Re: Heuristic endeavors

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

R. William Field wrote:
> 
> Tony,
> 
> This may surprise you, but I think it is "possible" that he may have hit
> the nail on the head.  I just don't think his study has "proven" that the
> LNTT is invalid 

In science it only takes one set of data to disprove a hypothesis.  Why
can't all the "scientists" out there get that idea?  Since Bernie's data
clearly show the linear hypothesis is wrong (at least for lung cancer
caused by radon exposure), then the hypothesis is wrong for everything. 
There are other data that demonstrate the LNTH is wrong, see Robley
Evans' radium data for example.

> or that low level radon exposure is protective against lung
> cancer.  

He never claimed that his data show radon exposure is protective against
lung cancer.  Others have used his results to say that (I, myself, have
done that), but Bernie has never made such a claim.

> Because of the study design used by Dr. Cohen, I think his
> findings can be given no more weight than a hypothesis.  

I disagreee.  Bernie's study disproves an existing hypothesis.  It does
not set forth another hypothesis.  It would be interesting for someone
to set forth another hypothesis for low level cancer effects.  I have
done so and no one has refuted it yet.  My hypothesis is that there is a
threshold for radiation induced cancer and that 5 rem per year is it. 
So where are the data that disprove that hypothesis?

> I think we are in
> the dark ages regarding our knowledge of the effects of low level
> radiation.  

Even if there are any real, measurable harmful effects on human
populations below 5 rem per year, they must be very, very small
otherwise they would be easy to see with all the studies that have been
made on the subject.  But we don't see them.  

Under that circumstance, why do we spend billions to lower doses or to
clean up facilities so future doses are very, very low?  Where does the
fear come from?  Are the NCRP, ICRP, EPA, DOE people afraid there might
be a big effect?  In light of current data, such fear is unfounded.  Are
those people afraid they might not have anything to do?  Possibly.  Are
they afraid of Congress?  If they are wrong, and there is a threshold,
they should be.  Are they afraid of the anti nuclear people?  Probably. 
What are they afraid of?  Maybe just of changing the paradigm.  That's
ok.  That's just human nature.

> Dr's Cohen's work is very heuristic.  I believe it is good for
> Science.  It spurs others to seek the answers to the shape of the dose
> response curve at low level radiation exposures.  

No it doesn't.  Well, it might but where are the dollars to do more
experiments to really determine the shape of the low dose curve?  The
Federal government won't spend a dime to do that.  We are very luckey to
have Bernie's data.  I predict it will be a cold day in hell before we
get another set of data that will really help our plight.  

> Until we have more
> powerful means of investigation, we should keep all possibilities open.

All we need are dollars.  And millions of people.

Al Tschaeche, CHP  antatnsu@pacbell.net