Re: Reply to: Observed biological effects vs regs

[gu9@cosmail1.ctd.ornl.gov (Robert J. Gunter)]

At 12:29 PM 11/28/95 -0600, you wrote:
>     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. 

A conclusion has been reached.

>     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 

As professionals we are called upon to define reasonable and not replace it
with hypothetical or imaginable. 

>     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 ... 

This would indicate that either further study is needed, or the problem
cannot be solved using available data and techniques and should be ignored
until something better comes along.  The only question is, who will be
looking for it?

>     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 

Dose is dose.  You can argue about tissue sensitivity or LET and hits (Q and
wt supposedly accounts for these differences) but I don't think that a cell
takes into acount where the incident radiation originated before displaying
an effect.

>     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.
>     

Most of what I've read in this forum is not necessarily calling for a
relaxing of regulations, rather, allowing them to be followed as written.
The occupational dose limit is 5 rem CEDE per year in the US, but we are
asked to spend huge sums of money to make sure that radiation workers don't
receive 0.5 rem.  The concept of ALARA has lost it's R.  

If we are worried solely about perception, we should hire the pro's on
Madison Ave. to manipulate public opinion.  

As professionals, we should strive to be purveyors of reality.  Instead of
saying that nothing is known about the risk associated with low doses, maybe
a better statement would be that the risk is so small that it cannot be
measured against the background from nonradiation related events.  I think
it is safe to say that we know quite a bit about low doses of radiation.

>     
>     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
>
>
>

Rob Gunter

The opinons expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.
Robert J. Gunter
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008 
Bldg: 105MIT Mail Stop 6494
Oak Ridge, TN 37871-6494
PH:  (615) 576-6317
FAX: (615) 576-8593
email: gu9@cosmail1.ctd.ornl.gov