Re: e-mail addresses, JCAHO, and the Tr

[John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

Dear Radsafers:
	I get a bit uncomfortable when scientists get involved in 
what public funds should not be expended for; its not that they do not
have a stake in some positive decision.  What bothers me a bit is 
the energy they put into saying that putting money into collecting 
relevant data on real populations is "wasted". 
	Let us take a for instance: the effects of exposure of populations
of residents near the Chernobyl reactor, and particularly the estimated
800,000 persons sent to try to control and clean up the mess caused by
the fire and explosion.  Is it wasted effort to try to follow-up these
populations, to try to identify biological indicators of exposure ?  I
have been involved in the relatively small fraction of these people who
have immigrated to Israel, and I can tell you that the possible health 
consequences of their experiences, including the psycho-social impact is 
of great importance to them.  The costs to some of the governments in 
compensation and in relocation and in disruption of agriculture and 
forestry is bringing these countries to the brink of insolvency.  Yet the 
resources devoted to the efffective epidemiological study of these 
populations are miniscule by comparison.  

	This might not be so discouraging if one could be
persuaded that no more Chernobyl's will occur, but that leap of faith 
doesn't quite come off.  At the same time, we do have a chance to add
to our scant knowledge of health reactions from "low level"  exposures and
to even define some of the biological reactions at the cellular, organ, 
person, and population levels.  "Those who do not learn from history...." 
	If "safe" as used in radsafe means what it usually does, then 
people need to know that their real biological risks are kept low as well
as  those for their families,  and that their anxieties about the events
they have experienced are taken seriously and rationalized by valid 
information.  This requires more input from epidemiological analyses than 
is usual in the regulations and in radiation risk assessment.
              John Goldsmith, Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences
                 Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva Israel