Re: absence of proof -Reply -Reply

[Michael S Ford <MFORD@pantex.com>]

>>> Mike McNaughton  wrote on Mon 19 Apr 99  12:45 >>>

Caution: the radium-dial painter data are consistent with the linear
model.  The data look inconsistent because they are drawn on a
logarithmic graph.  On a this graph, the linear model transforms to
an exponential ,and it is possible to draw a reasonable "exponential"
fit through these data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

I guess I'm a bit confused ('happens often)....  I thought radium-dial
painter data showed a clear threshold of bone sarcoma incidence at
10 Gy average skeletal Dose (Rowland 1997).  How does that agree
with a linear model (logarithmic or normal plotting)?

Other studies have also shown clear non-linearities wrt cancer
incidence and radium burdens in both human and animal
populations (Evans 1974, Rowland 1983, Maletskos 1994, Raabe
1994, and Thomas 1995).

Ruth, on the subject of "working with Congress,"  I have written
letters and forwarded reports to various members of Congress,
including Sen. Domenici, and committees as part of my activities
with the Texas Radiation Advisory Board and have met with only
limited success.  As a neophyte to this process, I have found that
letters (unless earth-shattering in their revelation) tend to lose their
momentum by the third or fourth hand they touch.  It really takes a
concerted approach of letters, emails, phone calls and finding the
right person on the right committee to contact  AND THEN you've
got a 50/50 shot at being heard.

BUT.... if you never try, your chances of being heard are
considerably less.   ;-)

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