Re[3]: linear hypothesis

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Sandy Perle writes:

>      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 

That's not correct. As noted by Nobel Laureate Dr. Rosalyn Yalow, Prof Sohei
Kondo, and very many others, the public distrusts us because we tell them all
radiation is hazardous and then try to rationalize why they should let us
expose them to it (without even really telling them the benefits, except then
for a totally inconsistent and almost totally uncontrolled process for medical 
exposures; nor do we explain the horrendous costs we are sticking to them for
this protection!?) 

These reports are specific efforts to mislead the public about rad risks which 
has been a government process since at least the FDA response to Eben Byers'
death in 1932. 

And I see no intent to just "reject" the reports. The effort required is to
get involved and hold them accountable to standards both in science which is
severely abused, and integrity which is in the explicit suppression of data,
programs, and careers of people who would produce factual evidence, with a
commitment to "rad protection" to the exclusion of considering research on
radiation and health. 

(Don't you think there would be some interest in Don Luckey's work with his
massive credentials from his life in biochemistry, nutrition, heavy metal
toxicity, "Minimum Daily Requirements" of metals, ie, why do you get zinc, etc 
in your vitamin pills, space nutrition, etc, while all the gov't rad "science" 
establishment is committed only try to destroy him personally and maintain a
fiction of "craziness" rather than address (and refute) the science or the
data. 

And other great scientists are similarly treated with disdain with NO effort
to assess the merits of their data and analysis, including HPS in many cases.
It tells you something about the house of cards that rad protection policy,
and committed self-interest at the expense of the national welfare, is built
on; and we don't need to be part of that if we care about the integrity of the 
science and our personal integrity).  

>      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 

You seem to ignore that "public opinion" is formed by rational judgement from
accepted information. If the info is "faulty" don't blame the public about its 
opinion;  AND many in the public know instinctively the truth of this
condition, as evidenced by the largely non-response to the EPAs radon hysteria 
-- which is contrary to all scientific evidence.) 

>      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! 

You are defending spending >>$-trillion ($10s-billions/year; maybe
>$100-billion/yr world-wide, while people in some of these countries go
without food and basic health care) as "going overboard" with no qualm about
the morality of that action?  And there are NOT "some scientific flaws in our
basis"  :-) 

>      But to reject all that has been accomplished and say there is NO RISK 
>      is a very large stretch of the imagination.

No. It's a very large stretch of scientific knowledge (which Norm Frigerio
noted was being excised from formal training in the '60s/'70s); and a very
large stretch in taking responsibility for the costs and impacts (including
the loss of public health and welfare benefits from limiting radiation and
nuclear science and technology contributions to humanity; 400,000 abortions in 
Europe after Chernobyl from trivial exposures, see Kondo; etc.)  

>      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.

Agreed. The data makes that clear. That's why Al proposes 5 rem/yr.
      
>      Conclusion: if we are to reject sound scientific dogma, even with the 

Instead: let's reject unsound unscientific dogma  :-)

>      many unknowns at low doses, then we do not need a health physicist 

The "unknowns" are not large, but exist primarily because the gov't agencies
terminated programs and suppressed actual data, misrepresent data, and prevent 
the collection and/or analysis of data that would add to our knowledge of
actual health effects. Don't believe me, read HPJ and HPS Newsletter for the
last 25 years with hundreds of cases, from major contibutors to the science,
with high integrity, AND, in a position to know the data and the
decision/control process (and you would hear from thousands who were there if
they were encouraged rather than threatened to bring their personal experience 
to light -- talk to them in the hallways sometime). 

>      profession anymore. Why? Because there have been very few exposures 
>      documented above the 5 rem/yr.

That's why we need HP!  and especially to take on the role of making it a
profession making professional judgements based on a body of knowledge, not
just a mechanism to measure everything and demand everything that can reduce
exposure no matter the cost! 
      
>      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. 

You will be a more credible contributor to the management of your organization 
and industry when you can specify "at what cost" and for what justification,
based on actual credible scientific work. 

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

I'd like to hope so, but can feel fairly sure you are not.  :-)
      
>      Sandy Perle

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com