Fw: IRPA-10 mtg

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@cpcug.org>]

As a recent Radsafe subscriber, I'm sending a couple of recent msgs to
others that I thought might be of interest to radsafers.  This is one.

Ted Rockwell

----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org>
To: Westghs-Bruschi <bruschhj@westinghouse.com>; Adams, Rod
<AtomicRod@aol.com>; ANS - Ted Quinn <equinn@mdmcorp.com>; ANS-Wasitis, Doug
<dwasitis@bakerd.com>; Baker, Mike <mcbaker@lanl.gov>; <barons@musc.edu>;
Bastin, Clinton <clintonbastin@classic.msn.com>; Bauser, Ed
<EdBauser@aol.com>; Beller, Denis <beller@lanl.gov>; Bruce Busby
<bbusby@umich.edu>; Chapin, Doug <dchapin@mpra.com>; <CotterMad@aol.com>;
Cramer, Gene <marc832@primenet.com>; Cuttler, Jerry <CuttlerJ@aecl.ca>;
Davis, Ken <wkdavis@aol.com>; Durante,Ray <Durantes@aol.com>; Eagle Alliance
<EAGLE@tmn.com>; <ebloch@TheAdvisoryGroup.com>; <Emasonxyz@aol.com>;
<fculler@epri.com>; Flint, Alex <aflint@johnstondc.com>; Fox, Mike
<foxy1@owt.com>; GAO-Duane G Fitzgerald <fitzgeraldd.rced@gao.gov>;
<GdePlanque@aol.com>; George Stowers <gstowers@mint.net>; Graham, John
<jgraham@rmi.net>; Gresham
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 7:54 AM
Subject: IRPA-10 mtg


> Colleagues:
>
> I've just returned from the 10th meeting of the International Radiation
> Protection Association in Hiroshima.  Radiation protection professionals
> from all over the world meet every four years to talk several days about
> only that
> topic.  It was interesting how it epitomized the rad prot situation.
There
> were two kinds of papers: scientific presentations of empirical and
> theoretical evidence for the hormetic (beneficial) effects of low-level
> radiation, and on the other hand, papers stating that no such data exists
or
> can exist.  The deniers just ignore the data; they don't refute it.
>
> IRPA has 16,000 members of 38 associated societies in 44 countries.  This
> year's program featured 1100 participants presenting 6 invited lectures, 3
> plenary symposia, 26 topical sessions, 16 eye-opener courses and 1000
poster
> presentations over 5 days.
>
> A number of policy-makers were present.  I spotted Meinhold (NCRP), Dicus
> (NRC), Clarke(ICRP), Gonzalez (IAEA), and many of the top Japanese
officials
> and scientists.  I did not see any of the policy-makers engaged in the
> continuous lively discussions of the posters, nor challenging any of the
> conclusions of the scientific papers.
>
> It seemed widely apparent that the policy-makers were unwilling to
confront
> the data.  When Jim Muckerheide rose, as a participant in the BRPS
> conference at Airlie, VA, to challenge the statement that the report of
that
> conference represented a consensus, he was greeted with applause--the only
> time I saw such a response during the entire conference.  The chair
insisted
> that Muckerheide had submitted no comments on the report, despite the fact
> that he had submitted and distributed at the BRPS conference several brief
> and specific written comments on various aspects of it.
>
> A report of an international workshop on "Ethical Issues in Radiation
> Protection" was distributed by Lars Persson, Swedish Rad Prot Inst.  This
> report typified the
> dichotomy between the persons presenting data and the data-deniers making
> policy.  It repeatedly asserted such statements as the following, although
> these statements were flatly refuted by other papers in the conference:
>
> "Since science cannot identify a 'safe' level of exposure, radiation
> protection is based on the question of what exposures are 'acceptable,' a
> decision that will also depend on ethical issues...Of course, one can
debate
> this issue on scientific grounds, but if there were a conclusive
scientific
> answer to questions of low-dose exposure, hormesis, and possible repair
> after minimal exposures, there would be no controversy...the science
> surrounding the linear no-threshold hypothesis is uncertain, and there is
no
> factual, substantive way to resolve the difference of opinion."
>
> "ICRP considers that a linear, no threshold dose response relationship is
> likely to be a good approimation of the true conditions at low doses.  In
> other words, not even the smallest dose of radiation is regarded as
entirely
> safe...Since no dose is regarded as safe, dose limits cannot delineate
> dangerous from safe, and are not efficient as tools to minimise radiation
> risks.  Instead, ICRP has devised an ethically based three-tier system of
> radiation protection...it is not enough that doses are below legal limits;
> instead optimised protection normally leads to doses much below the dose
> limits."
>
> There seems to be unspoken agreement among the policy-makers that they
> should no longer claim that the LNT is scientifically valid.  They are now
> pre-emptively asserting this fact, and arguing desperately that we must
not
> discuss this issue on scientific grounds.  Otherwise, they seem to
realize,
> "there would be no controversy," and those who make a living maintaining
> this non-controversy would have to look for honest work.
>
> The scrambling to jump on Roger Clarke's "controllable dose" bandwagon is
> argued on this basis.  One paper proclaiming this position was bluntly
> titled "Setting Aside the LNT Controversy."  God forbid we should confront
> and settle the issue!
>
> How long will it be before the nuclear leadership demands that the issue
be
> settled?  More evidence is coming in from biological and medical research
> facilities every day.  It can't be suppressed forever.
>
> Ted Rockwell
>
>
>

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