[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More LNT
I'm sure others will reply more eloquently than I, but still - here goes:
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, NCRP wrote:
> Radsafers:
(snip)
> This is the predominant reason that I abstain from "debates" and similar
> symposia that claim to be fair when they place the position of NCRP/ICRP at
> one end of the spectrum and the rest at the other end. The fact, of course,
> is that the NCRP/ICRP position is in the middle between the
> threshold/hormesis proponents and those scientists who think the NCRP/ICRP
> greatly underestimates the risk of radiation exposure. This was brought
> most clearly to my attention when both the French Academy of Science and
> Greenpeace Organization were castigating the ICRP over their draft of
> publication 60 in the late 1980's. There are scientists on each side of the
> NCRP/ICRP position who can select some data to establish their position.
> The centrist approach is to look at all of the data and attempt to reflect
> the most reasonable value for risk estimation.
I think a lot of radsafers would agree that to put, for example, 'the
French Academy of Science' and 'Greenpeace Organization' on the scales at
opposite ends and say that the result is balanced (i.e. that each should
be given equal weight) is either showing poor judgement, or is basing the
weighting on public perception instead of reality.
(Snip)
> (there follows a paragraph on public perception, then:)
> These views are prevalent everywhere. The end result is that the actual
> shape of the low dose effect curve may be relatively unimportant for
> regulations at low doses. It is the same public perception which interferes
> with scientifically based decision making.
Are you saying that the decisions made by NCRP are not entirely
scientifically based, but have been 'interfered with by public
perception'?
(snip)
It certainly seems so from the example given below:
> Just as an example - EPA and the states have been fully aware that the basis
> for their tritium drinking water concentration of 20,000 pCi per liter
> should, in fact, be over 80,000 pCi per liter. based on a
> committed effective dose of 4 mrem but they are loath to acknowledge any
> such change in their regulation.
(snip)
> (there then follows a paragraph about the 15 mrem and 25 mrem limits of
EPA and NRC respectively)
> It seems clear that the only way to get definite answers to the risk of low
> dose rate exposure is through molecular biology. This, of course, assumes
> we have the scientific tools to extrapolate this information to human cancer
> induction. For now isn't the assumption of linearity at low dose and dose
> rates the only reasonable approach to public health policy?
Again, I think a very large number of radsafers would disagree: they
would say, as do I, that we can't afford this 'assumption of linearity at
low dose and dose rates', that it is not at all reasonable, because it is
using up valuable funds that could be far more effectively used in many
other ways, and it is making many uses of radiation uneconomic, thus
preventing or delaying life-saving applications, such as cancer therapy
and nuclear power.
> Perhaps a change can be made in public perception. The action of
> regulators, politicians and journalists have played a large role in
> endorsing and encouraging the public concern over very low dose. Let's work
> on this as part of the problem.
I think that regulations, etc, have helped mold public perception in the
past, and could do so again. The responsibily of experts is not to follow
public perception, but to lead it. If you are saying that NCRP is 'tied'
by public perception, I think we are in serious trouble.
> James A. pahn
> Senior Staff Scientist,NCRP
> email:ncrp@ncrp.com
> Fax:907-8768
> Phone:301-657-2652
Regards,
Chris Davey
RSO Cross Cancer Institute 11560 University Avenue
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 1Z2
(403)432-8616 fax 432-8615 email cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca
pager number 005, just call (403) 432-8771 and ask for that pager