In the current dialogue with Norm and others who may not hold the view of those of us who are radiation professional, there is perhaps some historical perspective that should be brought to the table. I recommend the excellent historical timeline by Ron Kathren in a CRC Critical Review edited by Brodsky from sometime in the 80s. I traces the discoveries in the field of radiation and the subsequent developments of regulations because of the misunderstanding and misuse of X-rays and radium. Ron, perhaps you would put that history out on this site to remind everyone of how far we have come since Sprenger discovered cathode rays in 1865, since Roentgen discovered X-rays on Nov 8, 1895; Elster and Geitel discovered radioactivity in air; Bergonie and Tribondeau developed the "laws of radiosensitivity:, etc.
I also would recommend two excellent articles by L. S. Taylor, one which appear in the HP Journal in 1988 "Will radiation control be by reason or regulation?" The second Taylor article appeared in the 1979 Interagency Task Force of the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation" Public Comments on the Work Group Reports (Appendix G) from which I have extracted the following which is evidence of Taylor's wisdom:
"Carrying application of the linear dose-effect model to the extreme would mean that everything involving the direct or indirect use of radiation or radiation as a by-product would have to be abandoned or some risk accepted. Even naturally occurring radiation would have to be considered dangerous. For many reasons this is an unacceptable saturation, and it is therefore necessary to apply educated judgment as to what would be acceptable. As I and others have been pointing out for many years, [other elements that enter the judgmental determinations should be those of an economic, political, medical, legal, moral, and survival nature] (note the bracketed is taken from Taylor's 1957 UNESCO lecture)
The assumption of the model of a linear no-threshold relationship between dose and effect, and the consequent conclusions that however small the dose there may be some effect, marks a major deviation from the approach generally used in the field of toxicology....
Adoption of a linear no-threshold model places us on the horns of a dilemma. While it is a useful concept for scientific discussion if its significance and particularly its limitations are appreciated, its projection into the public domain without qualification, leads to the inescapable conclusion that any exposure to radiation, no matter how, when, or at what rate, must produce some cumulative and deleterious effect. It helps little that these limitations may be understood within scientific and technical discussions since this is not understood or appreciated by the general public and its simple application leads to apprehension. It is by virtue of the treatment of these models as though they were indeed established facts, that the problem has been presented to the public in such a way as to confuse and disturb it."
So, in closing, if we are to educate the public as to what we do and why we do it, let us begin here where we have a wide range of expertise.
Just my own thoughts with much appreciated help from L.S. Taylor
Kjell Johansen
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Milwaukee
kjell.johansen@wepco.com