Re: linear hypothesis

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

And that's the whole point. Radiation protection standards are not
"scientific." They never have been. The ICRP and NCRP have taken the
most conservative hypothesis possible consistent with using radiation
and radioactive material at all. There never has been public debate on
whether such an idea had, or currently has, merit. All I want to do is
create reasonable debate. We have had the linear hypothesis forced down
our throats for more than 50 years. The time has come to question
whether the hypothesis is appropriate in this day and age recognizing
what has happened to public opinion about the danger of radiation and
the consequent gradual, programed demise of the nuclear option. If we
are to loose employment for 4 million in the nuclear industry and an
annual contribution to the gross domestic product of some 350 billion
dollars, there better be measurable compensatory benefit. Scientists
HAVE DICTATED results. They have DICTATED radiation protection standards
for more than 50 years. And the standards they dictated have been
corrupted in the public mind. Now, either the scientists should fix the
corruption or we need different standards. I don't see the scientists
fixing anything. All they do is make things more complex without ANY
measurable increase in safety. I don't know that 300 rem spread over a
lifetime will, for sure, cause cancer or anything else. Maybe the Techa
river data will tell us something. Maybe the Chernobyl data, if it is
any good, will tell us something. But, until we know radiation at such
levels over those time frames is, in fact, harmful, I think it is
unethical and immoral to frighten members of the public into thinking a
little radiation, no matter how small can and will hurt you. It is even
worse for knowledgable individuals to let that idea remain loose in the
world. If scientists, regulators and other knowledgable people would, in
a concerted manner, work to eliminate the corruption of the idea that a
little radiation MAY cause harm into a little radiation WILL cause harm,
I might be more charitable toward the hypothesis. At this point I don't
know what else to do except excise the hypothesis.

*** Reply to note of 10/16/95 15:34

From: David Scherer
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: linear hypothesis
>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