Mind-sets, low-level exposures, and research

Much of our environmental policy is based on the notion that carcinogenic agents are harmful at even minuscule doses. From where does this thinking come? What is the scientific evidence that supports such policy? Moreover, why is the public willing to buy into this? Or is it the other way around: Has the scientific community bought into a paradigm that has its origins in public imagery? Or, most likely, are there interactions between the two? It is essential that we find out whether or not there are risks associated with low-level exposures to radiation. The author can see three obvious areas where the future depends on better information: The increasing radiation exposures resulting from the use of medical diagnostic and therapeutic practices need to be properly evaluated for safety; Environmental policies, which direct enormous resources to the reduction of small radiation exposures, needs to be put on a firmer scientific basis; The future of nuclear energy, dependent as it is on public acceptance, may well rely upon a better understanding of low-dose effects. Nuclear energy could provide an important solution of global warming and other possible environmental hazards, but will probably not be implemented as long as fear of low-dose radiation persists. Although an established paradigm has great resilience, it cannot resist the onslaught of inconsistent scientific observations or of the social value system that supports it. Only new research will enable us to determine if a paradigm shift is in order here