NCRP

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Below is the text of a letter I wrote Charlie Meinhold in 1995.  His
responses are noted in [ ] with my comments to his responses in ( ).  It
is clear that we must find out from NCRP and ICRP exactly what evidence
for a threshold for low dose effects they would accept.  Without knowing
that, we will continue to waste money on research, the results of which
they may or may not accept.  To assist NCRP and ICRP in determining what
scientific evidence they would accept, I ask RADSAFERS to set forth
their ideas on what experiments should be done to develop evidence
acceptable to them for the existence of a threshold.  In other words, to
answer Charlie's "Yeses", and because he doesn't tell us what he would
accept,  what would you accept as "convincing evidence" for a
threshold?  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

August 21, 1995

Charles B. Meinhold
Radiological Sciences Division
Building 703M
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton NY 11973
RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS - ANT-33-95
Dear Charlie:
Attached is a copy of part of a Federal Register article (60 FR 42622)
written by the NRC. Note the Radiation Medicine paragraph. Particularly
note that the NRC says; "The International Commission on Radiation
Protection, . .. believe that, in the absence of convincing evidence
that there is a dose threshold or that low levels of radiation are
beneficial, the assumptions regarding a linear nonthreshold dose -
effect model for cancers and genetic effects and the existence of
threshold only for certain nonstochastic effects remain appropriate for
formulating radiation protection standards."

Is that statement an accurate representation of the ICRP position?
[Charlie's answer: "Yes."] (So ICRP needs "convincing evidence" of a
threshold.  Why don't they need "convincing evidence" for the LNTH?
Should we be trying to force them to put the shoe on the other foot?  We
could adopt the policy that the threshold is 5 rem per year and then
say, "We need convincing evidence for the LNTH to change from that
threshold.)

If so, does the ICRP really want "convincing evidence?" If so, what
would it accept? Does the NCRP agree with the ICRP in this matter? If so
what evidence would it accept? If the evidence is different for the two
bodies, please tell me how it is different. [ Charlie's answer: "Yes."]
(Note that Charlie doesn't answer my question as to what "convincing
evidence" he would accept.  I'll bet Charlie never asked either the ICRP
or NCRP members to set forth the evidence they would accept.)

If that statement is really representative of the ICRP and NCRP
positions, then I believe both organizations need to rethink their
positions. It would seem that neither organization wants to take any
significant risk vis-a-vis radiation protection standards. That seems
too restrictive in these days of limited resources. We spend too much to
avoid a hypothetical calculated cancer or genetic effect. The money
would be better spent elsewhere to prevent real injuries. [Charlie's
answer: "See UNSCEAR 93 & 94."] (Note that I didn't ask a question here,
only made a statement.)

Can the two organizations develop a more realistic basis for radiation
protection standards'? (Charlie didn't answer this question at all.)
Sincerely,
A N Tschaeche, CHP


begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard