Recently, Heidenreich et al. (Radiat. Res., 158, 607-617, 2002) suggested that the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) A-bomb survivor cohort study is not large enough to discriminate between various possible carcinogenic mechanisms. At least with the current follow-up, this is true to some extent, but I think the specific issues are rather different than they suggest. In particular, I do not think it is true-as they further indicate-that various models fit the data about equally well while estimating very different patterns of excess risk, which would imply that these patterns cannot be reasonably well characterized. I will point to specific criticisms of their approach to the data and offer some more general comments on mechanistic modeling approaches. Although there are important distinctions, I suggest on a very optimistic note that the two major approaches may be converging, and soon the main differences may not be in the assumptions made but in the aims of the modeling.