Re: LNT, regs and lives

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Otto G. Raabe wrote:

> (3) Dan Benison says everyone agrees that the risk is linear above 0.2 Sv
> and since we all receive this much exposure during a normal lifetime from
> normal background radiation, we are all up the linear curve. So, the shape
> of the dose-response curve at lower doses is unimportant. Dan Benison is
> the former ICRP member who developed the theoretical arguments for use of
> the LNT to estimate cancer risk.

	Surely there is not any evidence that the cancer risk
is proportional to the accumulated radiation over a lifetime at a very low
dose rate. The BEIR Reports do not use this model, but rather assume a
reduced effectiveness with time since exposure. Geographic areas with high
natural radiation do not have excess cancer -- in fact the opposite is
generally the case. For example, in the U.S. areas of high gamma radiation
(Rocky Mountain states) the cancer rates are lowest, and in U.S. counties
with high radon exposures lung cancer rates are low. Similar evidence is
available in other countries.
	Dan Beninson  also claims that LNT is necessary for
bookkeeping purposes -- isn't that an indication of bias, looking for a
rationalization?


Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


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