Re: Hormesis and Chernobyl

["Donald A. McClure 7-3243 DX-DO P940" <DAMcClure@lanl.gov>]

At 10:35 AM 6/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>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 initial 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.=20
>>
>>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
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>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 uncertainty, if
>not much more doubtful!
>
>We radiation protection professionals accuse certain groups of distorting
>data and picking our "evidences" which fit their preconceived ideas - "Don=
>=B4t
>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 lives "saved" versus lives "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 distorted 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
>
>
>
Perhaps the best reason to quote both numbers is precisely because we do not
know which one is more correct.  Then explain that for radiation protection
purposes we use the most conservative, but for actual physiological effect
determinations we might prefer to specify the entire range of uncertainty.

Just a thought.

Don

Donald A. McClure
 E-Mail: DAMcClure@lanl.gov 
 Voice: 505/667-3243
 FAX: 505/665-3359
 Los Alamos National Laboratory
 MS: P940
 Los Alamos, NM 87544