Re: European Communities and Radiation Exposure of Flight Crews

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

At 10:41 AM 8/28/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>If I, as a health physicist, can constructively participate in having the
>>public, flight attendants, regulators, whoever, understand what we
>>currently know as the "truth" about radiation effects to humans, then I
>>am willing, no, I have a duty to do so. 
>
>I could not disagree more.  Samuel Johnston compared knowledge to a pocket
>watch: it should used to provide the time when asked, but not taken out to
>announce the hour to whomever may be passing by.  This especially important
>to the degree the "truth" is uncertain.
>
>When it comes to government action, certainly we have a right to
>participate (but I don't believe it's a duty).  Thus, commenting on OSHA or
>FAA proposed rules would be appropriate.  This discussion was framed in
>terms of labor unions developing an interest in the matter.
>
>>I do not regard the issue of radiation exposure to flight crews as a 
>>matter solely between management and labor in the airline industry.  
>
>This may be this is the basic difference.  I don't view everything nuclear
>as "ours."  I must also disagree with your interpretation of Dr. Raabe's
>comments.  I believe RRS, not HPS,  is the premiere organization for
>specialists in radiation health effects; HPS is the premiere organization
>for radiation PROTECTION.  (I would appreciate reading Dr. Raabe's comments
>on this distinction.)
>
>>Both sides must know the "truth" and must be able to distinguish 
>>between that and the lies that anti nuclear people tell, including the 
>>untruths that some nonanti nuclear people permit to exist.
>
>We certainly have a role to play in public education, promoting the "truth"
>as we each see it.  I believe there are dangers in suggesting we have the
>"truth" on a subject OUTSIDE our area of expertise when there does not
>appear to be a consensus WITHIN the radiobiology community.  IMHO, if HPS
>takes the lead in this area (possibly in opposition to RRS, NAS, etc.)
>there is a grave risk that we will be viewed as lapdogs for the industry,
>the nuclear equivalent of tobacco company toxicologists.  Our reputation is
>our ONLY stock in trade; we should guard it carefully.
>
>Dave Scherer
>scherer@uiuc.edu
>
Radsafers,
While I agree very much with most of Dave's wise commentary, it seems to me
that perhaps he takes a narrower view of the appropriate role of health
physics and the HPS than I would.  While RRS may be the "premiere
organization for specialists in health effects", it seems to me that we are
not, as he seems to imply, counterpart "specialists" in radiation
protection, who should (or even can ).  Rather, although some of us may
specialize in some narrow aspect of radiation protection, most of us apply
our knowledge in public, rather than in the laboratory. As such, we should
above all be conscious of what is in the public interest (as we best
understand it) in both the protection of the public
(and here I include sub-sets such as workers and patients) and the benefit
to the public (as ALARA, sensibly applied should do).  I recognize that to
speak out in public is to risk being labeled as being advocates for or
captives of some special interest (pro or con), but to me to shrink from it
because of this is to abandon our professional duty.  Lawyers should be
advocates of responsible behavior and doctors advocates of a healthy life
style and health physicists of the sensible employment of radiation
(anthropomorphic and natural)
Ideally, if successful, we may no longer be needed. However, that day is
probably far off, if ever and if we are at all competent, we should be able
to find some constructive challenge, in solving or ameliorating some new
problem ( of which human beings will never run out of)

Andy Hull
S&EP-BNL
Upton, NY 11973
Ph  516-344-4210
Fax 516-344-3105