power is inadequate.)  

I guess its therefore enough to say that effects have not been observed when
the statistical power is adequate? :-) 

This
> effect must be shown in radiation of different qualities (both low and high
> LET), different exposure rates (acute and chronic), and using varied
> investigational techniques (ecological, case-control epidemiology,
> experimental biology, etc.).  I look forward to the day when we will have
> this information.

I guess it will be a long time, since the data to date has been and continues
to be rigorously ignored. From the radiobiologists of the 50s-60s, with, eg,
Robley Evans in HPJ 1974 (not just the data, but the BEIR data manipulation),
from Miller in NEJM 1989 on breast cancer and fluoroscopy with explicit tables 
showing lower breast cancer in the strong data below 30 rem, and excess breast 
cancer above 30 rem [sounds like your "standard"]. 

Frigerio at Argonne in an AEC contract to explicitly respond to the Calvert
Cliffs decision on inadequate EIS's, terminated by AEC Research in 1973 when
the LNT was disproved, precluding its consideration in the review you call for 
by radiation science policy (see eg Walinder (a real radiobiologist) 1996 "Has 
Rad Prot Become a Health Hazard" on UNSCEARs treatment/suppression of the
data); that also terminated the further detailed work planned to meet your
call to confirm evidence (with details done by Cohen for radon and lung cancer 
from private sources since the rad science policy suppressed the work, as they 
did with uranium miner studies).