Re: Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of P -Reply

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 13:02 17.10.1996 -0500, you wrote:
>A few thoughts (opinion) in response to Al Tschaeche's latest posting
>and this thread in general.
>  If we set a purely threshold limit, the public, suspicious of
>government, scientists, institutions, etc., will ask.  What happens
>below the threshold?  How do you know?  Prove it?  For those of us
>(i.e., those scientifically knowledgeable) who are convinced that
>there are no, or possibly beneficial, effects below 5 rem/yr, the
>answers are:  Nothing bad.  I'm convinced as a scientist.  Citations
>to the literature.  But some of us (same definition) can only say "I
>don't know  - but I'm convinced the bad effect, if any, is small"
>(citations to the literature).  Alas, many in the public (e.g., those
>who play the lottery because "someone has to win; it could be me")
>will not be convinced.  "Some scientists say there might be a bad
>effect".  To the risk averse this translates to:  "There may be a bad
>effect; someone has to be damaged; it could be me; I don't want
>that".
>   If the LNT is seen as giving an upper limit on risk, I think it
>can be helpful in at least defining to the public how "small" the
>largest  "small" effect is.  If we leave people with the idea that
>the effects of radiation, a menace undetectable to the senses, are
>"unknown", we leave the door open for all sorts of monsters to enter.
>     By putting an upper limit on the risk with the LNT assumption we
>can at least hope to stop the idea that there may be a major
>undiscovered effect lurking at very low doses.  (There are people who
>believe that very dilute medicines are more powerful than
>concentrated ones!).
>    In short, at the present time (convince me otherwise), I think
>the LNT is useful in 2 contexts: standards setting and establishing
>an upper limit on quantified risk.  In other contexts, I think it is
>more than useless; it is misleading, counterproductive, and all
>things Al said about its influencing the demise of the rad world as
>we know it. Quantitative risks derived from the LNT should NOT be
>used in risk assessments that purport to show what the actual effects
>of some radiation-producing action on actual people are, have been,
>or will be.
>      As HPs and rad scientists, we should not let simplistic use be
>made of risk extrapolations by those who put together NEPA
>statements, PRAs, and similar public documents.  Make sure every risk
>assessment has uncertainties stated.  Make it clear that the LNT
>extrapolation is an upper limit only; the actual value is somewhere
>below that; it may be zero, it may be an itsy bitsy (de minimis)
>detriment; it may be a benefit (also small).
>     Until we can get a better handle on the quantitative detriment
>of low doses or prove to a reasonably high degree of certainty that
>low doses have a zero or beneficial effect, I suggest we put our
>efforts into ensuring that the right risk assessments be used in the
>right manner, not in declaring one way of estimating risk verboten. 
>And maybe, just maybe, the public will begin to understand a little
>better.
>    Don't you think that if the entire HP community, nuclear
>industry, and regulatory agencies came out today for a threshold at 5
>rem per year and a prohibition on the use of the LNT, many in the
>public would interpret it, not as the triumph of reasonableness but
>as another conspiracy of the power elite to make money at the expense
>of the powerless citizen, exposed to invisible rays?
>
>Only the opinion of  J. P. Davis
>joyced@dnfsb.gov
>
>====================================================================

Joyce,

I envy you that you are able to express everything so well, which I tried to
express in earlier mails, but cannot because of my limited knowledge of
English. Especially your last paragraph is exactly what I tried to express.
We simply have to accept that other people are thinking in another way. To
"put forward the facts" does not help - so many others pur forward their
"facts". Why should one group be more credible to the average citizen than
the other one? Only patient and constant work can help us. To declare
everybody, who does not share our opinion, for being insane - this is no
solution. The "green" groups - are they really in favour of the planet? -
are clever. They influence the young people - the future heirs of our time.
If we really want to do something for the future we should try to educate
the "opinion leaders" - in our case they are the teachers, who educate the
future generation.

When France resumed their nuclear tests at Mururoa I talked to my children
(18, 16, 15 years old) and I told them that they need not be afraid. I told
them about the difference of politics and scientific knowledge. One might be
of the opinion that further nuclear tests are not necessary and in any way
not welcome - this is a "green" opinion - is it really?, but at the same
time from the scientific point of view, there is nothing to worry about.
When my second boys head teacher came to the class to ask the pupils to sign
a protest against the nuclear tests, my boy refused. His argument was, that
his father had explained him that there was no danger in it. Since he is a
kind of an opinion leader in his class, nobody signed it. -------- Might
this be a strategy to establish our credibility? It might take many years,
but the success might be worth the effort!

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at