Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

[Chris Davey <chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca>]

Jerry,

I prefer to take a more optimistic view - once it is accepted that low
doses are beneficial, the increased use of things radioactive will
more than compensate for any jobs lost due to the down-sizing of
radiation protection organisational structures.  Certainly in the
health care field, there will be a great need for 'booster' radiation
facilities, to aid in preventing cancers, and again, in treating
cancers, whole body and half body low dose radiation to stimulate the
body's defense mechanisms should also become standard, bringing more
work.  And we'll still have to track total exposures, to make sure the
'boosters' don't take anyone over the optimum levels.

In the nuclear power field, once attitudes are changed, there would be
a great increase in construction of nuclear power stations, providing
many jobs managing radiation....  I'm sure there are more examples.

In any case, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that my salary
comes from a misguided paranoia about things radioactive, and I am
trying to change it around so I can work towards promoting the use of
radiation as a positive benefit to health.

Even as I write the new documentation required under Canada's new
ultra-restrictive radiation regulations, I am including material from
reputable National and International government publications which
show that low level radiation is not a problem, and as more positive
materials become available, I will reference them, too.  Thus all the
instruction given to hospital staff will not have the LNT slant
without a reference to hormesis, etc.

It will take some time, so change will be gradual.

Regards,

Chris Davey

Jerry Cohen wrote:
> Ted,
>     You suggest that we "nuclear experts" should affirm that there is indeed
> some safe level of radiation exposure and that  low doses are not only safe,
> but may actually be beneficial. Seems to me that such an affirmation would
> be a tall order.
>     When I visualize a world in which low-dose radiation exposures are
> generally accepted as being safe or possibly beneficial, I see the abolition
> of ALARA, along with more than half of the jobs held by health physicists.
> Essentially, you are asking people to commit occupational suicide.
>     I don't know  the extent to which the current highly restrictive
> criteria for radiation exposure might have been motivated by self-interest ,
> but I would not rule out the possibility that it played a significant role.
> jjcohen@prodigy.net

-- 
RSO / LSO Cross Cancer Institute 11560 University Avenue
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 1Z2
(780) 432-8616 fax 432-8615
email: cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca     chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca
pager number 005, just call (780) 432-8771 and ask for that pager
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html