[ RadSafe ] BEIR VII Report

[John Jacobus]

Richard,
Thank you for your reply.  What I am trying to say is
the problem is that the misapplication of the LNT.  My
understanding is that LNT can be used to model
biological effects, e.g., cellular, to very low doses.
 However, it fails in modeling epidemiological data. 
I cannot argue with the issue of waste disposal, but I
am sure there are other materials besided asbestos and
radiation that exact a high cost.  In radiation
operations, we use supposed to exercise ALARA in
balancing cost vs. risk.  Because we can afford to, we
are spending more on protection and remediation than
we probably should.  However, if we can convince the
public that such risks are poorly demonstrated in
epidemiological studies, see
http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf,  I think
we will be better for it.

--- "Richard L. Hess" <lists at richardhess.com> wrote:

> 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 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
____________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Sports 
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football 
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com