Biologist PZ Myers has a post on observational and historical science regarding biology and the silliness of creationists.
One entire field of science, cosmology, relies entirely on scientific inference. We observe some stuff and infer its central theory, the Big Bang theory. Nobody was there at the Big Bang. We can't replicate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Yet, the scientific consensus is that the origins of our Universe are explained by the Big Bang.
Apparently the Big Bang theory doesn't impact too many people's ideology. There aren't a bunch of op-eds, books, blogs, etc. denouncing the Big Bang. That's probably because it seems to coincide with various interpretations of religious texts.
Health physics, in the low dose radiation range, is also inferential. We can't see the radiation cause cancer. We have to use logical inference combining facts of epidemiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, etc. in order to develop the central theory of Linear, No-Threshold dose response (LNT).
Unlike the Big Bang, LNT does seem to impact some folks' ideology. And that leads to pseudo-science propaganda.
Which gives me an urge to strangle, which I suppress every time, though: I just tell myself it's not their fault their brains were poisoned by nuclear power deification or demonization.
For the record, I've kept digging into how the French academies went to oppoze LNT: it actually started back in the late 80's when a European treaty imposed lowering yearly dose allowances for nuclear workers from 50mSv down to 20mSv. One could probably assume that the Big Bang theory is safe as long as it doesn't threaten anybody's profit margins ..
ReplyDeleteDid the French Academies ever publish a prior radiation effects document before the one of around 2005? And have they published one since?
ReplyDeleteYes, the Big Bang coincides with the Bible for the most part and doesn't threaten any religious organization's profit margin. If we did have a scientific theory of the Universe which obviously contradicted the Bible and other religious texts, we should expect an attack on the science.
Yes, prior to the 2005 report, I know of at least 2 reports from the academies (there may be more):
ReplyDelete- A 1989 report in French (http://www.bdsp.ehesp.fr/Base/28444/)
- Then comes a 1995 report in French (http://books.google.fr/books/about/Probl%C3%A8mes_li%C3%A9s_aux_effets_des_faibles.html?id=seBVAAAACAAJ), that was later translated into English (http://journals.lww.com/nuclearmed/Citation/1999/01000/Problems_Associated_With_the_Effects_of_Low_Doses.26.aspx)
Although Tubiana has carried on advocating the hormesis theory since then (e.g. http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.short), I don't know of any more report from the Academies after the 2005 one.
BTW, while looking for later reports, I just found the definition for hormesis as provided by the French Academy of Medicine website (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionnaire.academie-medecine.fr%2F%3Fq%3Dhormesis).
The French Academy of Medicine's definition of hormesis is really a definition of adaptive response.
ReplyDeleteTubiana gets this right in his Radiology paper.
However he gets wrong, "The data suggest that a combination of error-free DNA repair and elimination of preneoplastic cells furnishes practical thresholds (Figure)."
There is no error-free DNA repair. If there was we wouldn't be here (we wouldn't have evolved).
I noticed one of his coauthors is Feinendegen. He has typically partnered with Pollycove here in the U.S. Here's Pollycove & Feinendegen being promoted by Calabrese (surprise!):
http://www.belleonline.com/newsletters/volume11/vol11-2.pdf
About the definition, you're absolutely right. I must admit I hadn't paid too much attention to that part (I keep reading the same claims so often that I just got used to skipping these parts).
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, I've added it to my collection :)
I had already retrieved one or two papers by Feinendegen (e.g. "Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis") so I knew in what camp he stood.
Calabrese, Feinendegen, Tubiana and others (including Aurengo and Averbeck, who participated in the 2005 report) also seem to share seats in the lowrad initiative and associated journal:
http://www.wonucspain.org/pages.php?lang=en&id=2
http://www.ssnm.sk/aktualita/11th_international_lowrad_conference/
http://lowrad.wonuc.org/ijlr/ijlr-comite.htm
http://lowrad.wonuc.org/prize/mcp-laureat.htm
I'm still not quite sure what this lowrad thing is actually. Ever heard of it?
I had not heard of lowrad, but it seems to be commissioned by the World Council Of Nuclear Workers based in Paris. The U.S. does not appear to be a member of it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wonuc.org/
They don't seem to have an agenda (HA! HA! HA!):
http://www.wonuc.org/agenda.htm
Yes, I had noticed the connection (and shared postal address) with WONUC. I had never heard of them, but I've never worked in the nuclear industry, so I wouldn't know.
ReplyDeleteWorking at WONUC seems to be a full-time job though:
http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/philippe-auziere/41/880/204
http://fr.linkedin.com/pub/oscar-fiestas-tejada/8/6bb/748
Good thing they don't have an agenda then... That's so rare a thing nowadays... :-D
HA!
ReplyDeleteThis is great information Conrad. No I hadn't thought about it this way, but yes, the LNT deniers always come up with this French Academy recommendation. Silly me.
ReplyDeleteHere is the summary of the 1989 report. Looks almost reasonable, e.g., recommends epidemiological research into natural radon etc. to get a handle on the low-dose, low-dose-rate conundrum. And no revision of norms until the goods are in.
Martin, thanks a lot for the link! I had completely forgotten this paper was an executive summary of the report.
ReplyDeleteFor French readers, there are actually several more papers in the same issue of Radioprotection discussing either the new radiation protection norm or LNT (TOC). The paper by Latarjet is especially interesting as it seems this early report already started considering hormesis as a promising theory.
On the debate itself, the best resources I found online (in French) are the report and public hearing from the French Senate committee which eventually was put in charge of settling the dispute.
I found especially enlightening this remark by Tubiana (annex, p 225): "There is a consensus on the 1Sv lifetime limit. The only difference between Mr Clarke's position and the Academy's position is how this sievert is spread throughout one's lifetime. Must we introduce a rigid limitation at 20 mSv per year or more flexibility? This is our only debate."
I believe there are more reports by this committee on this issue, which provide more insight on how the debate went in France at the time. I am still in the process of gathering the jigsaw puzzle pieces :)
The Latarjet "paper" is fascinating in a sick sort of way, as it reads like a political tract.
DeleteThis is definitely worth more digging.
Actually the journal Radioprotection in which this appeared seems to be an entirely French operation, a house organ of the Societé Française de Radioprotection...
DeleteJust a bit of context to begin with. In France, there are two very different jobs dealing with radiation protection: medical physicists (Personne Spécialisée en Radio-Physique Médicale / PSRPM) and radiation safety officers (Personne Compétente en Radioprotection / PCR):
Delete- Medical physicists only work in hospitals (or medical companies). Until recent years, their training used to be pretty short (2 years, including 1 year practical training) and they used to be spread pretty thinly across French hospital (300 positions). They deal mainly with radiation therapy planning (and to a much small degree with nuclear medicine and radiology quality control). They often don't know much about the LNT debate. They form the Société Française de Physique Médicale.
- Radiation safety officers are mandatory in all companies where there are radiation occupational hazards. They don't need to be qualified in physics, and their training can be as short as 5 days (here). Among them, experts mostly come from the nuclear industry or from nuclear medicine departments. They form the Société Française de Radioprotection (SFRP), the French affilitate to IRPA.
So Radioprotection is indeed the journal of the SFRP, but that's not an issue to me as long as they keep a balanced view with regards to the LNT debate. The main issue is that SFRP board members mainly comes from the nuclear industry (EDF, AREVA, CEA, CEPN), with few if any medical physicists. Fortunately, the SFRP board now also includes several members from nuclear safety official agencies (ASN, IRSN): I believe they keep SFRP and their journal from straying too far away from the LNT consensus. See for example this issue (all articles in English, freely available), which seemed reasonably balanced to me.