Re: Article on Contaminated NIH Researcher

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

I would like some RADSAFE comment on the distinction between "belief"
and "assumption." It seems to me that the antis and the public,
therefore, believe that a little radiation will kill you. They don't
make any distinction between the assumption made for purposes of
radiation standards setting and their belief. To me, the assumption has
lead to the belief, not only by the public, but by otherwise good health
physicists. So, I agree that we must make a clear distinction between
these two concepts. My problem is that assumptions can be rather easily
let go while beliefs tend to be strongly held. How do we get rid of the
belief while accepting the assumption?? Or should we get rid of both? Al
Tschaeche xat@inel.gov

*** Reply to note of 02/26/96 08:44

From: Mike McNaughton
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: Article on Contaminated NIH Researcher
> An associate professor of radiation health sciences at Johns Hopkins
>School of Public Health is quoted as saying, "We assume that no dose, no
>matter how small, is safe.  And for something like childhood leukemia, we
>assume that there is a risk, no matter what the dose." (Apparently a firm
>believer in the linear, no threshold model.)

I think that the above quotation is a statement of "assumption", not
"belief".  I think if we are going to make progress on issues such as this,
we should make an effort to be scrupulously fair ourselves.  I, also, make
"assumptions" in order to teach ALARA, but I separate these from "beliefs".
To be even more scrupulously fair, a non-linear model without threshold
would lead to the same assumptions.

mcnaught@LANL.GOV