Re: www fallout (radiation, AIDS etc)

[Philip Hypes <phypes@nis5.lanl.gov>]

At 12:13 PM 2/9/99 -0600, you wrote:


>> 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.

I was not saying that we should require proof of hormesis or something more
like it than LNTH before abandoning LNTH.  I feel that we have enough
reason to abandon LNTH right now.  I doubt that anyone would claim that
there is a "safe" level of aspartame, but we aren't saddled with LNTH based
aspartame regulations like we are with radiation.  All I was saying was that
until we have proof to the contrary, the "no safe level of radiation"
statement
will be true in a lawyerly, weaselly nitpicking sense.  "Safe" is an absolute
term, and as such should be used and received with due consideration.

>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)

Even though you say you know all the standard answers, let me point out that
it is, in fact, a matter of trust and not dose.  When you are perceived as
being
honest about the facts, especially when people think you don't like what
the facts
are saying, you build your credibility and start to gain trust.  If you are
even
perceived as glossing over the facts that don't support your thesis, you lose
trust and credibility, but FAST.  Of course, activists do this all the
time, but
perceptions are less judgemental when someone is perceived as having very
good motives.  "The must really care about public safety, and really believe
there is a serious problem, if they are willing to make it their life's
work to fight
the injustice..."

We can't expect a level playing field, but we can teach people to make good
judgements about risk statements.

>> 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.  

We haven't before, so we can't start now?

>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).

Sounds like a good start!
___________________________________________________________
Philip Hypes
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Safegaurds Science and Technology Group (NIS 5)
(505) 667-1556  phypes@lanl.gov

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