Re: Reply to: Observed biological effects vs regs

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     Workers in nuclear facilities, be it commercial power, national labs, 
     medical as well as industrial facilities, do come down with cancers 
     and other illnesses which can be attributable to radiation exposure. 
     It is also true that members of the general public who do not work in 
     these types of facilities also come down with these same type of 
     illnesses. The trouble is, how does one prove, verify or validate that 
     the actual cause of the illness was due to exposure to radiation? I 
     hypothesize that it can't be done. Does anyone really think that they 
     know, beyond a reasonable doubt, how many people have ever died due to 
     their exposure to radiation, or that those who did die, the death had 
     no relationship to the fact that they were exposed? I again say that 
     the answer is most likely, no. Therefore, how does one determine the 
     causal relationship, whether it be strong or convincingly? I don't 
     have an answer to any of these questions. 
     
     I agree with many that we have had enough studies, and for every one 
     that shows a positive correlation to whatever it is the author is 
     trying to prove, there is another study with the exact opposite 
     conclusion. No wonder we, the scientific community are confused ... 
     what about the poor public at large! Yes, time to reevaluate our basis 
     for radiation protection. But to go from the far right to the far 
     left, or the other way around, seems to me to be a little 
     over-reactive. It is obvious that there are many individuals who post 
     here who are more knowledgeable than I am on this "philosophy" ... All 
     I can do is look at it from an operational aspect, and how we have to 
     deal with "real" radiation workers every day. They don't want to hear 
     about linear threshold theory, that radiation is safe, that the 
     government knows what they are regulating, that supervisors are being 
     honest with them, that when we say that they work in a safe workplace, 
     that they really are. They don't buy it for the most part. AND, a lot 
     of this started when the recent Part 20 was revised. Previously they 
     were taught, as was I, many years ago, that internal radiation is bad 
     for you. NOW, we account for the total effective dose, so, all you 
     workers out there, don't worry about the internal anymore, and in 
     addition to that, we'll not put you in a respirator, knowing upfront 
     that you WILL receive an internal exposure, but not to worry, for we 
     have performed a TEDE ALARA Evaluation, and according to statistics, 
     you'll work longer and receive an overall lower dose. You think 
     workers believe it when the regulations are relaxed???  Don't kid 
     yourself. The real problem is not WHAT is true but rather what is 
     PERCEIVED as being true. Unless you can absolutely convince the 
     workforce, as well as the public, scientific community and the 
     legislators, NOTHING is going to change.
     
     
     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
     
     HomePage: http://www.lookup.com/homepages/54398/home.html


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Reply to: Observed biological effects vs regs
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet-Mail
Date:    11/28/95 11:33 AM



 ....Ed makes the statement: "We therefore use the linear model until we have
STRONG evidence to support a better one." To me the real question now
is: "What evidence must we have that is defined as STRONG?" Or, in the
words of Charlie Meinhold - "convincing?" An even better question is:
"Why do we need either STRONG or "convincing" evidence that the linear
model is wrong?" Why not put the shoe on the other foot and demand that,
now that we have 50-60 years' experience that demonstrates no harm from
low level radiation, let the radiation protection standards be based on a
specific annual limit such as 5 rem until such time, if any, that
demonstrated harm at that limit is shown, STRONGLY and "convincingly?" ....