"[log in to unmask]" wrote to the radiobiology list server "I am giving a
talk on the history of radiation protection (Mid-
>November). This article (Radiation Risks and Ethics) sounds
>interesting. How can I obtain more info?
>If anyone has some interesting facts or can refer me to
>thsources, about History of Rad Protection, let me know.
Dear "friedv", the author of the article in Physics Today, Zbigniew
Jaworowski, said he would send me some copies by mail. I would be glad to
forward a copy to you. A more efficient method is to locate a physicist who
subscribes to Physics Today and ask to borrow the Sept. '99 copy. Also most
science libraries will have a copy.
In the way of additional information you may be interested in an article by
Dr. Lauriston Taylor, the founder in 1929 of the US National Council for
Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) who is probably the most
knowledgable person in the radiation field. I made a condenstion of his
long article with his concurrence. I append it below.
You may be interested in my article on the Internat about "ARE X-RAYS
SAFE?" located at
http://www.medinfo.ufl.edu/other/cameron/rads.html. I think you will find
some useful information. If I can be of further help, let me know. Best
wishes, John
Excerpts from: SOME NON-SCIENTIFIC INFLUENCES ON RADIATION PROTECTION
STANDARDS AND PRACTICE by Laursiton S. Taylor
[The original 24 page article appeared in Health Physics 1980; 32, pp
851-874. The excerpts were chosen by John Cameron with verbal approval
from the author.]
I INTRODUCTION:
Today, we know all we need to know to adequately protect ourselves from
ionizing radiation. What is the problem and why is there one? [The
problem] is not a scientific one. Rather, it is a philosophical problem
...Or perhaps it may be a political problem ... or perhaps the problem may
not be as much protecting ourselves against radiation as protecting us
against ourselves. I shall mention, at least briefly , several
non-scientific factors which may influence protection practices .... and
thus, in turn, influence the setting of our numerical protection standards.
II BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RADIATION
Collectively there exists a vast array of facts and general knowledge about
ionizing radiation effects on animal and man. ... the depth and extent of
this knowledge are unmatched by any of the myriads of other toxic agents
known to man. .... the public has come to expect sharp, clear,
definitive, and undisputed answers to any questions involving radiation.
This leads to the difficulty that when there is ... disagreement among
scientists the public feels ... let down .. by the scientific community. A
good example is the current so-called "controversy" ... centering around
the effects of radiation delivered in low doses at low dose rates.
Radiation effects are generally proportional to dose when delivered acutely
in moderate amounts, say 100 rads and upwards. Precise proportionality is
difficult to establish.. The problem becomes especially critical in the low
dose region say below 25 or 50 rads, delivered acutely, for which the
latent period may be three or even four or more decades. During that long a
period any individual would be subjected to hundreds of other insults, any
number of which might produce the same effect as the radiation. There is
uncertainty about the existence of threshold effects for ionizing
radiation. There are very few threshold effects, although there are
clearly some.
If one is concerned about the degree of hazard in the region where
effects cannot be found or identified, to what extent should an attempt be
made to further "reduce the hazard" to some fraction of what could not be
found in the first place? The question is "how large is half of something
that cannot be measured?"
Today we know enough about dose-effect relationships to state
unequivocally that at least for low-LET radiations the relationships cannot
be strictly linear over the whole dose range and that even for high doses
they are probably not linear.
The difficulty is that since we do not know the precise
relationship - it is assumed as a matter of cautious procedure, that the
dose-effect relationships are linear throughout the entire dose range. This
assumption -- taken too literally, it may lead to unnecessary and
unjustifiable restrictions on the use of ionizing radiation. From the
mere fact that radiation may cause some identifiable effect, it does not
follow that the effects are necessarily detrimental.
III NON-SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF RADIATION PROTECTION
In the late 1940's it was clear to the NCRP, and probably to other
bodies that non-scientific factors would be involved in permissible dose
standards. Why are people willing to accept any risk at all? This argument
applies to practically everything we do in life, with radiation being
perhaps one of the smallest risks that we normally have to contend with.
The past supply of wisdom has come mostly from the scientists
themselves, who consciously or unconsciously, recognizing the limits of
their knowledge, have made strong and important judgment actions regarding
the amount of radiation considered to be acceptable for radiation workers
or the public or the patient.
No one has been identifiably injured by radiation while working
within the first numerical standards set by the NCRP and the ICRP in 1934.
The theories about people being injured have still not led to the
demonstration of injury and, if considered as facts by some, must only be
looked upon as figments of the imagination.
