Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations

[Western Radiation Services <westrad@nimrod.com.au>]

Comment in reply to Glenn Carlson and others on above subject.

Firstly, there can be no doubt that the regulations based on an unproven and
unprovable hypothesis (LNT) are unworkable. Any regulation that sets a limit
lower than variations in natural background has to be unworkable unless one
makes the farcical assumption that natural radiation does not have the same
effects as technologically enhanced radiation.

Secondly, I believe that the vast majority of health physics professionals
believe in the ALARA principle, that radiation exposure to people in and
outside the workplace, should be kept as low as REASONABLY achievable. The
difficulty is with the definition of 'reasonable'. The regulators seem to
have decided that the principle should be changed to ALAA, as low as
achievable, no matter how unreasonable such a requirement may be.

Thirdly, there are large volumes of data that indicate a hormesis effect is
possible. This data appears to have been totally ignored or dismissed on
specious grounds by the people entrusted to advise on the health effects of
radiation: ICRP, NRCP, UNSCEAR, BEIR etc.

Instead of being summarily dismissed with cries of 'ecological fallacy' such
data should be subjected to rigorous analysis (as Bernie Cohen has done) and
further work carried out to determine whether or not the hormesis effect is
valid. There are several locations in the world where populations are
exposed to natural radiation several times greater than the average
background. Those locations would be very good starting points for
epidemiological studies on the occurrences of radiation related cancers in
the exposed population. Comparison of such occurrences with the hypothetical
number of occurrences predicted by LNT should be sufficient for either side
in the argument to accept either right or wrong. 

To those proponents of LNT & ALAA, instead of resorting to accusations of
stupidity and bias, you should show proof of the hypothesis and show that
the assumptions you are using are reasonable. Further, you should show that,
even if the hypothesis can be proven to be correct, that the benefits would
outweigh the economic and social costs incurred in implementing the
regulations to enforce the limits based on LNT and ALAA.

There have been reported incidences of falsified and deliberate distortions
of data intended to show that LNT is provable, with some specifics quoted
and referenced. Please show that these accusations are unfounded. There have
been other accusations of data supporting the 'hormesis' hypothesis being
suppressed, please show that this is not the case.

I acknowledge that there are people on both sides of the argument who can be
unreasonable and frustrated, but there are also many of us out here who seek
answers to the questions of radiation health effects and we cannot, in all
conscience, tell workers and others exposed to radiation, that any level of
radiation exposure is harmful when the possibility exists that such exposure
may be beneficial.

The effects of the nonsensical situation that exists at present are shown by
political moves to award large payments in 'compensation' to anybody who
ever worked in the nuclear industry on the totally farcical grounds that any
illness they are suffering from or may have suffered from has been caused by
exposure to radiation.

Bill Chandler
Perth
Western Australia

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