Re: WIPP shipment through Albq. NM

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Barbara, 

I appreciate your commets, and could add some

additional comments.  However, I would like to comment

on the use of the LNT



First, it is not a scientific law, or theory.  It is a

regulatory tool.  However, like a hammer, people get

hurt using it.  In the regulatory arena, we use it to

make projections of risk below known values to

evaluate risk, project costs of compliance, etc. 

Extrapolation of data is not unknown in science.  The

problem is, as you say, we are do not say what the

limitations are.  Figuratively, we do not discuss the 

error bars, what we don't know.  As a consequence, the

LNT has been taken and used as a club against us.  The

reality is we do not unknow low-level risks; the

preception is that we do.  I am sure reports on the

transporaton of TRU waste consider risk as some low

number.  The preception is that these estimates,

extrapolations are real, i.e., that accidents will

happen.  However, laws and policy makers require risk

estimations to be made.  If not the LNT, then what?

Still, my feeling, which I believe is like yours, is

that we do not articulate the unknown.



I frequently field questions such as "I have had xx

number of CT scans.  What is my chance of getting

cancer."  I will first figure a risk value based on

0.05% additional cancers per 1 rem exposure, using

NCRP 116.  Then I will put it prespective, which is

that the accepted cancer rate is 25%, and that even

this number can change.  I also try to explain that

the value is itself an estimate based on a population,

and that we cannot say what an individual persons risk

is. 



I do not know if this eases the person's concerns, but

I feel that I have failed if I do present the all the

facts.  I took me a while to figure out this approach.

 And I do not know if it really works. But as an

"expert" I try to lay out all the facts and unknowns.

Of course, the people I deal with do not have an

agenda, just valid concerns and questions.  





--- BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:

> In a message dated 1/13/2004 9:43:22 AM Pacific

> Standard Time, 

> slavak@bresnan.net writes:

> This is not a slam on 'the public' - it's just that

> they are, by

> definition, less informed than the experts.  Leaving

> decisions to 'the

> public' means they will more likely be guided by

> daytime television than by

> facts and sound principles.  Human rights may be

> advanced by popular vote,

> but technology is not.

> I have a comment on this as well, because I agree,

> but don't think this goes 

> far enough in explaining the problem we face.

> 

> We all have our own perceptions of reality, but

> there must be some common 

> ground upon which we agree, or we devolve into

> chaos.  We, as scientists, believe 

> we can differentiate between what is "real" and what

> is not for the most 

> part.  And, I agree, but we must go further and

> explain why all "realities" cannot 

> be equally recognized.  We must explain, though it

> seems obvious, that we 

> cannot give equal weight to the proposition that 2 +

> 2 = 5, and to the 

> proposition that 2 + 2 = 4.  That is,

> philosophically speaking, there simply must be a 

> base reality from which we all function, especially

> with a society on this 

> scale.

> 

> This is not something that has been really addressed

> in the legislative or 

> executive branches of our political system, at least

> not from a philosophical 

> perspective, but has to an extent by the judiciary. 

> They have struggled with 

> trying to define what "facts" deserve "judicial

> notice," such as "the sun rises 

> everyday," for hundreds of years, and have developed

> evolving tests for 

> assigning credibility to scientific testimony.  In

> some ways, they have taken up the 

> chore of attempting to define what is the common

> reality we all share.

> 

> This is actually a very, very important task, and

> scientists should be 

> engaged in the process of articulating, as a policy

> matter, the importance of 

> establishing the boundaries of the common reality

> upon which we build our society, 

> make laws, and enforce laws.

> 

> Now, to bring this back to radiation, where I think

> the "experts" need to be 

> more engaged is in explaining the limitations of

> using the LNT to establish 

> standards.  The LNT in the hands of scientists who

> have the appropriate 

> education and experience to understand the

> limitations and drawbacks of the model, and 

> recognize it is simply an assumption, and not

> necessarily conservative, can 

> result in reasonably sane regulation, with lots and

> lots of room for argument.  

> The LNT represented as "scientific fact," and placed

> in the hands of 

> politicians can result in utter insanity.  We might

> as well rely on our President's 

> astrological birth chart to determine when to make

> war.

> 

> Simply put, the fact is that sound science does not

> support the use of the 

> LNT as a valid risk assessment tool to the extent

> necessary to support 

> unrestrained risk management (political) decisions. 

> I think the professionals have not 

> done a good enough job of explaining this, and I

> include myself in this 

> failure.

> 

> As a society we have not yet formally determined any

> boundaries (even fuzzy 

> ones) for what constitutes the reality upon which we

> base our laws, regulations 

> and every day interactions.  We must have some,

> because if my assertion that 

> 2 + 2 = 5 is as valid as another's that 2 + 2 = 4,

> then my bank owes me quite 

> a bit of money, and it will come at everyone else's

> expense.  My personal 

> perceptions cannot dictate reality for everyone

> else.  We must agree upon some 

> normalized definition of reality, and build our

> society from there.  Scientists 

> should be at the forefront of this effort.

> 

> Barbara L. Hamrick

> 





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/