Recent postings reflect the difficulty of consistently observing adverse radiation effects at low doses say below an annual exposure of 50-100 mSv.

This is because potential effects are small and below the detectable levels by epidemiological methods. Very large samples are required to detect small risks. According to BEIR V for a single exposure of 100 mSv (10 rad) a case control study would require about 120,000 cases and 120,000 controls.

The methodology of the Oxford Survey initiated by Alice Stewart which reported an increased rate of childhood leukaemia following x-ray examination in pregnancy is seriously criticised in ICRP 90.

From the point of view of administration of a radiation protection service a model based on the linear extrapolation of dose down to the lowest possible level is used.

This does not mean that the literature on hormesis, apoptosis, immune surveillance, bystander effects, DNA repair (single and double strand brakes), genomic instability etc is invalid. However, from the point of view of administration the uncertainties and variability between subjects and tissues within subjects is of too great a complexity to allow incorporation in an administrative model.

The linear model is unfortunately abused by the anti-nuclear community. For this reason ICRP has suggested dose constrains such as 0.01 mSv per year no action. 1 mSv per year for situations were there is societal benefit but without individual benefit.

The other problem is the using of ICRP nominal dose coefficients to predict cancer incidence in irradiated populations. The widely divergent estimates following Chernobyl should suggest that these estimates are very “rubbery.” The best estimate is from Elizabeth Cardis and quoted in the Chernobyl Forum papers. The only valid conclusion that I can make is that the existing level of oncological services in Western Europe is more then adequate to cope with any possible theoretical increase in cases. Any excess cancer burden will be so small, that even if it occurs, it will never be detected.

I will in a later post discuss the question of “evidence” in science.

To dickie,

Get a life ! !

go to www.allpowermustbenuclear.com
or www.nucleargreen.org

No slogans...just the truth!

Ralph
The TroubleMaker

GRLCowan

Without your so-called "dud" the world will one day cease to exist. The ONLY way to end and reverse global warming is with nuclear power. Nothing else can possibly succeed. Windmills, solar panels and vegetable fuels are simply very bad jokes...and pose a danger because they temporarily divert attention away from the problem and the solution.

Nuclear will not only solve our global warming problem, it will also stop starvation in the world with massive nuclear desalinization. It will also replace gasoline or any other fuel with "nuclear hydrogen." Go to my website for an explanation.

Either www.allpowermustbenuclear.com or www.nucleargreen.org.

Ralph

What is Evidence? What is a Cause?

The philosopher David Hume in the eighteenth century addressed this problem. To Hume a cause and effect relationship was derived from observation-a constant conjunction in experience. In to-days parlance this is called a “correlation,” Hume therefore, is regarding the problem of causation as a subset of knowledge by induction.

In the nineteenth century with the development of bacteriology the problem in the heath sciences became acute. The famous Koch postulates for associating a biological agent with disease have since been modified.

In 1957 Hill suggested 9 criteria that can be applied1,2. I list the criteria as follows*: strength of association; consistence and repeatability of the observation; specificity of the observation; temporality; biological gradient; plausibility; coherence; experiment; analogy. The Hill criteria are not to be used as a “check list” but applied with care and scientific judgment. This allows for variability in opinion.

My reference to reports from the Committee on Medical aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) has been criticized by Dickie. A glance at membership of COMARE should show that the individuals are well qualified, have senior posts and years of experience in their respective disciplines.

Further COMARE is roughly consistent with other bodies such as ICRP, BEIR, WHO, UNSCEAR and so on. Further all these reports provide copious references to the published, open, peer reviewed scientific literature.

The complaint that governments are deliberately holding back data that is already in the public domain is absurd. To argue otherwise is to join the ranks of conspiracy theorists.

It is my firm opinion that in general the writings of the anti nuclear authors do not meet the criteria of “proper scientific evidence. “ Or else there is an overwhelming body of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

1. Hill AB. Proc Royal Soc Med 1965; 58:295-300.
2.Rothman KJ and Greenlander S. Modern Epidemiology. Lippincott-Raven 1998.

* Regrettably space does not allow me to elaborate on the criteria

Troublemaker (aka Ralph Andrews - President of Nuclear Green inc.)

This is a pretty pathetic attempt on your part to promote your own book which you have advertised for free on most of your posts on OLO.

In addition, the address you recommend, www.allpowermustbenuclear.com is fake or you are playing games, or you do not have the ability to advise the correct web address.

Are you the same Ralph Andrews noted for his host role in the 70's game show?

And you, are now the guru on all things nuclear?

On your website, you appear to be accusing nuclear opponents of "lies, deception and scare tactics." I suggest, for the sake of your credibility, you substantiate those claims.

I also suggest that the game is over for you, Ralph and it is you who needs to "get a life!"

Either address the scientific issues that have been raised in these posts, or promote your book the normal way - paid advertising!

Troublemaker

"Windmills, solar panels and vegetable fuels are simply very bad jokes...and pose a danger because they temporarily divert attention away from the problem and the solution."

Really? Perhaps you could provide more specific criticism. Solar thermal power could readily meet Australia's needs. Whether this can be done economically could be known in a few years. There is also ample biomass to meet Australia's liquid fuel needs. Recent research has found an alternative to fermentation which chemically (read "quickly") produces a hydrophobic fuel with a similar energy density to gasoline.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i26/8526notw1.html

This fuel could be blended with gasoline on a commercial in as little as two years.