The Health Physics Society Pays Tribute To A HP Denier

The HPS has published a document called, "Radiation And Risk: Expert Perspectives".

Why?

We have scientific consensus bodies which have reached consensus on radiation risks, why have individual perspectives?  Instead the society should produce a document which assists in the public's understanding of the scientific consensus.

And the most prolific health physics denier of the 20th century was Bernie Cohen who is given a special presence in the document (one of his papers is included and another paper honors him).  I've written an extensive post on Cohen.

As an HPS member, that document is embarrassing.

I sent an email to Howard Dickson, Web Editor, relevant parts below:

"I have no reason to doubt that the recent document "Radiation and Risk Perspectives" was compiled with the best of intentions.   And nothing in this message should be misconstrued as any sort of personal attack.  I also realize that there is a disclaimer on the second page.

In addition to being a student of health physics, I'm also one of agnotology (it's a neo-logism, so you may have to look it up). And it is from that perspective I'm writing you. From that perspective I find the document disappointing.

Most generally, I'm not sure what point is served by having individuals give their personal perspectives on radiation and risk.  We have scientific consensus  bodies who reach consensus on what the risks are.  Shouldn't the HPS be explaining what the consensus is and why?

For example, your paper states there is some credible evidence supporting hormesis while Gale's paper says the evidence for a threshold is weak, and doesn't mention hormesis at all.  How do these disparate views improve the public's understanding?  The scientific consensus is LNT theory and has been for decades.

What is the point of Whicker and Higley's pro-nuclear power paper?  The stated objective of the larger document is to explain radiation and risks.  When comparing any energy production methods the analysis depends on many more risk factors (and benefits) than radiation, some of which are briefly discussed within the paper.  But why is the paper there?

Within agnotology we've identified particular groups who promote the confusion of the public on scientific issues ("merchants of doubt").  One particularly insidious group is the Marshall Institute.  They created doubt on the hazards of tobacco in the late 20th century, which likely led to the premature deaths of thousands of people.

Today, their primary focus is to create doubt on climatology (denial of global warming).  The deleterious affects of their agenda will manifest in many different ways and I won't go into that here.

I mention that institute because this document pays Cohen special respect.  However Cohen was a Marshall speaker.  He performed a radon study that suffered from the ecological fallacy and combined that with some examples of adaptive response in order to create doubt about LNT.  He was a  "merchant of doubt" of health physics, yet is getting special honors within an HPS document.  That's bizarre.  (Imagine a society of biologists paying homage to an intelligent design advocate).

I hope you will objectively consider some of the issues I've raised and reconsider whether this document will actually improve the public's understanding of radiation and risk.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.