Re: R. Morgans contr. to Linear Hypothe

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Franz Schoenhofer writes:

> I can tell you only that to my
> experience the public does not react directly. It is a slow process of
> undermining the authority of scientists. 

The scientists are undermining their own authority. A recent US TV program
outlined the many, standard, instances of scientists "fear-mongering" to get
funds, and the government agency interests in funding them. 

>Let me state again: We have similar
> situations in many other fields - I disagree with anybody who claims that
> the situation is unique concerning nuclear power or radiation. 

Absolutely true.
<snip>

>There is no Linear
> Hypothesis in the question of irradiation of food - people are nevertheless
> crazy and afraid of consuming irradiated food. 

The basis of the argument comes from the idea that "any amount of
radiation..." 

>To my knowledge irradiation of food is now allowed in the USA. Obviously the 
> US authorities are quite > well informed and have made a reasonable decision.

Few foods (spices, some chicken, a few others, plus medical reasons, eg,
transplant patients, astronauts); gov't follows burdensome food-by-food
permissions. Not "reasonable decisions". Gov't science action still supports
the "caution" and "we must regulate"; and gives credit to the "concerned
scientists" who argue food irradiation is dangerous. 

> Maximum contaminant
> levels are set for pesticides, for fungicides, for nitrate in water, for
> chemicals at the working place: Nevertheless people regard these MCLs as
> something the authorities have set to accomodate "the industry" and to harm
> them for the sake of industrial profit. "As soon as some contaminant is
> detactable it must be poisonous."

This is true. The "linear model" is real for many hazards (eg, see Prof
Walinder's presentation of SOx and deaths, and Bernie Cohen's work, etc). Some 
"threshold" dangers are lost in the "public debate" (though its hard to
maintain a fiction when the toxin/carcinogen is placed in our vitamin pills 
:-). The interests in these industries do work to establish credible limits,
unlike radiation science which does not do any work to confirm the massive
evidence for thresholds and beneficial response, from around the world, not
least of which is Japan, China, and France. Luckey has listed about 2000
references for _only_ the whole body doses that show beneficial effects. Much
more exists in the medically exposed populations. 

> We have a lot of excellent scientists working in various national and
> international committees. I am surprised by the many attacks on and the
> disbelief in the US authorities - I always thought this was a European
> speciality and for instance in the case of Sovjet authorities well
> understandable. 

Objective evidence abounds. Do you think the constraint and termination of the 
radium dial painter studies, established in 1970 for the life of the
population, was because we had nothing more to learn? after Robley Evans
reviewed the results of the 1981 int'l conference (see HPJ Suppl 1 Vol 44
1983), and the program produced its last annual report, stopped finding and
following new cases and shut its doors. See Rowland 1995 (DOE published it,
and made sure it didn't get out, unlike spending $100 million at Hanford about 
the health effects to people in the surrounding 75,000 sq miles from releases
1946-72), fostering public angst. And EPA/DOE stopping uranium miner work, but 
able to get an new math model genreated and published in record time, and
national publicity; and the manipulation of data sources in the IARC study,
fabricating an analysis, with "results" promulgated world-wide before the data 
was published, misrepresented by NCRP and others, and then stating in response 
to criticism "but you looked at the data". (See Mario Schillaci's figure in
the Los Alamos Science (which shows the results that I put in my Nuclear News
article); but NCRP stated again this year that "the IARC study shows a linear
response", never responding to the technical criticism. 

>If a decision of the authorities does not suit our own
> opinion we cannot simply ignore it and accuse the authorities of suppressing
> other evidence and so on - we had enough examples of this kind during the
> last - well is it not already weeks, not days? 

Interesting. "Be a good soldier?" What if its not "opinion"? What about the
data that is contrary to the "policy statements"; and persons affected find
their work confirmed, but not published, not funded, and terminated? with no
technical criticism ever made? What if such people lose postions; do not get
appointments; are "re-directed"? 

>I know Bernhard Cohen - I
> even had the privilege to meet him personally (he sure does not remember) -
> and I think that his method of showing that an opinion opposed to his cannot
> be correct is excellent. 

And when his statements, (not just on the radon study, but of the last 20+
years on many scientific), are not responded to and are ignored by the
"science policy" conclusions? 

>I use this method quite often myself. I know Roger
> Clarke - I have met him personally and I think he remembers me - and I think
> that he is as well an excellent scientist. I clearly say that: If we cannot
> proof - and we cannot!- that there is a threshold, then we should be

...we cannot if we do not honestly review/consider the data. There is no
quality data that supports the LNT; there are hundreds of studies that
contradict it. 

> cautious and assume no threshold to exist. What is so bad about it? The

$trillions world-wide wasted (I suppose they're not "wasted" for those on the
receiving end, but let's talk about the public paying the freight); loss of
radiation science and nuclear technology benefits to the world. 

> levels of exposure, radionuclide incorporation etc. which are based on the
> linear hypothesis are in a range, where I think it is ridiculous to even
> discuss about it. Our Austrian Research Nuclear Installations have emissions
> which are by orders of magnitude lower than the limits. In their own

At what cost? for no benefit (below some safe level); but "nuclear
installations" are uneconomic and extremely hazardous dinosaurs that are in
the process of being aggressively shut down through out the world. This is the 
LNT at work. 

> interest companies should try to reduce the exposure of their workers - to
> my knowledge there is no difficulty to do that also far below the limits, at

Obviously "there is no difficulty" with no limit on cost. The workers don't
mind since your rules require 20 hours for them to do an hour's work. The
cleanup contractors don't mind getting $300 Billion to pick up dirt here (they 
are measured in billable hours, not the worth of the work to the public), and
put it down there (few of the $$ actually go to the rad protection people
responsible, but DOE alone spends $300million/year on environmental rad
monitoring). 

> least reports from many countries show it. This seems to pose no
> difficulties.  S o   w h y   t o   c o m p l a i n   a b o u t   l i m i t s ?

Perhaps you need to think about it more? You must be doing ok in the
gravedigging business. :-)  (In the US $4000/yr pays for family health
insurance; we have 38 million people who can not afford insurance and the
government can't afford insurance; we have children not being innoculated.
Then we have people who refuse life-saving radiation treatments; and we have
real people with coal mining, transport, burning, particulates, waste
disposal, who are really dead because we fabricate hypothetical deaths!) 

(Perhaps you didn't get this the first time.)
 
> Franz
> Schoenhofer

Thanks Franz.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health