Re: LNT Debate

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

R.Ryder@dl.ac.uk wrote:
 'if dose=20
> limits and policies are to err on the safe side, then the LNT must be used'=

And that's the rub.  Why must radiation be treated so unlike almost all
other hazards?  We don't establish hypothetical dose-response curves for
alcohol, airplanes, autos, vinyl chloride, etc., etc.  It seems as if
the individual ICRP and NCRP members, being human, are acting like the
general public, not scientists.  Why must radiation be so very, very
safe???  Why must we err on the safe side only for radiation?  Why can't
we treat radiation like other hazards and base safety standards on
observed effects, with appropriate safety factors, instead of on
hypothetical effects?  If mechanical engineers designed bridges the way
we design radition protection, we wouldn't build any because they would
be too heavy.  If we designed cars as we design radiation protection
programs, we wouldn't be driving them because we couldn't see through
all of the postings and signs that would be needed to warn drivers about
all of the dangerous things about the car and roads and driving.

Something is wrong with the philosophy of radiation protection standards
and how they are interpreted by the regulators and the public.  That's
the ICRP and NCRP's problem to solve!  The ICRP and NCRP must stop
"erring on the safe side" or they soon won't have anything to err about
and the benefits of radiation will go away.  But, of course, that's what
the anti nuclear people want.  And it seems that's what we want too, if
we insist on maintaining the LNTH.

I'm still waiting for suggestions about other solutions to the problem.
So far I haven't seen any.  Al Tschaeche xat@intl.gov