[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IRPA-10 mtg
Ted, I believe you have made some excellent points. I am trying to think of
a way to publicize your points better (RADSAFE is a limited audience, after
all). In light of your final point, I think it would be great if you wrote
to Nuclear News.
I would also like to call RADSAFERs attention to the "Science Compass" page
of SCIENCE of May 19,2000 - the article by M. W. Makgoba. Makgoba is
talking about AIDS, but what he (or she -- I can't tell) says about
"pseudoscience" and South African society could apply as well to radiation
protection and American society. In criticizing the South African attempt
to blame the spread of AIDS on poverty, malnutrition, etc., Makgoba says:
" To conflate causation with cofactors through a mixture of pseudoscientific
statements is scientifically and politically dangerous in societies where
denial, chauvinism, fear, and ignorance are rampant."
Your point about the unwillingness to join the scientific arguments over the
linear non-threshold theory exemplify the "denial" and "ignorance" of some
elements of our society.
Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@cpcug.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 8:01 AM
Subject: Fw: IRPA-10 mtg
>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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html