Advising research subjects on rad risks

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Walter Huda wrote, very well on an example of advising research subjects:

> This research study involves exposure to radiation from x-rays. Adults
> undergoing a three body CT scans and three plain abdomen radiographs
> will receive an effective dose of 16 mSv. Any risks from radiation 
> exposure of this magnitude are too small to be measured directly and 
> are considered
> very low when compared with other everyday risks. By comparison, all
> inhabitants of North American receive an effective dose each year of
> about 3 mSv and current US regulatory dose limits for members of the 
> public and
> radiation workers are 1 mSv/year and 50 mSv/year, respectively.  The
> investigator can provide you with a contact person (Dr Walter Huda in
> Radiology) if you would like more information about radiation
> exposure.

However, perhaps we should consider being consistent with, and perhaps there
should even be a reasonable requirement to be consistent with, official/formal
government rad protection policy: 

Say something like, "This is about 100 times EPA's annual limit." (And,
"...for which the US public will spend $100s Billions, perhaps $1 Trillion to
try to achieve.") Perhaps also that, "EPA says NRC's 0.25 mSv limit (about 1
60th of what we will zap you with) will kill hundreds of people vs EPA's 0.15
mSv limit." 

(Do NOT note that "background" varies roughly between <0.5 and >100 mSv/yr,
with extreme significant populations between say roughly <0.8 and >40 mSv/yr,
with no indication that persons at higher doses have any adverse effects, but
some substantial indications of beneficial effects!? :-)

Or perhaps something like, "This is 1600 times the level WA State, and NCRP,
and ICRP, etc say may be considered to be of negligible risk."

(Perhaps we could explain that, "0.15 mSv isn't really a risk, and don't think
that we have $100s Billions in public costs, but instead, to researchers and
DOE/EPA/NRC and rad protection interests and the "nuclear industries" etc.,
these are $100s Billions in 'benefits'. :-)  And that "any radiation is a
risk, er, benefit". We have our own definition of a 'risk/benefit' calculation
:-)  


Roughly following the late, great, and greatly missed Wade Patterson: Rad
protection policy is based on the arbitrary slope of the cash flow extracted
from the (gullible? :-) public being everywhere positive :-)

Of course you might really add the Health Physics Society Position Statement
that the evidence provides no basis to assess any risk at less than 50
mSv/year, 100 mSv lifetime! HPS leadership is a glimmer of light and integrity
in a sea of darkness in what the preeminent Swedish radiobiologist and long
time associate of Rolf Sievert, Prof Dr Gunnar Walinder states with
conviction: "I do not hesitate to say that this is the greatest scientific
scandal of the century."


It is encouraging to see statements like Dr. Huda's that can say plainly that
1.6 rem is an inconsequential risk, when we are awash with ignorance in
considering a few mrem, and the waste of a few $100s Billions, and WIPP, and
Ward Valley, and Hanford, and Brookhaven, and LLW siting, and nuclear
medicine, etc etc, as public policy that is anything other than a travesty,
responsible for the destruction of nuclear technologies, potentially
sacrificing the world our granchildren will inherit to conflicts over oil,
food, energy, health care, and environmental destruction in an unsustainable
rapidly growing world population (the US population every 3 years) and
economic growth.

We all have an opportunity to engage the forthright integrity embodied in Dr.
Huda's message. The target audience is not Helen Caldicott and John Gofman.
The target audience is NCRP/ICRP/NAS/EPA/NRC/DOE/FDA/NIH/CDC/NIOSH/NIEHS/etc.
And it is not the NYTimes or LATimes, it is the Congressional Record, and the
travesty of the EPA rulemaking on radon in water, and DOE's travesty of
Brookhaven, Hanford, etc. (Then send a cc: to the NYT and LAT.)


Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com