Re: LNT Debate

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Roy Ryder writes,

> I have listened with interest to the LNT debate. Although the statistics are=20
> poor, most people would agree that the case is just about proven and that=20
> the benefits, if adopted, would be enormous.
> 
> However, it is not likely to be adopted ever on a widespread scale.

Why? Truth will prevail. There are many examples of "the old guard" defending
their views, whether for technical or bureaucratic power reasons, but they are 
"eventually replaced". We see today that "modern physics" was created from
Michaelson-Morley, and consider that this happened "at once", but even in pure 
science (vs political and power interests that are more aggressively
"defended") the "old guard" had to "be replaced" over years, some individuals
never acknowledging the change in world view, while the subject dramatically
changed. See Tom Kuhn on the scientific "Paradigm Shift". 

Saying things will "never change" in the face of changed reality says either
you conclude that you/we can't or won't work to bring forth the truth and make 
the change, or that you conclude that "the system" is so corrupt that it is
more resistent to honesty and change than was true for communism in the USSR
(Lysenkoism?). I can't accept that. Work to get change made. For your children 
to live in a world without destitution and wars over limited/constrained
resources, if not for immediate gratification. 

The=20
> over-riding reason was given by Roger Clarke of the NRPB in the UK in a=20
> plenary address at the IRPA9 conference in Vienna in April this year.

Dr. Clarke has indicated that he may attend the ANS Topical Meeting in
Washington DC, Nov 11-14. We will assure that he has an opportunity to address 
the group if he wants. Dr. Pollycove will Chair the Monday session on biology, 
and we speak to the issue of double-strand DNA damage, per his HPS Newsletter
note, that Dr. Clarke has rested his case on. Unfortunately, Dr. Pollycove and 
others from the biology session, including the Japan contingent, are also
attending the BELLE Conference (Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures -
Radiation and Chemicals) being held in Research Triangle Park Nov 12-14. 
There are about 30 scientific papers from around the world being presented in
Washington, with a large panel session to discuss "where we go from here to
change the rules" on Wednesday afternoon. (Let us know if you want materials
from those sessions.) 

> He summed up many of the arguments put forward in the past months by=20
> Radsafers. At the end of his talk in answer to a question he said 'if dose=20
> limits and policies are to err on the safe side, then the LNT must be used'.
> I have had to paraphrase my recollection of what he said because the=20
> procedings were published in advance of the meeting and therefore questions
> and answers were not included.
> 
> Roger is a member of several ICRP/ICRU committees and if their memebership=20
> have like views, then LNT is here to stay.

I don't believe that Dr. Clarke can't understand the scientific failures of
the biology. As some have stated, we need to "explain the mechanism" that
represents the evidence of the lack of health effects, and stimulatory
effects, at low doses (especially the massive work reported by Luckey, and to
me, the absolute evidence shown by Planel in France for many years) before we
abandon the "prudence" of the linear model. This is happening. (Though its
somewhat like saying we "don't know" if apples would fall up or down before
Issac Newton :-)  And farmers should invest in nets to cover the trees unitl
we do know (at least that's what the net-makers say  :->. 

> Roy Ryder
> Daresbury Laboratory

Thanks.

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