Re: Re[2]: Averill's Editorial

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

At 06:04 PM 7/31/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Isn't there a reverse problem here, though?  If HPs were to parallel tobacco
>company scientists, wouldn't we be arguing that every little bit of
>radiation is potentially harmful and should be carefully monitored?  The ANS
>might want to argue for a threshold, and the only bias that one can suggest
>is that HPs are heavily employed by the nuclear industry and so are
>interested in its health.  But overall, if we are only interested in our
>pocketbooks, I would think that you wouldn't be able to find an HP that
>would argue that LNT might be flawed.
>
Some scientists have been accused of protecting their benefactors in the
tobacco industry (see recent AP article on Univ. of Kentucky).  They have
not been spared this ignominy because they might have received more funding
if their results had shown a health effect.  On the contrary, they are seen
as little more than PhD spin doctors or worse.  This may not be deserved,
but we should learn from it.

My point is that if HPs get too far out in front on this, we place outselves
at risk.  My personal perspective on the technical matter is that a linear
model for exposure to all types of radiation up to the level of several Gray
is probably too simple.  But I am not a leading researcher in biology.  If
we strongly advocate radical changes to radiation protection standards (e.g.
ignore all doses <5 rem/yr) without support from the BIOLOGY and
EPIDEMIOLOGY communities, we could suffer a fate similar to the group I
mentioned above.  This is especially true if our arguements about the
science issue (LNT) are motivated or buttressed by concerns over economic
impacts.

Regards,
Dave Scherer
scherer@uiuc.edu