Re: "The eyes of the beholder" / ICRP, quality factors etc

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@HOTMAIL.COM>]

>The majority of those employed in the field of radiation safety work on

ALARA and/or other policies intended to reduce low-level exposures to yet 

lower levels. Positions established by ICRP, NCRP, etc. have provided the 

primary impetus in supporting such policies. I wonder about the extent to 

which these positions are motivated by a desire to protect public health vs. 

the advancement of  self-interests.

---------

I have met half a dozen of ICRP members (before the meeting on Nov. 12) - 

two of these I have listened to at various occasions since around 1975 and 

another one of them since 1986. I am convinced that they always had sincere 

intentions in mind - and above self. They all know that smoking and various 

food stuffs carry most of the carcinogens that we get.



I agree on the point that it has been about "yet lower levels" and 

personally I am quite convinced that we have pushed some of this too far and 

made it too complex. The present ICRP people have probably also realized 

this as well as the built-in problem "communicating radiation". Thus a 

revision - even the ALARA concept is looked at. The purpose is to create a 

better ICRP system - not with less overall safety.



When I wrote the few paragraphs about the ongoing revision a day ago - it 

was to make you aware of that there are important things happening - 

probably the largest change with the ICRP since it all began. The best the 

radiation professionals can do is to participate in the process (for 

instance through societies like the HPS and RRS) rather than just attacking. 

What has come up over the past 20 years or so that now is being included in 

the ICRP work is consideration of more radiobiological data (cellular level) 

- data that were possible to gather because we now have better tools for 

molecular biology work. As an example, we can now study point mutations on 

an epidemiological level. This was not possible 20 years ago.



I have written at three earlier occasions here on Radsafers that a theory 

for radiation risks must be constistent with epidemiological as well as cell 

& molecular biology data. With one exception (a Radsafer who wrote me 

directly) there has not been any response on this. We roughly have a few 

groups of professionals who attend different meetings, read different 

journals and have different reference frames within the field of 

"radiation".



There are partial overlaps but many of these groups probably don't see so 

much of the others - here is an attempt to characterize these groups by what 

they read and/or their societies - there must also be differences in details 

(cultural, socioeconomic, technical) depending on which country of what part 

of the world we look at:



1. Health Physics, Dosimetry journals, Nuclear technology journals, ENS, ANS 

etc.

2. Radiation Research, Int. J. Radiation Biology, Environmental Radiation 

Biophysics. Many of these people read Nucleic Acids Research, PNAS, Mutation 

Research, Carcinogenesis, Chemico-Biological Interactions, Cancer Research, 

Cell, Chromosoma and similar journals.

3. Clinical radiation biology and physics (like "the red journal" and 

Medical Physics journal). Some of these people are clinicians, others have a 

physics background. The clinicians may read Cancer Research, Eur. J. of 

Cancer etc. Some of the radiation physics people, but very few clinicians, 

read Radiation Research, IJRB etc. By necessity the clinical context 

(diagnostics and therapy) often includes a dialogue between the patient and 

the doctor. The "optimization", palliation or other aspects are made on an 

individual basis whereas epidemiology or molecular mechanisms most often are 

side topics.

4. Am J. Epidemiology, Cancer Causes and Control etc (I have no idea about 

what their matching conferences are - but I occasionally get their journals 

in my hand). Sometimes epidemiological papers occur in journals like 

Radiation Research or HPJ.



Categories 2 and 3 above (and to some extent 4 as well) include description 

of tumor progression - a phenomenon that can be seen with epidemiological 

eyes, clincal eyes or those of cell & molecular biology.



I spend about 60 % on my "radiation time" on category 2 above, 30 % on 

number 1 and the rest on categories 3 and 4 put together. Each one in the 

"radiation field" probably has a different profile.



Each of the groups above will see the radiation world from a different 

perspective. Only one theory for cancer risks can be correct.



My personal reflections only.



OK - must rush to work,



Bjorn cedervall     bcradsafers@hotmail.com





_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.