Re: Hormesis and Chernobyl

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 17:16 04.06.1996 -0500, you wrote:
>I subscribe to a periodical called "Access to Energy" (available from Access
>to Energy, Box 1250, Cave Junction OR 97523 for $35 for 12 monthly issues
>[Canada $37, overseas, by air mail only, $40]).  The May, 1996 issue
>contained the following statements: "When this information (Marv Goldman's
>article "Cancer Risk of Low-Level Exposure" in Science 271, pp1821-1822,
>March 1996) spreads to the public media, it is likely to stimulate a
>technological revolution.  In the best interests of not getting too far
>ahead of this and becoming a negative influence, we refrain for now from
>answering an obvious question - will the lives saved by radiation hormesis
>from Chernobyl exceed the lives lost from the intial accident?  Hint: The
>likely answer is definitely not politically correct."  Has anyone out there
>done such a calculation?  Why should such calculations not be required in
>ALARA evaluations?  In Environmental Impact Statements? etc?  I think I know
>the answer, but tell me anyway. 
>
>By the way, Access to Energy should be required reading for all RadSafers
>(OPINION).  The ideas therein are stimulating and useful in our battle
>against psudoscience and the anti-everythingers.  Try it for a year and see
>if you do not agree.   Al Tschaeche. xat@inel.gov
>
>==========================================================================

The issue raised is interesting and I remember that shortly after the
Chernobyl accident some researchers have posed the same question, but not in
public.

My personal opinion is the following: You know the ever ongoing debate about
the questions like "threshold - no threshold", "linear - non linear"... Have
these questions now answered definitely without any doubt? Of course not! So
let me pose the question "hormesis - no hormesis" - has  t h i s  question
been answered - of course not!

On one hand we can only make theoretical calculations, how many casualties
may have been caused by the Chernobyl accident, assuming a linear dose
dependency with no threshold - in order to be on the safe side. Why should
we now compare a quantity, which is extremely uncertain with another
quantity (hormesis effect), which is of at least similar uncertainity, if
not much more doubtful!

We radiation protection professionals accuse certain groups of distorting
data and picking our "evidences" which fit their preconceived ideas - "Donīt
disturb me with your arguments - I have made my mind up!" It is correct that
we do this. But do we really have to act by the same method, just the other
way round - counting lifes "saved" versus lifes "lost"?

You are right, that this is a political issue, but not only a political one.
If we want to change public perception, then we have to do it with patience
and diplomacy, working to reverse the destorted perception of risk,
"educate" journalists, pupils, students, but not using arguments which might
be questionable!

Franz Schoenhofer
Federal Institute for Food Control and Research
Department of Radiochemistry and Radioactivity in Food
Kinderspitalg. 15
A-1090 Vienna
AUSTRIA
Christian Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 Wien
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at