Re: More on Radiation effec

[Leo Bobek <bobek@WPI.EDU>]

Friends:

One of the first lessons I learned several years ago in the Radiological 
Sciences and Protection Program at the University of Lowell (now UMass 
Lowell) is that scientists disagree on the effects of radiation.  

Obviously this is and will continue to be valid.  And while perhaps such 
a debate is better placed on the USENET, I'll add my $0.02 since we're 
already here.

On Mon, 13 Jun 1994, Jack Kay wrote:

> Jim should look at the recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine
> relationship between indoor radon and lung cancer.  I fail to see what
> "political" gain the Swedes have in publishing this work.

Being "political" by definition includes seeking power in governmental or 
public affairs.  You may also substitute "power in" with "funding from".  

Governmental agencies such as EPA have a dilemma, either they must admit 
their MCLs (max. contaminant levels) are to stringent at 1E-6 or that 
that the dangers of low levels of radiation are overly conservative.  
Both are "politically incorrect".  So, the government agency lowers the 
MCLs for radionuclides.  Witness: the proposed 300 pCi/L limit proposed by 
EPA for drinking water or a recent NRC Petition for Rulemaking requesting 
the NRC reduce the allowable exposure to public to less than 1 mrem (no 
kidding, FR Vol 59, No 72, p 17746).  Meanwhile, the government maintains it 
role as regulator and is happy, the scientists receive more funding for 
studies to resolve the controversy of low doses and are happy, technicians, 
engineers, and scientists are employed tracking and controlling the low doses 
and are happy.

The only problem in the this happy scenario is we continue to shoot our feet.
We have so convinced ourselves, the public, and government that low doses 
of radiation are a hazard that now its virtually impossible: to site a 
low-level or high-level waste repository, order a new nuclear power plant 
(let alone dismantle the shutdown ones), ........etc.  Even the use of 
RAM in biotech research has become such a hassle that researchers are 
increasingly switching to more expensive and less sensitive non-radioactive 
tracers.

Now, I maybe wrong.  Maybe we are doing the right thing by 
expensively monitoring and controlling the low doses.  This certainly 
is creating great opportunities for those of us associated with the nuclear 
industry, especially as we remediate the environment to return it to 
"background" levels and package and store the waste so that it is 
"guaranteed" not to re-enter the environment for 10,000 years.  In the mean 
time, I feel I should tell me students to find another major.  I'll make 
a donation to Greenpeace, start an environmental monitoring/remediation 
business, and hope the controversy continues.

Cynically Yours,

Leo M. Bobek
Director WPI Reactor
Worcester Polytechnic Institute