Re: Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of P

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

John Moulder writes:
 
> > >The LNTH IS the cause of the public fear, or, rather, the corruption 
> > >of the LNTH idea is the cause.  The LNTH says: "there MAY BE some 
> > harmful effect of low doses."..... 
> 
> It can't be that simple.  In my experience, most people who are afraid of low-
> level ionizing radiation are equally afraid of low-level non-ionizing 
> radiations and fields (particularly RF/MW and power-frequency).  For RF no one 
> has ever seriously suggested that the LNTH applies; in fact, the scientific 
> consensus is that there is are experimentally verifiable thresholds for RF 
> hazards. Thus the LNTH cannot possibly the the source of public fear of RF, 
> and hence of radiation in general.
> 
> Any explanation of "fear of radiation" must look beyond ionizing radiation.

2 points: 1. "the people" don't distinguish that well, so that a lot of the
"fear" of non-ionizing radiation rests on the same perception of "radiation";
and 2. such fear of non-ionizing radiation as there is does not result in the
extreme societal response. 

Few in the public are fighting power towers and other RF/MW sources, and
without success since "the science", and other interests, largely successfully 
discount the risk, and aggressively point out that many RF sources are
substantial and show no consequences. The fear mongers are seen as outside the 
mainstream of science and discounted by the public. 

Not so with ionizing radiation. The LNT model is applied to "show" that "all
radiation is hazardous; it can kill" (Sinclair raged against the NRC BRC at 10 
mr/yr; EPA quotes NCRP and BEIR, and pays them well along with other
agencies), and is accepted by "the knowledgeable scientists". The context of
comparisons to natural sources are not substantially applied (and certainly
not by those "knowledgeable"), including technically dishonest/disinformation
attacks on Bernie Cohen's work without credible scientific response, and
personal and aggressive political campaign attacks on Bernie Cohen in the
halls of "public policy" (eg, "we are going to destroy him"), with EPA quickly 
manufacturing another mathmatical "projection" from uranium miners, getting
instant access to publications (J NCI) that are slow on printing good science
(and usually only after "peer review" has neutered clear statements), and
using a $million PR campaign to spread the falsehood that "radon kills
14,000/year in the US". 

And the "industry" and "researchers" get more public $$ on the funds from
having the public fear radiation than on providing safe technologies, so there 
is no equivalent to the industry that produces RF/MW to get knowledgeable,
competent, science conducted. 

(Science that shows the "wrong" results gets unreported and terminated, eg,
since Oak Ridge in the late '60s, the '73 Frigerio work, the radium dial
painters (Argonne CHR got itself terminated by DOE), the Wing junk science by
DOE pushed into JAMA, the DOE failure to report the NSWS, the NCRP constraint
on UNSCEAR, the termination of the "high-dose DOE workers study" by DOE (and
then the poor early worker data is used to "represent" the
occupationally-exposed population while ignoring good data (to be manipulated
into "showing" a "linear response" for leukemia by the IARC in conjunction
with the NCRP, ICRP, and NRPB) and now funding threats and bad science by
RERF, the Canadian flouroscopy study, etc etc. And even EPRI won't do good
science because they are funded to "reduce radiation exposure"), nor to
present valid results (NEI and other industry reps are given grounds to fear
"taking on the regulators" by even acquiring the valid scientific data). 

Studies of Maxey Flats reported a max individual dose of 0.1 mrem from
off-site leakage, what are we spending on LLW management. EPA is fighting a
100 mrem/year dose limit from a HLW repository, using the "linear model" it
bought and paid for to misrepresent "risks". 

The evidence is there for all to see who would. The funds obtained are at high 
cost (morally, see eg Lauriston Taylor 1980 on "the immoral use of our
scientific heritage", and economically, see eg HPS President Marvin Goldman,
HPS Newsletter 2/95, and to public health, see Gunnar Walinder "Is radiation
protection a Health Hazard?" 1995, and Bernard Cohen and Richard Wilson and
others on the severe health consequences of fossil fuels, and 100s of others
who have stood above the effort to maximize rad protection spending - most of
which does not go the rad protection community, but to the maintenance person, 
and the backhoe operator, but management appreciates the clock running on the
hours!  

Now if radiation science policy could see itself as responsible for "radiation 
health effects" instead of "radiation protection"; and "radiation protection"
could see itself as playing a role in managing organization costs of applying
radiation and nuclear technology (but then management couldn't just pass them
on to the public :-) 

Medicine successfully ducked this issue, spending/passing-on $millions
"protecting the public" from doses 1000s of times lower than received by
millions of patients/year with no adverse consequences, until waste
constraints became important (but radiology doesn't have wastes); and finding
that NRC regulation at close quarters is terrifying (which they could have
learned from the power plants if they had not spent decades distancing
themselves from those "bad guys"); and now finding that "managed care" is
finding "accountability" for the horrendous, wasteful, costs in nuclear
medicine, and to a lesser extent in radiology. 

Now it's time to find out why the medical position is that a million (US)
Tl-201 stress tests (5-10 rem WB?) per year have no adverse consequences
(including some "at risk" patients who get them every other year?); and doses
to practicing cardiologists can be >10 rem/year; but $millions are being spent 
to control radionuclides and "releases" to "protect the public" at doses at
the few mrem level. 

Its the "linear model". Not the arithmetic, but the "policy", used directly by 
"scientists" and "government" and "industry" to foster public fear, while
serious science is not supported or considered (and actively constrained) in
this "scientific debate", with massive resources being misapplied.  This is
also a policy that is being defended to the death by those who know best, and
can control the agenda (and not just at the NCRP meeting). 

> John Moulder (jmoulder@its.mcw.edu)
> Radiation Biology Group
> Medical College of Wisconsin

Thanks John.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com