Re: linear hypothesis

[scherer@uiuc.edu (David Scherer)]

>According to the scuttlebutt that existed at the time BRC was "shot
>down", it was because the NRCD absolutely refused to discuss the matter
>with the NRC. So the NRC backed down. It was not Congress or the public
>that shot it. It was NRDC. If anyone out there knows the real story, if
>it differs from this, pleaselet us know. I don't think the NRDC position
>has changed any, but maybe the new Commissioners would have a different
>point of view that would let them ignore the NRDC.
>
Today's thread illustrates my concern with the current discussions on
linearity.  It appears that the attempts to "discredit" the linear model are
driven by a desire to change public policy rather than scientific inquiry.
Even if the ANS, HPS, and NCRP were to claim that the linear model
overstates the actual risk, the NDRC and like-minded groups would not be
swayed.  They will claim that HPS and ANS are industry lap dogs.  As
previous posts stated, it seems very unlikely that there will ever be a
direct, empirical test of the model.  Those who argue that it patently false
overstate the case (as do those who claim it is clearly true.)  The middle
ground that Dr. Goldman espouses seems to contain the more credible message,
even if more difficult.

Al has suggested a limit of 5 rem/y for members of the public.  Over the
course of only 60 y, this could amount to 300 rem with plenty of time (20 y)
for expression of radiogenic cancers.   Even allowing a factor of 3 for dose
rate effects, I believe there is clear evidence for carcinogenesis at the
100 rem level.  While this is not a "proof" of harm, this kind of concern
should be included in policy formulation.  On this basis, it seems that  the
standards should be adjusted by less than an order of magnitude.

BTW, the NRC should _not_ ignore the NRDC.  Many people agree with their
message and values.   In forming public policy, science is only one of the
pertainent concerns.  Many kinds of social values also enter the picture.
Scientists should contribute to the discussion, but cannot dictate the
results.   An oligarchy we agree with is no better than one we disagree
with.  OK, they would be marginally better.

Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu