Andy Champ wrote:
harry wrote:
The incidence of cancer was higher amongst Concorde crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord...ation_exposure

That link does not provide any support for your statement, merely that
there was a fear that it might.

Do you have any that do? I can't find one, as it's hidden behind Dr
Alex Concorde the specialist and Concorde grape juice being good for
prevention!

Andy

Read all about LNT here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

What emerges if you read it from a balanced perspective was that when
standards for radiological exposure had to be implemented, they picked
LNT as a model on which to base them. There never was, and never has
been, strong evidence to show that LNT is an accurate model of low to
moderate radiation exposure. Indeed results from random sampling and of
course Chernobyl, suggests it grossly overstates the impact of chronic
low level radiation.

HOWEVER standards had to be set, and the LNT model was the worst anyone
felt it could possibly be, so if we stuck to that public safety was
assured. And importantly, it shut everyone up. It was essentially as
stringent as anyone felt it needed to be.In politics a decisions that
halts argument, is a good one. And the nuclear industry felt it could
easily (if expensively) reach the standards, and the kit was designed to
those standards.


Now Dennis, or harry or whatever claims he worked in the NHS, where he
would have had this drummed into him as a safety standard, and being a
few candles short of a light bulb. believes that the model on which the
standards are based to have more than *political* validity. The short
answer to why radiologists wear lead aprons is of course politics: To
protect the NHS from being sued when someone gets a deformed kid or
testicular cancer, on the grounds that they were frightened by an X-ray
machine, without lead underpants on, once, in 1972.

There is almost no scientific evidence one way or another as to what the
cumulative effects of low level radiation a It is just possible to
detect cancer rates above average around radon areas, but the amount of
radioactivity that represents is many many times higher than normal
background, and about 1000 times the safe doses that nuclear industry
workers or the public are exposed to.

Cohen claimed in his 1995 paper
(http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/LNT-1995.PDF) that lower level radon
radiation actually REDUCED the risks of lung cancer. And managed to find
more evidence to support it than exists for the LNT model, although his
results are widely ignored.

What is significant about Wade Allison, apart from the fact he wrote a
book, which presumably makes money

(http://www.radiationandreason.com/)

is that he is also a qualified medical professor of physics. With
slightly more than an HNC in electrical machines, from 1967...This is
essentially his field, and he has made it his business to study it.

Whether he and Cohen are just mavericks trying to make names for
themselves by swimming against the politically correct tide or whether
they are in fact simply uncovering the reality of the rather less than
horrifying dangers of low level radiation, is a moot point.

There is a lot of money to be made in energy of any sort, and FUD is
rampant.

What is a fact, is that LNT, the theory on which radiological safety
standards have been set most conservatively, has never been supported by
any evidence whatsoever. Such evidence as DOES exist tends to refute it,
but short of having half a dozen Chernobyls and a few million people to
do the experiment with, it's unlikely we ever will be able to prove it
or entirely refute it.