The science and politics of linear radiation models

Unlike religion or politics, science is thought to be value free, and free of subjectivity. The author's thesis is that scientists carry the same cultural baggage as do other human beings. Where uncertainty exists, we often invent explanatory myths; we call them knowledge, or science. An example is our belief in the harmfulness of radiation at low (environmental or occupational exposure) levels. This thesis (myth) is widely accepted as established fact, not only among the lay public, but among the scientific community as well. Historically, it was thought that radiation effects obeyed a threshold response. Occupational exposure standards were based upon such a presumption. Following the second world war, however, this strategy was reconsidered, based on genetic studies and the observation that genetic phenomena were important in carcinogenesis. On the basis of prudence, public policy authorities adopted a policy in which it was assumed that even very low doses of radiation might be harmful. Evidence to the contrary has been suppressed. Indeed, the literature is full of reports suggesting that animals exposed to low doses of radiation benefit from those exposures. Such benefits include enhancement of the immune system, increased resistance to infection, and increased longevity. Several mechanisms have been proposed which might explain how such effects could occur. There is now a new wave of interest in low dose phenomena, and in the adaptive mechanisms which exist. Whether this shall result in a reconsideration of the radiation paradigm is still to be seen