Re: LNT, regs and lives

["Jerry J Cohen" <JJCOHEN@prodigy.net>]

I've seen lots of data, indicating the LNT hypothesis is invalid.   All that
I've seen  supporting  LNT are the assertions of standard setting
organizations to the effect that arguments against LNT are "not convincing".
Could anyone cite actual scientific data that would support LNT?



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Stabin <stabin@npd.ufpe.br>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 3:14 PM
Subject: LNT, regs and lives


>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

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