Re: ethics, etc.

[Jim Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

I'll say only: that Dave's comments are fair; and that 

1. The data and case for hormesis is from the biologists, see the Board and
Members of Radiation, Science, and Health, (I'm the only engineer, plus John
Graham? but we just look at their data. The LNT comes mostly from physicists
with a "billiard ball" view of biology). And engineering looks at all the
data, we don't want buildings to fall down and boilers to explode, while
scientists tend to focus only on their own narrow specialty whether other
evidence is contrary, and whether the "theory" will fall down (and what the
funding sources want and what the policy makers will do with their results). 

2. I don't equate ethics with philosophy much, but you remind me that Bertrand
Russell said a lot about it. One very relevant synthesis of academic ethics in
general terms of the American culture is a book titled "Lying" by Sisela Bok
(the wife of the President of Harvard, so it got a lot of attention here in
the Boston area) although I don't recall whether she used "technocratic" in
addressing the rationalization phenomenon. I went thru a lot of this
literature in the mid-late 70s, a few academic sources and some science and
technology-specific sources. (I was led to some of this by Norm Frigerio in
'77-'78 who was a Renaissance man and Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church,
and who was surprizingly philosophical about the background to the suppression
of his report and future work, but he had understood the conditions from the
earlier Oak Ridge experiences of others who had tried to pursue the evidence).
And 

3. My "analogy" is inappropriate, but again your use of their words is not a
justification for their contrary actions that carry a much stronger message
and result in causing fear. Robley Evans noted his own contribution to
fear-mongering about fallout in the 50's as a "justified" action to constrain
use of nuclear weapons, as have others who participated in the "fear
campaigns", which are now emulated by the EPA about radon.

Regards, Jim

David Scherer wrote:
> 
> 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