Unconventional Wisdom 6

Policy Issues

“Hey, Curmudge, how did we get into this mess, anyway?”

“Actually Julie, I think there are two messes—the policies themselves and their unintended consequences.  Let’s start with Mess #1, the official recognition of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis in the U. S. and other countries (but not France).  This is discussed at length in several of the papers in Dose-Response Vol. 10, No. 2 and 4 (2012).  The big problem is that one can’t rigorously prove a small increase or small decrease in cancer deaths at very low doses of ionizing radiation when 20% of the human population die of cancer from any number of causes.  It’s the classical problem of trying to discern a small signal amid a lot of noise.  So the government takes the easy way out and assumes that the LNT hypothesis is valid.”

“Because of that policy, people have acquired an unshakable belief that ionizing radiation at all levels will cause cancer.  Gosh, Old Guy, just imagine the political power derived from that fear by anti-nuclear power activists and the promise of big payments to corporations that move ‘contaminated’ soil from one place to another.  It’s even the raison d’être for the town’s basement tester and radon exterminator.  And this happens because people choose to ignore, or (more likely) are totally unaware of the weight of evidence showing radiation hormesis or at least a threshold.”

“You’ve got it Julie, as usual.  Now let’s consider Mess #2, the consequences of the LNT.  The nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima provide examples of decisions made by governments that were overly protective against radiation but that caused great harm to the populace emotionally, financially, and socially (1).  In the Chernobyl area 200,000 people were forcibly resettled where the natural background plus the Chernobyl contribution exceeded 500 mrem per year; recall that the natural background in Denver is 600 mrem per year. ‘Following the Chernobyl accident in 1986, an estimated 100,000- 200,000 Chernobyl-related induced abortions were performed in Western Europe.  Perceptions of radiation risks affected personal choices about continuing pregnancies.’ (2)”

“Curmudge, that’s horrible!  And then there was the Fukushima disaster in March 2011.  Ninety thousand people were evacuated from an area that had an estimated first-year dose of 2 rem to as high as 22 rem (3).  There are locations in Brazil and Iran with higher background than that.  Actual losses in the disaster were 15,000 deaths due to the tsunami and $55 billion spent on fossil fuel imports due to the shutdown of almost all of Japan’s nuclear power plants.  Could that happen here?”

“A tsunami on the Great Lakes is quite unlikely, but consider what would happen if a terrorist somehow constructed a rudimentary nuclear weapon—a so-called ‘dirty bomb’—and detonated it over Chicago.  Everyone’s fear of all radiation would cause panic in the streets, and government regulators would probably issue stupid evacuation orders.  Recall that President Obama requested that the Japanese evacuate all Americans from within 50 miles of Fukushima (4).”

“Oh, Curmudge, I’m not surprised.  But wouldn’t a lot of good things happen if the government abandoned the LNT hypothesis and taught people that low doses of radiation were not to be feared and could be good for them?”

“The list would be long Julie, but here are a few examples.  Our electricity would come from nuclear power plants, many of which would use breeder reactor technology that would reduce the problem of radioactive waste.  That would resolve the controversy over greenhouse emissions from fossil-fueled power generation.  Our cars could have small atomic engines that would be fueled once by the manufacturer.  And there would be lots of research on the medical uses of low doses of radiation.  Imagine getting a mammogram for cancer prevention instead of diagnosis.  And maybe old guys like me will live longer.”

“I would be concerned about that, Curmudge.  One old geezer that I know quite well is flakey enough already.  So how is this low-dose radiation controversy going to be resolved?”

“Slowly, I believe.  Consider the stakeholders, beginning with the people and their governments.  An expansive government will take advantage of the people’s fears by promulgating regulations, e.g., a carbon tax, and by practicing crony capitalism, such as investing in solar energy schemes.  Remember, this is the age of policy-based evidence—not evidence-based policies.  NGOs thrive on people’s fears and concerns, so they will fight the concepts of a threshold and hormesis tooth and nail.  Scientists who have not read the literature will view data that fit a ‘J’-shaped curve as counterintuitive.  Nevertheless, it will be up to the scientists to gain an understanding of low doses of ionizing radiation and teach what they have learned.  These findings are too significant to be kept under wraps indefinitely.”

“Hey, Cumudge, that’s what you and I are doing.  It’s a perfect job for a jaded nurse and an old inveterate teacher.  So what issue will we tackle next?”

“We may have more to say about low doses of ionizing radiation, but not right away.  It will soon be May and time to celebrate our sixth anniversary.  À plus tard (see you later), Julie.”

“Ciao (‘bye), Old Guy.”

Kaizen Curmudgeon    

(1)  Dobrzynski, L. (p. 467) and Wilson, R. (p. 480) in Dose-Response 10, No. 4 (2012).

(2)   Mossman, K. L. Dose-Response 10, No.2: 190 (2012).

(3)   Muller, Richard  The Panic Over Fukushima  Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2012.

(4)   Wilson, Richard  Dose-Response 10, No. 4: 480 (2012).

Acknowledgements:  Curmudge and Jaded Julie gratefully acknowledge the personal communications (face-to-face and email) between Doc Mack and the following distinguished scientists: Douglas R. Boreham, T. D. Luckey, Ron E. J. Mitchel, and Charles L. Sanders.