Re: Implicit Assumptions in the Cassini and Other Threads

["Dr. Marvin Goldman" <mgoldman@ucdavis.edu>]

>     Dear RADSAFERS,
>
>     Implicit in these discussions are assumptions about the effects of low
>     level radiation.
>
>     Now, forgive me if I'm beating an old dead horse.  How does one
>     respond to Gofman, Sternglass, Gould, Morgan and others?  I know that
>     each of them have different rationales for their views, but they can't
>     be dismissed as cranks.  For example, I find Gofman's credentials
>     impressive.....I know that credentials are not a guarantee of
>     credibility.  At the moment, I'm looking at a 1990 Gofamn publication,
>     "Radiation Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure". Just quoting august
>     bodies as proof against their agruments doesn't seem scientific to me.
>
>     From a radiobilogical standpoint, I've heard the Petkau effect being
>     used as a basis for saying low dose/dose rate is more hazardous than
>     we think.  I've seen the Petkau paper from Health Physics published in
>     1972, but my radbio isn't good enough to say if his results can be
>     extrapolated to real effects.
>
>     In short, I'm asking are there any good references that rebut the
>     claims of the *scientific* analysts that say that low level radiation
>     is more harmful than the rest of us think?  Has there been a
>     scientific and published debate concerning these issues? Or have these
>     people a personal/emotional issue that have caused them to take their
>     positions about the hazards of radiation?
>
>     Jerry Falo
>     gerald_falo@chppm-ccmail.apgea.army.mil
>
>     All opinions expressed here are mine alone.......

On the Sternglass/Petkau stuff read BEIR III (1980) pp463-67 which says
that the NAtional Academy of Sciences committee "did not believe that the
allegation was substantiated."

On low level risks:  When you can't prove it with direct epidemiology,
i.e., that low doses are worse per unit of dose than higher ones,
hypotheses then proliferate.  It may not be proof, but every NCRP, ICRP and
BEIR report includes something to lower the effects of low doses and rates,
often called DDREF with factors of 2-10.  One has to be very paranoid to
say that for all these years, all these groups are part of a conspiracy to
cover up true risks.

Marvin Goldman
mgoldman@ucdavis.edu