Re: Our own worst enemy?

[Michael Stabin <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>]

Al wrote:

> If, as you say, (and I
> have had similar experience) real health effects can be triggered by false
fears,
> and since the Atomic Energy Act as amended gives the responsibility to the
NRC to
> protect Americans from radiation, shouldn't the NRC ( and DOE and EPA) be
doing all
> it (they) can to erase false fears of radiation that create real health
effects?  If
> Congress really wants the federal agencies to protect health and safety,
shouldn't
> Congress be insisting that the agencies pass regulations that do not
result in real
> harm from false fears?  Perhaps someone should sue the agencies for not
doing their
> job in this respect?  How about including IAEA, ICRP, NCRP and BEIR VI?
What do
> y'all think?

I think, as held by others recently, that agencies must be taken to task for
inadvertent errors as well as intentional misrepresentations.  Lawsuits seem
like a strong measure to me, but something along these lines does seem
appropriate.  Franz points out correctly that scientists are only a part of
the overall picture, but I maintain that our voices have diminished in
significance and that we should be doing more, much more.  There is of
course uncertainty about the low dose regime, but the blatant misuse of
information by extremist groups, and its reflection in regulations must be
refuted by those who have the ability to do so.  I think we will be learning
more in the near future about the role of stress, fear, and emotion in human
health, including cancer induction and promotion, and if there has been
completely unwarranted fear created in the public, those involved should be
held responsible.

Aaron said:

> Nuclear energy provides
> a little more than 20 percent of this country's electricity. What would
> replace it when the lights go out?
>      It's also true, wrote William Hendee, a past president of the
American
> Association of Physicists in Medicine, in the 1996 American Enterprise
> Institute book, "Risks, Costs and Lives Saved," that "Money spent to
address
> those suspected but unproven risks is not available to prevent or correct
> problems such as industrial and domestic accidents, personal violence,
> tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and other known threats to human health. Those
> costs are the unfortunate consequences of misplaced fears and misused
funds.
> Although there is no way to quantify their consequences, the social
> implications of such actions is enormous."
>      So safety can be very dangerous. Rachel Carson and her disciples in
> this administration deserve great credit for helping to make it so.

The Clinton administration took great glee in punishing the innocent for the
radiation experiments of the 1940's, as part of its anti-nuclear agenda.
Perhaps someday there will be a similar retrospective backlash against all
the foolishness of anti-nuke extremism, if someone proposes a model that
actually calculates the misplaced costs, lives lost, etc.  I don't think
such exercises in litigation serve any great purpose (except to provide free
money for the 'victims').  Nonetheless, Al's ideas have great merit, IMHO,
and I think deserve serious consideration.  Inasmuch as public policy is
clearly not in line with known facts, scientists have a responsibility to
say so and to continue to say so until they are heard.


Michael Stabin, PhD, CHP
Departamento de Energia Nuclear/UFPE
Av. Prof. Luiz Freire, 1000 - Cidade Universitaria
CEP 50740 - 540
Recife - PE
Brazil
Phone 55-81-271-8251 or 8252 or 8253
Fax  55-81-271-8250
E-mail stabin@npd.ufpe.br

"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of"
- Steven Wright


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html