Re: www fallout (radiation, AIDS etc)

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Philip Hypes wrote:

> Having taken a quick look through some of the web sites Bjorn
> listed (I had neither the time nor the stomach for an extended
> perusal), something jumped out at me;  "in December 1989,
> the government sponsored National Academy of Sciences stated
> in a report titled Biological Effects of Radiation that there was no
> safe level of radiation."
>
> Until/unless hormesis is conclusively demonstrated in human
> beings, this statment will remain strictly accurate.

I have a problem with this last sentence.  First, the NAS statement is not
known to be true.  It is only a guess.  We do not know without a doubt,
conclusively,  unequivocally, and to everyone's satisfaction whether there is
a safe level of radiation or not (however, there is a lot of evidence now
that there is).  For the NAS to make such a bald faced statement (if they
did) is irrational and irresponsible.

But, to require absolute proof of hormesis or other beneficial effect before
we can get rid of the LNTH is also irrational and irresponsible.  We should
put the shoe on the other foot and require absolute proof of damage at low
doses, based on acceptable whole human data before we are willing to spend
limited resources to reduce doses to very low levels.

Our statement should be: "There is a safe level of radiation at (here pick a
value - I vote for 5 rem per year) rem (or Sv).  One might also add: " below
which deleterious effects on humans have not been unequivocally demonstrated"
if one wanted, but I always stop at the end of the first phrase.  There
really is a safe level of low dose.  One must only think, "safe with respect
to what else that can damage me, not absolutely safe."  There is nothing that
is completely and absolutely safe, except God's love, and even that might at
times seem not to be safe.

We do not need to have hormesis or other beneficial effects conclusively
proven before we can say low doses are safe.  We MUST get away from buying
into the idea that absolute safety must be proven before the LNTH can go
away.  Harm must be proven, not safety.  One cannot prove safety, only harm.
This is the problem we face.  We have let the idea that safety must be proven
be a red herring.  We must throw it out and make the "other side" prove, on
the basis of whole human data, that low doses are harmful.  I have read Art
Upton's NCRP 6.1 committee draft report and am not unequivocally convinced
low doses are truly harmful from the "evidence" provided in that report.
There still is too much guesswork, hypothesizing and extrapolation to permit
really knowing that low doses are really harmful.

> However, as
> a statement intended for public consumption, it is somewhat
> misleading.

Not "somewhat", absolutely and completely misleading.

> When making general statments such as this, we
> have to be conservative to avoid the perception that we are sugar
> coating the truth.

Why must we be conservative?  People who set standards for other hazardous
materials aren't necessarily conservative.  Why must we be? (and I know all
the standard answers)

> However, it is possible to go too far.  A better
> phrasing might be something like "Just as there is no safe
> distance to walk down the street, there is no absolutely safe
> level of radiation exposure.  However, unavoidable risks in eveyday
> life tremendously outweigh the risks of continuous exposure below
> approximately 1 rem per year" (I picked one rem as a rough
> estimate of the higher range background exposure levels found in
> various areas of the US or the world.

Actually, all we need to say is: "Doses below X (5) rem per year are safe."

> The exact number would
> require more deliberation than I've given it right now, but would be
> a lot closer to 1 than 0.1).

1 is 10 times 0.1.  5 is only 5 times 1.  So 1 is closer to what I think the
number should be (5 per year).  Could we agree on 3?

> The point?  Let's be careful not to make it too easy for extremists
> to use our own words against us.

Too late.  We don't correct each erroneous statement that low doses are
harmful so the lie is out there in the world.  If we were to correct each lie
each time it is told in print, on TV or on the radio, we might have a
chance.  But, we don't do that.  We don't even correct government
publications when we have the chance.  Every time the EPA, NRC, DOE has the
lie in it's draft documents for public comment, we don't flood them with
corrections.  I have given up until the IAEA, ICRP and NCRP will bite the
bullet and say low doses are safe.

One piece of news you might be able to use: the HPS Scientific and Public
Issues Committee agreed at the Albuquerque meeting last month to write a HPS
Position Paper stating that a specified level of radiation is SAFE.  They
didn't talk about what the numerical value of the safe dose is to be.  But
just the fact that the HPS will finally state a low dose is safe is a step in
the right direction.  I hope they use 5 rem per year in agreement with their
earlier paper (yes, I know that's not exactly what they said).

What value would y'all use?

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
begin:          vcard
fn:             Al Tschaeche
n:              Tschaeche;Al
org:            Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:          CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard