Re[3]: linear hypothesis

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

I started this string to get dialog going among those who are "on"
RADSAFE. So far the dialog has been exceptionally useful. I trust it
will continue. All of us have seen everything (except for some messages
between two parties that, for whatever reason, were not sent to
RADSAFE). The idea that public opinion is a "major factor" with respect
to promulgation of laws and acceptable practices, clearly has merit.
However,if public opinion is "wrong" as it is i n the case of fear of
radiation, it is up to the experts to correct it. As long as the experts
are silent, public opinion will continue to be "wrong." If the experts
continue to espouse an idea that has been corrupted, as the linear
hypothesis has been by the anti-nukes, then we will be stuck. If we
won't educate the public so we can get "unstuck" (as it appears we
won"t), then we must do something else. The "something else" I propose
is just one possible way to get us "unstuck." If someone else has a
better idea (as some may have who have participated in this dialog),
they should present it. If people are satisfied with the status quo,
then there is nothing to be done. However, I sense that there are a lot
of unsatisfied people out there, not the least of which is the public
who are tired of the government spending huge sums of their tax money.
If we can do something to help the public understand that it's
insistance on the EPA, DOE, NRC, ETC. spending billions to reduce public
dose when there is no data to show either that the public will, in fact,
be harmed at higher doses, or that there is a measurable net benefit
from spending all that money, then we should do that. I don't think it
is any stretch of imagination to say: "There is NO RISK at 5 rem per
year for everyone." It's just the other side of the coin from saying
THERE IS RISK at 5 rem per year. The ICRP and NCRP tell the truth when
they say: "We DON'T KNOW if there is any risk at 5 rem per year." The
problem is, scientists have a great deal of trouble saying: "I don't
know." So the ICRP and NCRP made an assumption. You know what happens
when you make assume something? You make an ASS of U and ME. :-) The
corruption of the assumption into: "A little radiation WILL KILL me" is
the problem. If others have ideas on how to combat the corruption and
the concomitant government insistance on ALARA at ridiculously low doses
(less than 15 mrem per year), I'd like to hear of them.

But, to sit still and do nothing at this point when money is very tight
(Wouldn't you like to have your taxes reduced by $1000 per year?), seems
to me to be irresponsible if not downright immoral and unethical. So, I
make the suggesions I do with the intention of developing a national
position that most of us can agree on. Of course, not everyone will
agree. But, in this country, the majority rules (ha ha), or so I've been
taught. So, if we can get even the majority of knowledgeable people to
agree, we might have a chance of changing things.

However, if the knowledgeable people only argue, or find ways why an
idea won't work, instead of finding what does work, we will never assist
the public in the way that I think knowledgable people should. So --
what is your idea to stop spending the billions we do for no measurable
benefit?

*** Reply to note of 10/18/95 09:39
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re[3]: linear hypothesis
     I guess that this debate will just continue. The philosophy that
     nothing should be done if the expected dose will not exceed 5 rem/yr.
     is the same philosophy that has caused the nuclear industry to be in a
     continual defensive posture. It is the same philosophy that has caused
     the public to distrust health physicists, government and the science
     community in general. To reject NCRP, ICRP and all of the BEIR reports
     is just plain naive. If we, as health physicists, don't recognize that
     public opinion is a major factor with respect to promulgation of laws
     and acceptable practices, then we are surely a doomed industry and
     profession. Public opinion carries over to litigation and increased
     litigation, with verdicts that have the potential to be negative to
     our way of life, will cause us to seek new ways to mitigate the
     damage. The public will not accept an industry going backwards,
     rejecting "normal business practices" in the name of science, the same
     science that has gotten us to the point where we are today. Do we go
     overboard, YES! Do we have some scientific flaws in our basis, YES!
     But to reject all that has been accomplished and say there is NO RISK
     is a very large stretch of the imagination.

     Why not go back to the post 1968 Public Laws which defined radiation
     control, or should I say lack of control. No restrictions, continued
     bomb testing. Don't worry about atmospheric releases, for the
     exposures to the general public at large are below the 5 rem/yr. If we
     are to say that occupational workers are not at risk from exposures <
     5 rem.yr., then the public is not at risk either.

     Conclusion: if we are to reject sound scientific dogma, even with the
     many unknowns at low doses, then we do not need a health physicist
     profession anymore. Why? Because there have been very few exposures
     documented above the 5 rem/yr.

     In 1993, from NRC data for exposures above 5 rem. only 2 individuals
     exceeded 5 rem and were less than 6 rem (industrial radiography). This
     is out of 209,386 workers. In the commercial power reactors, only 3
     workers exceeded 3 rem and < 5 rem, out of 189,537 workers. This was
     accomplished via ALARA. It works, we should not reject the concept.

     Am I the only person who feels this way? I surely hope not.



     Sandy Perle
     Supervisor Health Physics
     Florida Power and Light Company
     Nuclear Division

     (407) 694-4219 Office
     (407) 694-3706 Fax

     sandy_perle@email.fpl.com


______________________________ Reply Separator ________________________________
_
Right on!!!! If the dose is not above 5 rem per year, there would be no
resources expended to make the dose lower. Only if the dose were
projected to be above 5 rem per year would any resources be spent to see
if it could be lowered to slightly below 5 rem (say 4.999999?).

Yes, we are to say: "... it doesn't matter whether or not an individual
should be allowed to reach the 5 rem/yr. without any intervention,
without any planning, without any goals or targets, without any
trending, without using engineering techniques to reduce exposure,
without utilizing a varied work forced to spread exposure to lower
levels when appropriate, without additional training, pre-job and
post-job briefings." All those things take resources. If there is no
observable effect at 5 rem per year, why spend resources to reduce the
dose below that value?

Please tell me the measurable health benefit from all the resources the
nuclear power industry spent over the years to reach the numbers you
quoted. Are we observably safer having spent those resources than not
having spent them? And don't tell me the doses are lower. What I want is
a measurement of real human health effects improvement for all those
resources expended.

In the airline industry there is a very measurable result in terms of
deaths for all the resources the country spends in airline safety. The
same is true for many other industries. What is the measure for the
nuclear power industry? Again, don't tell me dose. That is not a measure
of harm at low doses such as 5 rem. It is not a measure because we don't
know, on the basis of objective evidence what harm 5 rem per year will
do. However, if you do have a measure, I sure would like to know what it
is.