Re: Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of P

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Sandy Perle notes,
 
> In my opinion there is no one reason for the public's fear of 
> radiation. While one can say that there is a correlation for this 
> fear between perception and the LNT, it is not the primary root 
> cause. The public has been afraid of radiation for many years, before 
> the LNT was even discussed or was used by many of the power plant 
> intervenor groups, formed to shut down nuclear power in this country. 

This opinion just doesn't square with the evidence. Just read the HPJ etc in
the 60s-70s. Then read other contemporary public sources before the late 50s
when the nuclear establishment made fallout into great debate. You will find
that, while there was "concern", the general public supported nuclear
technologies. You will find the evidence that this version of history is a
convenient fiction. 

Consider a 1961 book by Hiebert, a professor of the history of science a U.
Wisconsin, with a title about "Atomic Energy", reporting on views of
government, scientists, and religious groups, where the Oak Ridge view is
reflected in a statement (I think to the NAS/BEAR) in about 1960 to the effect 
that (paraphrasing from memory) "in research on 40,000 mice, mutation effects
were seen with as little as 10 R/week compared to control mice at background
-- these experiments 'preliminarily' indicate that there is no threshold below 
which there is no damage".  Makes one wonder what happened to the mice exposed 
to 5 R/week  :-) 

This squares with "hallway statements" from Oak Ridge researchers in the early 
70s that the Oak Ridge research message was always to foster "we don't know
enough" to keep the research money flowing (while Morgan was plying the halls
of Congress saying AEC and JCAE and Oak Ridge management did not give due
deference and sufficient funding to his HP program, that any amount of
radiation is hazardous and these guys don't care about the workers, which was
more than a political straw on the back of the effort to break up the JCAE and 
the AEC by the "post-Watergate" Congress looking for bad guys (with a lot of
good reasons also to make changes, though the change they made was destructive 
to both the lab side and the nuclear energy side).  [I can find the specific
ref to the Hiebert book if its not more readily available to some one out
there.] 

<snip>
>Remember TMI and the NRC's as well 
> as the Governor of PA reaction???? They treated the incident as 
> "Hell".  The public is afraid? Why not, when the so-called experts, 
> those individuals charged with protecting the public, give false 
> credence to the public's perceptions. 

Yes. That's the point.

>Yes, perceptions are real, but 
> NOT because of the LNT. The majority of the public has never heard of 
> it.

That's not the point. The "experts" would not have a basis to "give false
credence" except for the LNT. 

> Oh, in my previous role of providing media briefings on radiation 
> risk and radiation releases from the plant (emergency exercises) the 
> media never addressed the issues of LNT and its theories. They always 
> focused on their false perceptions of plants blowing up, mutations, 
> plant and animal life damaged forever. The fact that life around 
> Chernobyl is coming back, even after the public was told that there 
> would be no life for tens of thousands of years, their fears and 
> perceptions still exist.

Precisely. Because the "experts" still use the LNT framework to make policy
and do calculations, and to foster these public concerns. The LNT was made for 
mutations, not for cancer, but it is used for cancer now that we know
mutations aren't linear. People were removed from the Chernobyl area by
"experts" at limits lower than the *average* dose in Norway (much less the
high dose areas, in Norway and elsewhere in the world, with NO evidence of
adverse effects in such areas, at doses that would *validate* the LNT if it
existed, especially in the careful work and significantly large high-dose
population (~70,000) with dose differences of a factor of ~3 (though a
Japanese study indicated that considering the higher indoor exposures and
lifestyle considerations, it may be more than a factor of 5 for some), and in
the Cohen study, applying epidemiology in precisely the same way that we
accept and apply it for indications of other natural and man-made public
health hazards (sensitive to biases for non-linear hazards). 

> We need to start educating the younger generation of today if we will 
> have any hope for the future. 

Amen. And they are being so educated. But they get EPA radon training, and
other fictions in the process. DOE and states produces curriculums etc etc 
ANS curriculum materials are not substantial in these areas. I hope HPS
materials are better based, but until the March 1996 Position Statement on
"Risk Perception" (strange title :-) that states (conservatively) there is no
scientific basis to calculate a risk to an individual at <5 rem/yr, 10
rem/lifetime (remember the 10R/week to mice?), there was little basis for
applying science from HPS positions on this subject. (Then HPS testified that
100 mr is a good limit for HLW?  At which EPA rad protection "science" was
outraged!  which usually precedes the cave-in of science - that is primarily
funded by fed agencies.)  

Does anybody see a problem here?  WHAT are we going to "educate" the public,
or our children, about?  Current "education", including ANS, is "zap the bean
seeds and watch them die"; never mind the extensive research over many years
on increasing growth and yields and hardiness, etc, by low-level radiation!  

We need to leave the education of the public aside til we can educate our
managements and agencies, and the "scientists", and hp's who don't have the
necessary biology or history. 

> Sandy Perle

Thanks Sandy.

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