Re: linear hypothesis

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

Al --

Did you really mean 5 rem (50 mSv) to be the BRC value?  Isn't 5 mrem 
(0.05 mSv) per year more what you had in mind?

Ron
On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, ALDEN N TSCHAECHE wrote:

> 
> Thanks for your 5 points. Yes, the linear hypothesis is used for other
> potentially harmful agents, particularly chemicals, by the EPA
> especially. However, ALARA is not. Just wait until EPA mandates ALARA
> for chemicals. One can't "prove" safety if the background is too high.
> Most chemicals don't have a natural background so it is easier to
> "prove" safety than for radiation where the background gets in the way.
> 
> Yes, the debate is about ALARA at BRC doses. I'm suggesting 5 rem per
> year is the BRC dose. Use ALARA ABOVE that value, not below. Then study
> prospectively those whose doses exceed the BRC value to see if there are
> any harmful effects.
> 
> The linear hypothesis is NOT scientific interpretation to my mind. It is
> only that, an hypothesis, undemonstrated and with some evidence that it
> is not valid. I was always taught that, when just one piece of data did
> not fit a particular hypothesis (or theory), that one piece of data is
> enough to disprove the hypothesis and the hypothesis should be revised
> or discarded. Is not what others were taught?
> 
>  The Eagle Alliance was formed to do exactly what you are suggesting,
> tell the public about the benefits of the nuclear industry, among other
> things. Have you read the Declaration of Interdependence? Ask the ANS
> for a copy. By-the-by, does anyone know what the Eagle Alliance is doing
> these days. I haven't seen anything about it since the Summer, 95 ANS
> meeting.
> 
> You're right. It is up to us to show the public the benefits of the
> nuclear industry. What would you be willing to do to do that? Al.
> 
> *** Reply to note of 10/17/95 11:47
> 
> From: David Scherer
> To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE
> 
> Subject: Re: linear hypothesis
> I think a few points are in order in this discussion.
> 
> (1) The linear hypothesis applies to stochastic risks.  Drug overdoses are
> presumably nonstochastic.  I believe that a linear, non-threshold model is
> used for Pb exposure as the basis of the current drinking water standards,
> so it isn't only radiation.
> 
> (2)  Public health rules almost never wait for a potential hazard to be
> proven before they are controlled.  When drugs or medical devices are
> developed, they must be proven to be safe, not the other way around.  The
> onus is not on proving radiation risks.
> 
> (3)  The linear hypothesis simply says that risks are observed to be linear
> at high doses, so they should be presumed to be linear at low doses.  A
> simple statement of the state of knowledge and uncertainity.  It seems to me
> that the main rub is not this principle, but its societal application, the
> ALARA principle.  The debate should be this: How do we apply the ALARA
> principle at very low doses?  I think BRC is a sensible approach, somewhere
> in the 10s of mrem/y range.
> 
> (4)  I don't think we should play with scientific interpretation to achieve
> changes in ALARA.  Ultimately this approach is likely to be
> counterproductive, especially if the radiation biologists do not sign on.
> Credibility is our only stock in trade.  Environmental groups have it while
> industry does not.  Let's not make matters worse.
> 
> (5)  The public does not always demand absolute safety, especially when they
> perceive some benefit from the risk.  In the lower 50, we no longer have a
> national 55 mph (88 km/h) speed limit, even though the death rate is
> expected to rise.  It is our job to show the public and their leaders how
> they benefit from radiation sources, and what the efffects of excessive
> regulation are.
> 
> Dave Scherer
> scherer@uiuc.edu
> 
>