" Australia's radiation victims "

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>]

a couple of letters in New Scientist,

http://www.newscientist.com/letters/letters_224611.html
Australia's radiation victims
You report that an Australian court has ruled that two soldiers who died of
cancer died as the result of 5 millisieverts of radiation they received
while stationed in Hiroshima (10 June, p 19). But according to Inside
Science (18 March), the chance of dying of cancer from a 5-millisievert dose
is one in 4000. The chance of dying of cancer in general is perhaps around 1
in 4. So the probability that they died of the radiation they received in
Hiroshima comes out to 1 in 1000. Have I misunderstood something?
Eric Kvaalen 
Qiryat Bialik 
Israel 

While it's true that the Australian Federal Court found there was no
threshold below which radiation is safe, your article overlooks the unique
circumstances of this case and its law. These laws apply only to veterans in
Australia. Australian courts would have thrown out such a case where the
harmed person wasn't a veteran. 
Veterans are entitled to payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
(Cth) for various injuries, diseases or death where there is a causal link -
a "reasonable hypothesis" - between the veteran's condition and the injury,
disease or death. This is determined on the reverse reasonable doubt test.
That is, the causal link between the condition and the injury, disease or
death will be found unless it is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be
excluded. 
The case you report merely shows that the Commonwealth of Australia was
unable to break the causal link between radiation exposure and injury,
disease or death to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the
same laws many veterans have been compensated for their conditions. For
example, the court has accepted a causal link between DDT and cancer. 
Unfortunately, this has not given the same hope to thousands of other
non-veteran Australians suffering injury, disease or death as a result of
radiation exposure and many other harmful chemical exposures. For them the
requirements are actually establishing a causal link on a balance of
probabilities. This is the same test applied in most common-law countries
and presents a substantial challenge for anyone asserting radiation damage
where the circumstances were poorly documented and a long time has elapsed
between the exposure and the alleged consequences. Unfortunately,. exposure
to low-dose radiation 50 years ago is unlikely to be enough, as so many
other possible exposures cloud any causal links.
Charles Lawson 
Labrador 
Queensland

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