Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations

[GlennACarlson@aol.com]

Well -- okay -- Mr. Chandler has cast his vote -- "LNT - baaaaad; hormesis - 
gooooood."  

Now, back to my question (first stated in May 1999), which is NOT whether 
LNT, or LT, or NLT, or NLNT is the more accurate model for calculating risks 
from radiation exposure, but, rather, how any alternative to LNT would be 
implemented.

Suggestions so far include 1) reexamining the use of collective dose, 2) 
abandoning ALARA, and 3) relaxing the limits (though to what is not 
specified).  

C'mon, folks.  This is not meant to be hard.

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
glennacarlson@aol.com

In a message dated 4/3/2000 10:32:22 PM Central Daylight Time, 
westrad@nimrod.com.au writes:

<< Subj:     Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations
 Date:  4/3/2000 10:32:22 PM Central Daylight Time
 From:  westrad@nimrod.com.au (Western Radiation Services)
 Sender:    radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 Reply-to:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 To:    radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
 
 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