[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

LNT largely accepted by health physicists?

Title: LNT largely accepted by health physicists?

Two recent radsafe posts present excellent views of the two sides of the LNT debate.  Jim Dukelow provides a number of  convincing arguments against LNT ("Some reasons not to believe the linear no-threshold hypothesis" radsafe port 3/17/00), while Lars Persson reviews the scientific basis for his support of LNT in his "Effects of Low-Dose Ionising Radiation" lecture (referenced in "ICRP Principles" radsafe post 3/17/00).

As a regulator, I accept my agency's use of the precautionary principle and application of the LNT, but as a radiation safety professional, I side with Mr. Dukelow in this debate.  I believe that application of the precautionary principle has resulted in unwise expenditures, and our limited funds are better spent addressing other health risks that provide better returns on our investments.

In 10+ years of discussing the topic with other HPs, I have found that the majority do not support the LNT hypothesis.  This runs contrary to Mr. Persson's statement in his lecture that the LNT assumption is "largely accepted by health physicists over the world."  (though I admit that my discussions have been limited to HPs in the U.S.)

Is there a solid basis for Mr. Persson's statement?  When was the last time HPs were polled on their opinion of LNT, and what were the results?  I seem to remember a poll among American HPS members some time ago, but I may be mistaken.  I'd like to know if there is a documented majority opinion on this subject for our profession (preferably worldwide).  If a survey has not been conducted within the past decade, perhaps one should be done.

(above comments are independent of my agency)

Walter Cofer
Florida Bureau of Radiation Control
Tallahassee, FL
Walter_Cofer@doh.state.fl.us