POLITICS: From about 1946 to 1977, practically all federal matters in the
United States relating to ionizing radiation were handled through the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The joint committee, with a stable
membership from both the house and the senate, was dedicated to developing
facts and an understanding of atomic energy, rather than looking for
newspaper headlines and votes.
In its place there are some two dozen congressional committees,
lacking in stability and without an overview power. Rarely does the
chairman or staff of these committees have any knowledge in depth of the
broad subject of ionizing radiation.
In spite of technical shortcomings in the political arena, both
federal and state legislatures exert strong influences on the development
of numerical radiation protection standards. Because of the likely
influence on governmental committees by vocal but prejudiced witnesses or
witnesses having some personal case to plead, we are today faced with the
possibility of unreasonably restrictive limitations being placed on
legitimate uses of ionizing radiation.
THE MEDIA: One of the first political needs we must always recognize in
dealing with groups of people is education. The prime agent of education
(outside of formal schools) in these times is in the radio-television,
newspapers, comic books, books generally and books written by scientists.
Of these, the "news media" clearly dominate, and here lies one of our most
critical problems and the most fruitful area in which the radiation
protectionist must assist in the education of the public. First, however,
we have to persuade the media (and I use the term rather broadly now) that
they have a national obligation to assist the country in educating its
public about radiation matters.
Attacks on the news media for one reason or another are common as
is their own defense under the First Amendment. However, in my opinion,
the First Amendment .. is an essential bulwark of freedom....[but] the
First Amendment also carries with it an obligation on the part of the press
to completely and properly report the news.
In the case of ionizing radiation .... there are constant and
continuous violations of this principle... The fact remains that we need
greater responsibility on the part of the news media in the objective
presentation of uneditorialized news.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS There are at least fourteen agencies of which six have
regulatory responsibilities. Six have research and development
responsibilities and three have advisory roles. In the legislative branch
of the government, there may be some twenty-four House or Senate committees
playing some role in radiation matters (the exact identification of these
is not easy).
ECONOMICS. There is constant pressure to lower protective standards by some
radiation protectionists as well as "consumer advocates" and generally
concerned members of the public. Too often their arguments are based mainly
on theoretical arguments of effects that have never been observed .... So
this is a case of reducing by some factor something that you did not know
in the first place. If someone were today to decide on a reasonable de
minimis level for radiation exposure, it would probably be found that most
of our radiation installations are already well below it.
EDUCATION: We need two things: (1) better communication within and between
scientific and technical groups on the one hand, and the general public on
the other; and (2) much broader education of information to the public.
These communication and educational projects should be carried out
basically by non-governmental organizations, aided and assisted, however,
by some limited government support. in the matter of communication, the
radiation protectionist profession must play a stronger role ...
It is my belief that much of the blame for the public's fears and
apprehensions with respect to radiation matters are due to our media.
There is another criticism that must be directed to the media, namely,
their constant use of a small number of individuals who are clearly out of
step with the radiation protection community. In the U.S. alone there are
some 3500 health physicists and 1800 radiological physicists. Yet the
media will, for some newly breaking news story, seek out some of a half a
dozen individuals who are willing to make willfully deceptive statements
regarding radiation.
SCARE BOOKS AND ARTICLES: Of a collection of "popular" books published over
the last decade or so dealing with radiation matters there is not a single
one which is not riddled with half-truths, untruths, and evidence of basic
lack of knowledge of nuclear energy or radiation. ... another insidious
practice designed to keep the public alarmed about radiation matters ....
the constant linkage made between the atomic bomb and any discussions about
radiation, including medical and industrial applications.
I plead that we cease the seemingly endless procession of studies,
congressional committees, and hearings on the problem of "low level
ionizing radiation" .. About this we know what we know and we know what we
do not know; there is reasonable and rational agreement as to the degree of
disagreement. Either we forget the whole "problem" or we theorize or
postulate a dose-effect relationship.
However, .... these technical concepts have been grasped by the
press, by the congress, by some government agencies, and hence by the
public as established facts, rather than as the scientific ruminations,
which they are.
Somehow, we as radiation protectionists must develop an
unassailable counter force against such misguided actions as outlined
above. This counter force should act with such strength and integrity and
persistence as to compel public attention and respect.
John R. Cameron, Professor Emeritus UW-Madison
2571 Porter Rd. PO Box 405, Lone Rock, WI 53556-0405
Phone: 608/583-2160 Fax: 608/583-2269
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
NOTE: after October 18, 1998 mail and phones change to:
2678 SW 14th Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608-2050
Phone: 352/371-9865; Fax 352/371-9866
same e-mail all year.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
