RADIATION HAZARDS

If other doctors were as reckless (or incompetent) as Dr Gofman in using the truth but not the whole truth, they could recommend exposure to radiation as a preventive measure against cancer on the grounds (in themselves true) that Colorado has twice the natural radioactive background of Florida, but only half the cancer incidence. Or they could point out that we don't know what might happen to humans without radiation, since none have ever been without it (again, in itself true), and if they were as reckless as Gofman, they might advocate extra doses to all who might be in danger of missing a little of the regular natural intake.

Gofman is not the only one to censor inconvenient data. He is joined by the EPA, which as late as Sept. 1977, in its reports on Radiological Quality in the US reported 400,000 person-rems per year from the radon generated in coal ash piles, compared with only 70,000 person-rems for uranium tailings. A year later, the EPA still classified uranium tailings as radioactive wastes (Federal Register, 18 Dec. 1978, Part IV), but coal ash, which radiates more than 5 times as much, had disappeared from the same category.

Why?

Ask Douglas M. Costle, E.P.A., Washington, DC 20460.

To use radiation as a scare bogey against nuclear power is, in any case, ludicrous, since its contribution is quite negligible compared to other sources.

The British National Radiological Protection Board, which is responsible for advising the public on possible dangers from all sources of radiation, has recently published a report showing that 67.6 percent of the total exposure received by the average Briton comes from natural sources, and 30.7 from medical irradiation (mostly X-rays). That makes 98.3 percent of the total. The rest goes for fall-out from bomb tests (0.6 percent), occupational exposure (0.45 percent ), disposal of radioactive waste (0.5 percent), and miscellaneous.

What happened to routine emissions by nuclear power plants, which in Britain amount to 12 percent of capacity? (10.6 percent in the US.) With around 0.0015 percent they didn't make it to the second decimal place, and thus suffered the indignity of perhaps not even affecting the rounding error under "miscellaneous."

In the US, on the other hand, if we are to believe Prof. Ernest Sternglass, that is exactly what causes babies to die, SAT scores to drop, mental retardation to set in, milk to be contaminated, and perhaps, we might suggest, publicity-hungry college professors to go on the rampage with fabricated data.