Re: linear hypothesis

["Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>]

As I recall from my statistics classes , one really cannot prove the null 
hypothesis.  But I agree with Marv Goldman re a practical solution, 
which, incidently, was the conclusion I reached in my Hartman talk at the 
HPS/AAPM/AAHP which traced the evolution and development of the linear 
no-threshold hypothesis.  Often forgotten is why is was adopted:  it 
provided an UPPER LIMIT of risk, and was (and still is) mathematically 
simple and satisfying.

Ron Kathren
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Alex Zapantis wrote:

> >
> >And that's the whole point. Radiation protection standards are not
> >"scientific." They never have been. 
> 
> 
> How do you define scientific? If you mean based on actual experimental
> results which are exactly analogous to the situation (ie low doses & dose
> rates) in question then you are correct. If you mean based on extrapolation
> of data which is not exactly analogous (ie high doses, dose rates) then I
> think your statement is a bit harsh.
> 
> Unfortunately, as implied in my previous posting, proving or disproving the
> linear no threshold model at low doses is near to impossible. However, the
> linear model is well established at higher doses, and in the absence of
> credible contradictory evidence, I believe that extrapolation of this data
> to low doses is defendable AND scientific. 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> Debate on the model should be constrained to appropriately trained
> scientists with access to the best available data, not the general public.
> Perhaps I am naive but I consider the ICRP, NCRP, IRPA etc to fit that
> description.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> What does public opinion have to do with testing a scientific hypothesis? It
> is OUR responsibility to educate the public and to communicate the merits
> and shortcomings of the model. If we allow the results of scientific
> endeavour to be influenced by public opinion we are merely politicians.
> 
> 
> 
>  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. 
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with the economics of the nuke industry up there and if
> your figures are correct it is a social tragedy. However, once again, it
> should not influence the model itself. Rather, more reasonable regulatory
> requirements (assuming current requirements are unreasonable) based on the
> model and socially acceptable risk should be implemented. Lets face it,
> based on the model, the risks associated with micro Sv doses are negligible
> and regulatory requirements should reflect this. I'm pleased to say that
> here in Queensland Australia, for the most part, they do.
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Scientists do not dictate anything. Scientists present hypotheses based on
> data. Advisory bodies make general recommendations based on those models and
> regulatory agencies dictate what thou shalt do based on those recommendations.
> 
> If the standards have been corrupted in the public mind, this is not a
> failing of the model, rather it is a reflection of the general radiophobia
> exhibited by the public due to poor comunication between the scientists and
> the public or the "headlines" philosophy of the popular media. I strongly
> disaggree with the suggestion that new standards should be introduced
> because the public has a tainted view of the existing ones.
> 
> 
> I don't know that 300 rem spread over a
> >lifetime will, for sure, cause cancer or anything else.
> 
> Either does anyone else. Its a numbers game - probability according to the
> model.
> 
> 
>  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.
> 
> 
> We do not seek to frighten the public. We seek to educate the public. If
> anyone is telling the public that a little radiation "can and WILL hurt you"
> that person is acting irresponsibly.
> 
> 
>  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.
> 
> 
> How can you base your rejection of any hypothesis on the warped
> understanding of it which the public may or may not have? If your rejection
> was based on studies, data, or even your personal experience, I could
> understand that.  If someone showed me a series of credible studies which
> shot the linear model down in flames, I would drop it faster than a hot rock.  
> 
> Please don't mistake me for one of the "good old boys" who is forever loyal
> to the linear model no matter what. (I'm much to young for that) I use and
> teach the model, including its shortfalls, because it is the current
> generally accepted hypothesis.
> 
> PS, its good to see a bit of full on debate on Radsafe!
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                         Alex Zapantis
>                         Radiation Safety Officer                               
>                         Queensland University of Technology          
>                         Health & Safety Section                             
>                         Locked Bag No.2
>                         Red Hill Qld 4059
>                         AUSTRALIA
> 
>                         Ph     : 61 7 864 3566
>                         fax     : 61 7 864 3993
>                         email  : a.zapantis@qut.edu.au
> 
> 
>