[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Beneficial Radiation
Recently the CRPA (Canadian Radiation Protection Association) announced it
was developing a position statement on radiation risk (low level).
Initially, the draft was cribbed from the HPS (Health Physics Society)
position statement. I sent the letter below to the CRPA in the summer of
1998:
Dear Michel Rheaume,
Re. Position Statement
I note that you have basically copied the Health Physics Society position
statement, adopted in January 1996, with very little alteration.
This was written by six HPS members, as far as I know, none of whom are
noted for any positive position on Adaptive Response or Hormesis. Despite
this, and the fact that it was written over two and a half years ago, the
position is rather critical of the existing LNT hypothesis and risk
estimation at low levels.
There are twenty five papers from the Low Level Symposium at Seville, last
November, which indicate major problems with the LNT hypothesis and
significant evidence for Adaptive Response and Hormesis. I have attached
copies of these, as well as two presentations given in South Africa in May
of this year. I hope you find them illuminating.
I am sure you are aware that the Atomic Energy Control Board is about is
re-invent itself, and that, in the process, it proposes to drown us in a
sea of new regulations, and straight-jacket us with lower annual dose
limits, and, presumably, correspondingly lower contamination and ALARA
limits.
I note that some concern has been expressed about position statements not
putting CRPA members into conflict of interest with their employers. I
think we should be more concerned about being in conflict with the facts.
Professor Myron Pollycove, M.D., inserts the following at the end of his
presentation at the South African Radiation Conference (May 1998): "The
views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission." Surely this should be sufficient in Canada, if it is
acceptable in the U.S.
The CRPA position statement should be bold enough to reflect the progress
made in this field in the last two or three years. I suggest something
along these lines:
"In accordance with current knowledge of the risks and benefits of
radiation, the CRPA recommends against the introduction of the new limits
proposed by the AECB, and instead proposes that numerically higher limits
be introduced. In the interim, the AECB should continue to use the
existing limits and regulations until a national recommendation on low
dose radiation limits is developed. The International Centre for Low Dose
Radiation Research (ICLDRR), University of Ottawa, should be our source of
information, and could generate the recommendation.
Under the existing regulations, the CRPA comments that the limits are
already so low as to make using the ALARA principle superfluous, in most
circumstances. Once new limits are developed, an Toptimization principleU
should also be introduced, to ensure that, when requested, planned
exposures to maximize beneficial health effects may be provided. Perhaps
this should be referred to as the ABARA principle: As Beneficial As
Reasonably Attainable."
Membership in the CRPA has dropped 20% in the past five years. Perhaps
the CRPA will attract more members if it takes a real stand on this and
other issues, and refuses to stay in the 'safer' middle road. No doubt
some would accuse the CRPA of being in the back pocket of the nuclear
industry, but such perceptions must not be allowed to prevent the CRPA
from really applying its first objective:
"(a) to develop scientific knowledge and practical means for protecting
humans and their environment from the harmful effects of radiation
consistent _with the optimum use of radiation for the benefit of humans_;"
(emphasis added)
I urge the CRPA leadership to seriously reconsider this pivotal component
of the organization's attitude to radiation. The affect of the proposed
new limits on medical, and other uses of radiation, cannot be overstated.
Sincerely,
Chris Davey
[end of letter]
In the October 1998 CRPA Bulletin, CRPA President Mike Haynes stated:
".... CRPA members have responded...[with widely differing opinions about
low level radiation] ...in some cases passionately."
He also said:
"This topic should not be taken lightly... ...it may take us a little
longer to develop a unanimous position statement.... ....we do not want
to end up with a statement that is either divisive to our membership or so
watered down as to be meaningless and of no use to anyone."
In the April 1999 CRPA Bulletin, just out, Mike talks about the CRPA
decision to make an agreement with the Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS),
which was approved by the CRPA membership in a ballot:
"...despite a very clear majority vote on the CNS agreement, I am also
mindful of the concerns expressed by some of you that this is not the
right direction for our Association and that we may be perceived as being
too closely aligned with the nuclear industry."
He also stated that the CRPA should:
"... ensure that we remain a strong independent voice clearly focused on
fostering the radiation protection needs of workers and the public."
Perhaps the following analogy will help those members of CRPA (and
Radsafe) see why their concerns about low level radiation and the
promotion of the beneficial uses of radiation are unsound:
"Let's change the CRPA to the CVPA, (the Canadian Vitamin Protection
Association). Of course, our main focus should be the danger of
overdosing on vitamins, and we must be sure to not come out and state that
low levels of vitamins are actually healthy, in case we are accused of
being in the pocket of the CVS (Canadian Vitamin Society)."
I feel for those scientists who have built reputations on the LNT, but I
would ask them to be bold and honest, and admit that the evidence is
already overwhelmingly in favour of hormesis, adaptive response, and a
definite threshold below which radiation has only positive effects.
Perhaps then we can persuade the regulatory and advisory bodies to allow
us to really use radiation to benefit mankind, save lives in medicine, and
reduce our exposure to pollutants from coal and oil use. Only then will
Sandy's bleak view of the future of nuclear power turn out to be just a
nightmare we can forget about - when we, as a collective body of people
concerned with the optimum use of radiation, finally wake up.
Regards,
Chris Davey
RSO / LSO Cross Cancer Institute 11560 University Avenue
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 1Z2
(780) 432-8616 fax 432-8615
email: cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca
pager number 005, just call (780) 432-8771 and ask for that pager
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html