Re: EFFECTS OF LOW RADIATION DOSES

[LIPTONW@dteenergy.com]

One thing to keep in mind is that the linear, no threshold theory has 
generally been advanced, NOT as a valid theoretical model, but as a 
conservative default in the face of insufficient evidence.  Back in the good 
old days, when money for health physics was abundantly provided by the 
government, it enabled the health physics establishment to appear to be 
protecting the public while assuring full employment for health physicists.  
Now, this position seems to be making nuclear technology unusable.  For 
example, when business leaders see the costs of decommissioning a facility, 
they generally make the prudent decision not to build one in the first
place.  
It's thus time to revisit this assumption.  In a cost versus benefit 
situation, unreasonably inflating the cost results in a decision to forgo
many 
of the benefits. 
 
The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 
It's not about dose, it's about trust. 
 
Bill Lipton 
liptonw@dteenergy.com 
 
You wrote: 
 
>Much of the knowledge held to be true in the past 30 years in this field is 
>now challenged by numerous medical and scientifical studies which tend to
show 
>that the extrapolation of the effects of high doses of radiation to lower 
>doses in a proportional way is an invalid theoritical model and that low
doses 
>of radiation are not as detrimental to human health as was previoulsy 
>expected. Many studies now suggest that, at least in some cases, low doses
of 
>radiation (even up to the highest doses of radiation that can naturally
occur 
>on the planet) could appear to be quite beneficial to stimulate immune 
>defenses, thus offering better resistance to immune diseases such as
cancer. 
 
... 
 
>With best regards 
> 
>Bruno Comby 
>President of EFN 
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html