Re[2]: www fallout (radiation, AIDS etc)

["Gerald Falo"<gerald_falo_at_chppm7__apgea@chppm-ccmail.apgea.army.mil>]

     Before I begin, let me state that I am undecided on the scientific 
     merits of hormesis or a threshold.  But, I think it would be easier to 
     convince me of a threshold, but even here I don't know if a single 
     threshold would apply to all stochastic effects of radiation.
     
     
     Al Tschaeche wrote:
     
          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.
     
     Here, he calls into question the rationality and resposibility of 
     those who disagrees with him.  This approach is not scientific and at 
     best alienating to those he wishes to educate.  Furthermore, the 
     decision to spend limited resources is made by the public through 
     their representatives - at least in theory.  If the representatives 
     make the wrong/questionable decision, then more education is required.
     
     
          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.
          
     And further along in his post, Al states,
     
     
          Actually, all we need to say is: "Doses below X (5) rem per year 
          are safe."
          
          
          I must disagree with Al on his implicit definition of what safe 
          means. According to the Webster Dictionary on line the 6 
          defintions of the adjective safe are:
     
     
     1 : free from harm or risk : UNHURT
     2 a : secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss b : successful at 
     getting to a base in baseball without being put out
     3 : affording safety or security from danger, risk, or difficulty
     4 obsolete, of mental or moral faculties : HEALTHY, SOUND
     5 a : not threatening danger : HARMLESS b : unlikely to produce 
     controversy or contradiction
     6 a : not likely to take risks : CAUTIOUS b : TRUSTWORTHY, RELIABLE.
     
     This agrees well with what I have learned when talking to people like 
     my non-HP friends and parents.  To most people safe means "without 
     harm".  It is an absolute statement. 
     
     I agree with the second part of Al's statement," below which 
     deleterious effects on humans have not been unequivocally 
     demonstrated" - the part he usually omits. It is up to the public and 
     their representativew to determine what an *acceptable* or working 
     definition of safe is.  The setting of public policy, by definition, 
     is not purely a scientific question.  The responsiblity of the 
     scientific community is to present the best available evidence and 
     conclusions and to advise those making policy decisions.  If the 
     conclusions reached by the public are erroneous, if is incumbent upon 
     the scientific community to continue to try to educate them.
     
          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.
     
     Does this mean that you, yourself, are unsure of the effects, if any, 
     of low level radiation?  That is the inference I draw from this 
     statement.  If there are doubts about the effects (bad, none, or good) 
     of low level radiation, then who makes the policy decisions?
     
     In the light of scientific uncertainty, and the knowledge that heap 
     conservative assumption upon conservative assumption can, in some 
     (many?) cases, actually wind up causing more harm than good, the 
     question is "What should the public health policy be?" A corollary of 
     this would be, "Who should make that policy?"
     
     Being the cautious person that I am, I am willing to let the research 
     continue and wait for more data.  However, I think that the concept of 
     de minimis - whether a Below Regulatory Concern or a Negligible 
     Individual Risk - should be persued with full vigor.  I think that 
     these concepts have a much better chance of being accepted (despite 
     their rejection so far) by the public someday.
     
     
     All in all I still reserve the right to be wrong, nor do I represent 
     the views of my employer.
     
     Jerry Falo
     jer3ry@aol.com


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html