Comments on: Radiation, Risk and the “Linear No-Threshold” Model

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:00 +0000

All kinds of low dose radiation risk calculations (x-ray scans, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc) regularly refer to the Linear No Threshold (LNT) Model as the reference model. But these calculations overlook the fact that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) itself judges “that it is not appropriate for the purpose of public health planning, to calculate the hypothetical number of cases of cancer or heritable disease that might be associated with very small radiation doses received by large numbers of people over very long periods of time”. (ICRP Publication 103, par. (66), 2007).

In specifying this ICRP statement the US Health Physics Society “recommends against the quantitative estimation of health risk below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources.” (1 rem= 10 mSv, Position Statement of July 2010).

It is also telling how BEIR VII – Phase 2 (2006, App. D) argues against Hormesis. A main argument in their judgement is that hormetic evidence in epidemiologic studies is simply a play of chance. “Some studies will have an odds ratio that is less than 1.0; others will have an odds ratio greater than 1.0. In interpreting these studies it is inappropriate to select only those that are consistent with an excess or deficit of disease. Rather, the entire distributio must be examined to assess the likely relationship between exposure and disease.”
This argument holds as well against the allegation that all radiation is harmful,how ever low the dose may be.

By: ANDREWILLIAM

ANDREWILLIAM — Thu, 12 May 2011 16:49:00 +0000

MARCO WERNER and his wife and those whites who have a long history of embracing white supremacy will soon discover it will not be easy to get rid of ANDRE HIMES .The hiphop nation which glorified black on black violence was summon against black america by the white feminist and those whites who have a long history of embracing white surpremacy and it was this act as well as the widespread use of racial profiling is what has contribute to the black holocaust.

By: tours

tours — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:40:00 +0000

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima would not have happened Thorium/Fluoride technology were used instead of Uranium/Plutonium.

- No meltdown
- No Plutonium proliferation
- 99% more efficient
- Reduction of existing stockpiles.

Thorium Energy Alliance Conference in Washington, DC, May 12.
http://www.ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com

By: Owen Hoffman

Owen Hoffman — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:32:00 +0000

Going to Dr. Gronlund’s article of April 17th, I did find the following statement about uncertainty in the risk estimate:

I personally find the estimate of the excess incidence of cancer more important to report than excess mortality. I note that the lower bound of the uncertainty range reported did not overlap zero risk.

By: Owen Hoffman

Owen Hoffman — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:46:00 +0000

Thank you for an excellent article on a rather complex subject. At the heart of the matter is whether risk can or should be acknowledged when doses from radiation are far below the statistical limits of epidemiological detectability, and how best to put such risks into proper perspective so that the reader can make up one’s own mind as to whether or not these risks are outweighed by personal or societal benefits.

One subject, not addressed thus far is the need to discuss the uncertainty associated with such risk projections, since these projections are based on mathematical models, not measurements. In other words, does the lower bound of a, say, 95% uncertainty interval overlap zero risk? Does the upper bound of this uncertainty interval increase the estimate of radiation induced cancer fatality by a factor of two, three, or more? What factors contribute most to this uncertainty?

It’s of interest to me to find that Dr. Gronlund’s estimate of 27,000 radiation induced cancer fatalities globally from Chernobyl is somewhat comparable to EPA estimates of the annual radiation induced cancer fatalities in the USA from the residential exposure to indoor radon (and radon decay products), and from risk estimates made by the National Cancer Institute and others of radiation induced cancer fatalities due to an annual prescription of more than 70,000,000 CT scans in US medical practice.

By: Mike Hanley

Mike Hanley — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:53:00 +0000

http://www.xrayrisk.com has more information on radiation and cancer risk including an online calculator that lets you calculate radiation dose and estimate cancer risk from CT scans, x-rays and procedures. The site also allows users to log-in and track their imaging history.