Public Panic may have stopped nuclear power for 50 years

Nuclear Engineers emphasize safety improvements

Radiation experts and basic scientists are silent

Cost determined by virulent public opposition

These are the locations of measurement

British Journal of CancerVol. VIII, March 1954, No. 1

Sir Richard Doll & Peter Armitage(repeated 50 years later)

Cancer caused by a series of steps:

Effects of Low Doses Probability of Causation

and implications for Public Policy

The Future of Nuclear Power may depend upon a Rational Approach to

Risks of Radiation Exposure and their regulation.

What are they?Do we compensate those exposed?

If not what?

LINEARITY AT LOW DOSES

IS USUAL!!

Walking blindfold acrossHarvard Square is safe:

(Risk (R) = 0)IF THERE ARE NO CARS!

The risk (R) increases roughly in proportion

to the number of cars.

Acute Effects

Characteristics• One dose or dose accumulated in a

short time KILLS• 1/10 the dose repeated 10 times

DOES NOT KILL

CHRONIC EFFECTS including CANCER

Characteristics

A dose just sub-acute can give effects if repeated.

Usually not all people affected - dose response is flatter

Typically an accumulated Chronic Dose = Acute LD50

gives CANCER to 10% of the population.

E.g. LD50 for radiation is about 350 Rems.

At 350 Rems about 10% of exposed get cancer.

(more or less depending on rate of exposure)

Early Optimism Based on Poisons

There is a threshold below which nothing happens

__________J.G. Crowther 1924

Probability of Ionizing a CellLinear with Dose

Repair Mechanisms

BUTDoes the Mechanism Reject/Repair:ALL DAMAGED CELLS UP TO XXXX?

(implying a threshold)OR 99.999% of CELLS

INDEPENDENT OF DOSE

WE DON’T KNOW

CRITICAL ISSUES FOR LINEARITY

• The POLLUTANT actsin the same way as

whatever else influences the CANCER RATE

• CANCERS caused by the POLLUTANTare INDISTINGUISHABLE from other cancers

Probability of Causation

Come let us Cast Lots to find out who is to blame for this ordeal.

Jonah 1:7

Probability of Causation

equals

Risk from Substance

divided by

Risk from all Causes

Risk from all causes can be approximated as the Prevalence in a

similar Population.

If the cancer is rare, POC can be high even if the risk is low.

E.gPOC for berylliosis is unity for

beryllium as a cause

POC for asbestos exposure as a cause of mesothelioma among males is 80%

and 20% among females

Administrative Usesof the POC concept:

Aluminum workers in Quebec (compensate if POC > 50%)

Radiation Workers in UK (compensate if POC >20%)

Compensation for Radiation Exposures

1985 - Veteran “Downwinders”(if upper 99th percentile of POC > 50%;

effectively POC >5%)

1996 - UK Workers(if POC >20%)

2000 - Old AEC employees (if upper 99th percentile of POC > 50%;

effectively POC >5%)

Medical CausationGeneral Causation:

the Postulated Cause is Known to Cause the Disease under some conditions

(POC>0)

Specific Causation, exposure and other circumstances make POC large enough (>50%)

What do the Courts say?

US Supreme Court

DaubertJoiner

Kumho Tire

General Causation needs a Risk Ratio that is significant,

statistically and otherwise

Usually RR>2 (POC >50%)

Rule to avoid frivolous lawsuits:The postulated cause must be

“more likely than not” POC>50%

But Rutherford instruction

If total asbestos exposure is a proven cause, it can be assigned to individual

suppliers even if POC < 50%.

RISK of respiratory ailments

due to LIFETIME EXPOSURE toAIR POLLUTION is

3 to 5% average in the USA!

POC varies from 30% to 80%

If I develop leukemia:The POC from my Medical Exposures

would be over 50%

Can I sue using the Rutherford case?

Minister of Health, UKUS State Department

Harvard UniversityCommonwealth of Massachussets

ONRDOE (AEC)

Assignment of a Cause does not mean that Compensation is payable.

E.g.Chemotherapy agents are often

carcinogenic and increase risk of future cancers even as they cure.

Go back to the beginning: Does it make sense?

Can we study those cohorts where NIH calculate POC near 50%?

Risk Ratio of 2?

Those x-rayed just post world war II?