[ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Report

[Richard L. Hess]

At 11:17 AM 7/2/2005, John Jacobus wrote:
>Maybe I not looking at this issue as you are.  I
>really do not consider the LNT to be the issue in
>developing safey regulations.  We argue that all human
>activity, e.g., driving cars, farming, mining coal,
>nuclear power production, etc., have some risk.  Thus,
>exposures to radiation should and does carry some risk
>and some benefits.  We intuitively accept risks or
>outright ignore many in our lives.  Do you calculate
>the risk of driving to work every day you get into
>your car. Has anyone considered the relationship
>between driving and death.  Does it follow an LNT
>curve?

John,

What it appears that LNT drives in respect to both radiation and 
asbestos is the "we must capture every one of these rogue 
atoms/fibers or people will be at risk."

Recently, on another list, someone castigated a manufacturer for not 
knowing whether or not a wear part in a 50-year-old product contained 
asbestos or not.

The list became divided between "I grew up surrounded by asbestos and 
am OK" and "my relative died a horrid death from mesothalimia and we 
can't let even one asbestos fiber escape."

While the latter is understandable, the societal cost of these 
regulations on many fronts is excessive. As I understand it, (and I'm 
not an HP professional), there are requirements to clean up man-made 
radiation well below background radiation.

Perhaps, if the money spent on over-cleanup was directed towards 
medical research, there would be a much greater benefit to all people.

It seems in these emotionally charged areas, as long as the 
individuals involved in calling for the cleanup aren't paying for it, 
they are demanding cleanup to unnecessarily stringent levels.

I _think_ that is the root cause of the concern of LNT being blindly 
applied. And, if it's the basis for regulation, it will, at some 
point, be blindly applied.

There may be a second root cause, and that is one of intellectual and 
scientific honesty: the models should actually match the effects 
they're supposed to model.

We wouldn't allow many of the activities you mention to be regulated 
to the degree that radiation and asbestos have become regulated 
because it would impinge too much on our freedoms to use/enjoy 
activities such as driving a car.

Cheers,

Richard