Low dose radiation, or ...

[ALEX MITCHELL <HOSPAM@wnmeds.ac.nz>]

A little bit of what you fancy does you good.


I am surprised to be continually informed via radsafe that 

small amounts of radiation are *probably* good for you.   

I know radiation hormesis is a very attractive theory for 

health physicists because it means that if we make a mistake 

nobody is harmed.   I was there once.   I even got a copy of 

the "Health Physics" issue devoted to radiation hormesis in 

humans.   I would suggest that those who are saying small 

amounts of radiation are *probably* good should read those 

papers.   In my opinion the most that can be said is that 

small doses may *possibly* be good for you.   And very few 

people are going to run even a theoretical risk of cancer 

on the strength of evidence like that.


Radiation hormesis is proven for simple systems like plants,  

but when international agencies like the ICRP say that the 

probability is that small doses do increase cancer & genetic 

risks in humans,  then you need strong evidence to the contrary 

to ignore that advice.


BTW,  with the inclusion of a dose & dose rate effectiveness 

factor (DDREF) of two in the ICRP risk factors (ICRP 60, 1990),  

it seems to me that they are no longer applying the LNT model 

as such.   This indicates that they are no longer either:


1.  persisting with a discredited risk model;  or

2.  taking a conservative position in the presence of conflicting data.


HP's will have to decide for themselves which of the above 

options applies.




Alex Mitchell

hospam@wnmeds.ac.nz