LNT and the Regulations

[BFLOOD@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

When a new chemical is developed, and hundreds are created every working
day, the potential for workplace harm from the new chemical is unknown. Some
characteristics can be estimated or inferred from related data, and
protection requirements for those using the new chemical have to be set
without meaningful experience with that new chemical. Later in the life of
that chemical, tolerance levels may be raised or lowered based on real-world
data.

Radiation is regulated as if we are dealing with a newly discovered
phenomenon, appropriate for the 1890's, but we have a century of real world
experience with this hazard. Studies have been conducted all over the
planet, some large, some small, some predestined to find harm, some to find
none, most without bias. When the data are summed, there is no conclusive
evidence of harm from low (legally permissible) doses, and there is no
evidence of the absence of harm. The simple fact is that the medical effects
(if any) of legally permited doses are lost in the abundance of those same
medical effects arising from natural causes or other occupational hazards.
If you make some simplifying assumptions about epidemiological studies and
the confidence level you would like to see in the results, you can estimate
the number of subjects needed for a definitive study. The populations
(control and test) required are impossibly large. That study isn't going to
be conducted in our lifetime!

So we are left with the problem that we can't prove it causes harm and we
can't prove it doesn't. Well, we live in a world of finite resources, with
governments and businesses with finite resources. My question to the
community is this: can we justify continuing to pour large (enormous)
amounts of money into reducing doses to levels below those established by
regulations that are based on thoroughly conservative models when other
protection activities for other hazards go begging for money?

I recall a gentleman from Canada named Robert Wilson (Ontario Hydro) who
bemoaned his company's expediture of resources - millions for radiation
protection where he couldn't show that anyone had yet been harmed, and
hundreds of thousands for lineman safety programs, where several had been
killed each year for several years. He made point most effectively: it's not
that we can or cannot prove the harm, but whether other activities that are
demonstratably more harmful are not receiving appropriate attention because
of the fear of radiation effects we cannot be sure exist.
Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu