Re: ethics, etc.

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

This may be stretching the patience of many radsafers, but I'm going to try
one last time. I'll be more direct and in my answers to Jim's post,
including three mild, ad hominum shots at Jim.  They are not directed at
Jim's character, but his positions on the subject.  I add a word of advice
on rhetoric and end with a suggestion for how we should address radiation
standards.

Jim wrote as follows:

>Maybe we should leave the ethics to the ethicists.

Perhaps we should leave radiobiology to the biologists, too.  It is
interesting that physicists and engineers are the leading evangelists in
the gospel of hormesis.  (Ad hominum shot #1)  Biologists have suggested
it, but the leading proponents seem to be engineers.

>In the ethics literature this is just technocratic rationalization.

Well versed in the philosophy literature, too?  (Shot #2)  Could you please
provide a few references to the philosophical literature where this line of
reasoning is labelled as "technocratic rationalization?"  I don't claim to
be an ethicist; but I understand from my undergrad classes (20 y ago) and
pedestrian reading that philosophers think in very different categories
from scientists.  That was the point of my post.

>If someone puts gun to your head and holds out his hand, Dave's argument
is that he didn't actually say he wanted your money, so you must have given
it to him voluntarily. :-) (especially if it turned out to be a plastic
gun!? :-)

I don't recall the ICRP threatening physical violence against women if they
refused to have abortions.  This is not a salient analogy, just a straw
man.  How does my analogy of the doctor's recommendation break down?  Or do
you ignore it because it doesn't fit your political agenda? (Shot #3)

>Ethics goes beyond word games. That's just for bureaucrats and lawyers.

I agree.  But I think the line you are defending is a word game:  Women had
abortions because of radiophobia.  The LNT model theorizes a small risk
(truly 1 in a million) for millirem exposures.  Therefore, LNT is
responsible for the abortions.  The causal connection is far too weak to
establish moral or ethical responsibility.

ADVICE:  I agree with you that radiation technology has a lot to offer
society.  I agree with you that most people are have a fear that is greatly
exaggerated out of proportion to the risk, whether it is zero or 1 in a
million (or a 1 in a million benefit).  But I believe your rhetoric
(persuasive techniques) are not helpful in the long run.  Conspiracy
theories and dogmatic views on scientific questions may energize the "true
believers" in the short run, but they ultimately put off the vast majority
of observers.  Don't stoop to the tactics you abhor in the anti's.  Maybe
you can fight fire with fire, but you can't fight a closed mind with a
closed mind.

FOCUS THE DISCUSSION:  Two issues (or more) are getting mixed up in this
discussion.  It would be helpful to sort them out and use the categories of
reasoning appropriate to each.  One topic is the accuracy of the LNT model.
 I think most of us probably agree that the LNT model is not a complete
model of human radiobiology.  It does not account for individual
variations, even differences in gender or other gross, demographic
variables.  I also believe that there is no complete, substantiated
alternative to LNT.  If there is a threshold, what is its value?  Is it the
same for high- and low-LET radiation?  How do personal and demographic
characteristics affect the threshold?  This should be discussed as a
scientific question without reference to personal motives.  Let the data
decide the matter.  In my view, a resolution on a more complete model is
not close at hand.

A completely separate topic is "How do we proceed in the face of
uncertainty?"  This is NOT a scientific question, but an ethical one.  The
numerical value of the risk entailed will inform the decision, but the
decision is based on personal values.  How much risk should an individual
bear for a social benefit?  There is no mathematical equation to resolve
this.  Do we allow free use at levels where harm has not been clearly
demonstrated?  Do we restrict all radiation uses, even far below the
variation in natural background?  These are the crucial questions to be
addressed using categories or reasoning that are non-mathematical.

The current "consensus" answer to radiation risk uncertainty is ALARA.  We
use a model that overestimates the risk (or at least does not underestimate
it).  Because we are mathematical thinkers, we try to be even more precise
and objective by using economic calculations, but I personally believe this
takes us further from the central question rather than closer to it.
Instead of arguing numbers, we should be discussing values.

Unfortunately, the anti's seem to be more comfortable in this territory
than we are.  Are we so uncomfortable in these gray area of values that we
have to reduce it to black-and-white.  We change the discussion to charges
of greed and cover up.  We label our opponents as the villain of the day
(bureaucrats and lawyers).  But these don't address the issue!  Even if the
standards were created by greedy lawyer bureaucrats engaged in a cover up,
that would not means that standards are unreasonable.  Ultimately, we have
to discuss values, so let's focus on that.

Regards,

Dave Scherer