LNT, regs and lives

[Michael Stabin <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>]

Bernard L. Cohen wrote:

> We thought we could do much better with radiation, using LNT to
>calculate risks in quantitative terms. For every little bit of radiation,
>we calculate the number of deaths, and killing is something the Media are
>quick to report. People are moved by such reports and view these deaths as
>real, perhaps even afflicting themselves or their loved ones. The public
>has thus  been driven insane over fear of radiation, losing all contact
>with reality. As a result, we have largely lost the benefits of nuclear
>power which could be averting tens of thousands of deaths per year from
>air pollution (and also solving other environmental problems like global
>warming, acid rain, etc). We are losing many other benefits of radiation
>such as food irradiation which could be averting millions of cases of food
>poisoning, saving thousands of lives, each year. We are wasting our
>SocietyUs wealth on ridiculous clean-up programs at nuclear facilities;
>this wasted wealth could save thousands of lives each year if it were
>spent on biomedical research, on public health programs, or on highway
>safety.
> Our passion for doing much better for radiation than has been done
>for air pollution by using LNT has backfired horribly, costing our Society
>dearly.

Bernie, this is eloquently stated.  I think it is a winning argument to show
that we have lost *real* lives in saving hypothetical lives.

I remember a presentation I heard about cleanup operations in some of the
South Pacific atolls, atolls that were not even inhabited at the moment, but
that were reclaimed with the idea of preventing future hypothetical cancers,
*should* someone actually move there and live, and *should* these levels of
radiation cause cancer.  In the transport of equipment and personnel to the
atoll as well as in the cleanup operations, several actual human beings
died, due to various mishaps.

I also remember marveling in the late 80's as the EPA mounted this huge
campaign to put the little rubber sleeves on gas nozzles at all self-service
gas stations in the country, on the theory that they would stop some of
fumes from leaking from the gas tank while being filled, which might account
for 1 cancer death every 10 years.  And by golly, we're not going to stand
by and let THAT happen, are we?  I for one feel safer today because of my
federal government watching out for me.

Are people dying or are they not due to power losses in the NE US during
winter and summer peak energy demands?

Now I'm not lining up here as an LNT proponent.  I think there are
reasonable data that argue for a threshold, but there are also reasonable
arguments and data on the other side, I don't think we can count this as
resolved scientifically.  However, I think there would be broader agreement
on the fact that resources are being expended in the wrong places, if the
case can be more convincingly made that there are real deaths occurring, and
that it is not good public policy to lose dollars, time, and sleep over the
hypothetical ones.

I also fail to understand the argument that radiation safety community
stands to gain money by the implementation of LNT.  If we were only in it
for the money, wouldn't we be the loudest proponents of LNT?


Michael Stabin
Departamento de Energia Nuclear/UFPE
Av. Prof. Luiz Freire, 1000 - Cidade Universitaria
CEP 50740 - 540
Recife - PE
Brazil
Phone 55-81-271-8251 or 8252 or 8253
Fax  55-81-271-8250
E-mail stabin@npd.ufpe.br


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