Re: linear hypothesis

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Marvin Goldman writes: 
 
> For what it is worth, the HPS is indeed in the final stages of a position
> statement on Linear-No-Threshold Model.

That's very encouraging and hopeful. I think some of the lack of understanding 
of many HPs about the fact that the "linear model" is scientifically invalid
(or "has been refuted") would be dispelled if sources such as Wade Patterson's 
case which presents studies that conclusively demonstrate that the "theory" is 
false and unsupportable were made available (not necessarily the position
draft). The HPS membership should better understand what the SPI is working
with and toward. 

> It is one thing to have a model and another to have validated it under all
> conditions.  While it may be conservative for purposes of radiation
> protection, it is not necessarily the complete summary of the scientific
> facts.  For risk assessment one may wish to use a more realistic approach,
> but to set regulations to abate a microsievert of dose requires some cost
> justification based on harm averted.  One may never be able to answer this
> epidemiologically, and we may be spinning our wheels to try to replace it
> with a threshold or hormesis model.
> 
> What may be best for the interim, is an insistence of associated benefit
> for such costs.  Where the costs do not make sense, perhaps the "linear
> risk" will just be acceptable as perhaps an estimate of the upper bound of
> the risk, since it is calculable but not measurable.  

I suppose it's ok to have a "linear risk" where it does not cost anything, but 
it's only important when it leads to costs; but using it where reporting risk
that does not influence costs would serve to add confusion.  

>What we don't need at
> the ANS, etc., is another screaming session where no one listens and we
> just preach to the choir.

We must have attended different meetings. There is little "choir" at the ANS,
and no "screaming" (unless you have some specific semantic allusion in mind
that I'm missing).  

In general, ANS Members are much less informed about the "linear model"
science and data, and the background to the "linear model" debate than the HPS 
Members.  (ANS didn't have Marshall Brucer! and Don Luckey articles, and other 
voluminous material from the HPJ and HPS Newsletter, even from Robley Evans
and many others!) They didn't really know that a debate between Upton and
Gofman is like a debate on forming a government, but only between Stalin and
Trotsky!? :-)  

ANS may now have a few hundred people who at least have some idea of the
debate about the linear model!  (Hardly a "choirs-worth"  :-) 

We have seen now also Jefferson and Madison, and Hamilton and Jay (and even
some of their debate, though perhaps some may see even a little Lyndon
LaRouche or George McGovern :-)  

Some may even begin to realize that BEIR and NCRP results are not from a
"scientific debate". The great scientists have broken their lances for the
last 25 years on this fiction, with the substantive science of Robley Evans
and Norm Frigerio and many others ignored and dismissed in favor of
preordained conclusions to support government-defined policies, and the
substantial individuals who worked from the inside without putting the system
to the test through publication (eg, Lauriston Taylor and Harald Rossi) who
state equivalent conclusions in their frustrations (or will if you ask them
privately). 

> It may be that society is ready for some cool discussion of relative risks,
> which are in less of a vacuum.  I don't mean to reinvent the wheel, just to
> perhaps try to keep it in perspective.  Regardless of the "model", most of
> these "micro" doses can probalby be considered of no social or medical
> importance as long as they are recognized for what they are and not denied.
> Am I dreaming about an age of reason?

I don't think so. "In perspective" and "relative risks" for the public to me
is a prescription for failure. 

The public fears radiation (along with other fictional risks for which they
spend $-billions unnecessarily because they are rational: because, as Roz
Yalow wrote strenuoously, and Sohei Kondo points out, and many others have
noted, those of us who are responsible for rad protection and nuclear safety
don't tell the truth about the lack of risk, even when we believe it:  we hit
every trivial incident with massive resources which belie our statements even
when we do try to put some factual statement out, usually too little too
late), generating 400,000 abortions in Western Europe from Chernobyl the
direct result, and perhaps the seeming anguish of Dr. Ma at NIH, each the
direct responsibility of those who have promulated this fiction. 

I believe we will recover only with an expurgation of the 30 years from the
legacy of KZ Morgan using radiation for public fear in Congress to defend the
Oak Ridge program budget and authority, combined with the contribution of the
extensive research establishment interests in rad protection health effects
research funding (which were significant bricks in the attack and
post-Watergate success in terminating the AEC and JCAE!) 

This certainly isn't limited to radiation. It's government standard op
procedure. 

Here however, since government really was the primary "owner" of the rad
research funds and direction/control, without an industry counterpart as with
chemicals and some other interests that challenge the science and the
politics, with radiation is was not challenged. There were no industry
interests here.  Utilities just put costs in the rate base, the were
unaffected economically unlike the chemical industry (or the tobacco industry? 
 :-)  Hospitals/doctors just sent the bills to the insurance companies, etc,
etc, except for a very few under-funded private companies. 

> Marvin Goldman

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

I look forward to seeing you in SF  :-)   Since you plan to travel just for
the day on Wed, do I understand that you will not be able to join us at the
Pollycove Rad Centennial Dinner/Lecture Tue evening?