Re: absence of proof

[maury@webtexas.com (Maurice Siskel)]

Just cannot leave this one alone - my belief is that re: EPA, the carts running
around ahead of the horses are abundantly obvious all about us and have been for
years. This spectacle would be humorous if it were not so serious. Further
subjective belief is that the appropriate resulting actions are clear - but they
will not happen in the foreseeable future.
Cheers, Maury Siskel         maury@webtexas.com

Michael Stabin wrote:

> >In this case, the linear model proponents tell us
> >that Bernie Cohen's experimental data must be wrong because they do not
> >agree with their model!  Talk about getting the cart in front of the
> >horse!
>
> But there is precedence for this approach.  See the Federal Register, Vol
> 56, No. 138, Thursday, July 18, 1991, p 33055, EPA reply to comment 4, which
> read "What relative emphasis should be placed on the epidemiology data and
> modeled risk estimates for evaluating radium risks?"  The reply, in part:
> "EPA policy, supported by recommendations of the SAB/RAC, is to assess
> cancer risks from ionizing radiation as a linear response.  Therefore, the
> use of the dial painter data requires either deriving a linear risk
> coefficient from significantly non-linear exposure-response data, or
> abandoning EPA policy and SAB/RAC advice..."
>
> Stabin
> Brasil
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

--
Always try, try again; then quit. No need to be a damned fool
about it.                                                                  W.C.
Fields


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html