So sorry for the typo!
The title of this page is not "BEER" but "BEIR" , The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
(Same pronunciation. TR397 just got mixed up a little. )
Mossman and I traded emails about 15 years ago while he was with Arizona State University. Carol S. Marcus, MD, PhD, at the UCLA Medical Center, has a long and distinguished Curriculum Vitae. I had the honor of speaking with her on the phone once and we have traded emails as recently as 2019.
The NRC provided “an opportunity for any interested person to petition the Commission to issue, amend, or rescind any regulation in 10 CFR chapter I.” Carol Marcus with two other distinguished radiation professionals submitted a petition to the NRC to end the use of the LNT model.
Dr. Kenneth L. Mossman was nominated by President Barack H. Obama to take a seat as a Member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 14, 2013. He was sworn into office by Dr. Peter S. Winokur, the Chairman of the Board, on November 26, 2013. Dr. Mossman immersed himself in the issues of pubic and worker safety at DOE’s defense nuclear facilities. In the short time span of six weeks, he met with Members of Congress, the Secretary of Energy, and a myriad of Federal, State and local officials.
Building on a prestigious academic career, Dr. Mossman immediately brought fresh and valuable perspectives to the Board. He integrated himself quickly and effortlessly into the daily on-goings of the office, making himself a beloved member of the agency. He was continuously engaging staff at all levels, listening to concerns and providing invaluable advice. Everyone at the Board was shocked and saddened by the news of his death and, even though his time with the Board was brief, he made a permanent positive contribution. He will be missed by all who came across his path. He will be remembered for his grand sense of humor and his enormous dedication to his work.
Their petition was denied. NRC: These regulations are designed to adequately protect and minimize the risk of unnecessary radiation exposures to members of the public and occupational workers, and the LNT model has served as the regulations’ underlying basis since the 1950s. … The NRC acknowledges the difficulties inherent in determining the amount of damage to the human body caused by low doses of radiation. The NRC, however, does not use the LNT model to assess the actual risk of low dose radiation. Instead, the NRC uses the LNT model as the basis for a regulatory framework that meets the “adequate protection” standard of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).
RADIATION
Our bodies are naturally radioactive. There are radioactive atoms in every bite of food we eat, every sip of water we drink, and every breath we take.
The EPA and NRC do not use the LNT hypothesis for risk assessment, but only for regulatory purposes. They show no interest in addressing the volumes of evidence since the 1950s refuting LNT.
The following says it all from the late Kenneth L. Mossman, PhD in his textbook,
Radiation Risks in Perspective
Public misperception of radiological risk consistently directs limited resources toward managing minimal or even phantom risks at great cost to government and industry with no measurable benefit to overall public health. The public’s inability to understand small theoretical risks arrived at through inherently uncertain formulae, coupled with an irrational push to eliminate all risk with no contextual understanding of overall benefit, results in a forfeiture of valuable advances in technology in favor of an illusion of safety.
Dr. Marcus: I will briefly review the history of LNT and its use by regulators, the lack of evidence supporting LNT, and the large body of evidence supporting thresholds and hormesis. Physician acceptance of cancer risk from low dose radiation based upon federal regulatory claims is unfortunate and needs to be reevaluated. This is dangerous to patients and impedes good medical care.
(I'm still waiting. Looks like most of you are not interested.) After spending the last 25 years studying ionizing radiation, obtaining Radiation Safety Officer credentials, hobnobbing with radiation professionals, and trying to explain it to a concerned public, I am burned out on the topic.
I need you up to speed on this. Type "radiation" into your favorite search engine.
I used Google and got 159 million hits in 0.33 seconds.
Run through those; I'll wait..................................................................