Re: textbook correct?

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

ALEX MITCHELL wrote:

> Not at all,  that seems to be the prevailing view on radsafe.
> 
> But I think your argument points in the opposite direction from the
> way you think it does.
> 
> Radiation is known by everyone to be harmful.  

Only at high doses (above 50 rem acute, and something greater spread
over time)

 What you are postulating
> is that small doses for some reason cease to be harmful.  

Exactly.

 But it would
> follow from your argument that if all the effort put in to
> establishing a safe threshold has failed,  then surely such a
> threshold does not exist?

I disagree.

Now you are thinking like the NCRP, BEIR, EPA, etc.  Let's turn the
argument around.  Simply because you can't find a threshold doesn't mean
that one doesn't exist.  That is the reverse of the current thinking of
those organizations: "Simply because you can't find effects at low doses
doesn't mean there aren't any."  

In light of all that is currently known about the effects of low doses
(including hormesis and zero effects), what is wrong with saying: "We
will establish a threshold at 5 rem per year or 20 rem acute one time
dose, and, until harm from activities at those limits is demonstrated,
we will say those limits are safe?"

We can argue about the numerical values, but we must get our thinking
straight first.  The NCRP thinking is killing the nuclear industry.

Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov