Re: LNT Debate -Reply

[LIPTONW@detroitedison.com]

--Boundary-2016022-0-0

Those health physicists who oppose more realistic dose limits because of a 
perceived decrease in the number of hp positions should try to keep in mind 
that a successful parasite doesn't kill its host.  The primary reason for the 
lack of health physics positions is that a policy of protecting against 
"potential" radiological hazards to a degree undreamed of when setting 
standards for protection against other hazards has made nuclear technology 
either too expensive or politically unacceptable.  There's a difference 
between protecting against "potential" hazards and protecting against 
imaginary hazards, and we seem to be doing the latter.  It just doesn't make 
sense to protect against a hypothetical risk which, even if real, could never 
be detected.  When radiation is considered just one of the many hazards we all 
face in life, then the full benefits of nuclear technology will begin to be 
seen, including the need for health physicists to assure that we receive these 
benefits without any unreasonable risk. 
 
"Here's to a risk free world, and other fantasies." 
 
Bill Lipton 
 
The opinions expressed are solely my own. 
 



--Boundary-2016022-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 24 Apr 1996 08:29:37                    Sent: 24 Apr 1996 07:24:49
From:"radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
To: Multiple,recipients,of,list,radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Subject:  LNT Debate -Reply
Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Errors-To:  melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Originator:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Precedence:  bulk
X-Orcl-Application: X-Listserver-Version:  6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Orcl-Application: X-Comment:   Radiation Safety Distribution List 


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The following was obtained from electronic newspaper here at Sandia.
Any Comments!


NRC medical fellow Dr. Myron Pollycove is sparking debate with his
contention  that exposure to low levels of radiation is not harmful, and is
pushing for a  complete overhaul of almost 50 years of policy on radiation
regulation.  Pollycove and other like-minded health physicists assert there
is no  experimental evidence for a linear, no-threshold dose-response
relationship for radiation induced cancer in the low-dose, low-dose-rate
region.


Jamie Mallon  jmallo@sandia.gov
505-844-8287

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I wonder when Dr. Pollycove became a health physicist.  Only a couple of
years ago he was a nuclear medicine physician.

It is probably true that as we collect more data, we will be able to determine
the actual shape of the dose response curve at low dose rates.  If the
result is, indeed, an increase in dose limits (and it looks like it should be), it
will also be interesting to see the resulting decrease in health physics
positions.  In these days of belt tightening, I suspect that many
organizations might decide that an increase in dose limits mean they need
to put less emphasis on radiation safety.

It does trouble me that many people assert that the limits should be raised
because "there is no experimental evidence for a linear, no-threshold
dose-response relationship for radiation induced cancer in the low-dose,
low-dose-rate region."  It is not sufficient to have no evidence of an effect;
rather one needs evidence of no effect.  Some people, such as Cohen,
base their argument for higher limits on such evidence.  But others seem
to be saying that in the absence of deterministic evidence of harm, we
should not protect against potential risk.

Keith Brown

The opinions expressed are my own only, not those of my employer.



--Boundary-2016022-0-0--