[uvdiv]

>THEIR OWN POSITION PAPER on backscatter scanners recommends per-screening and per-year (time limit!) maximums FAR below the threshold that they claimed wasn't a problem in the first place -- see 8).

>...How they can go from saying in the first paper, "However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent" to supporting a maximum of 0.025 rem per year is entirely unclear.

Where they support that 0.025 rem/year recommendation, they explain that the point is to keep "individual doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) while achieving the desired objective." (Same source, PS017-1).

And you mischarcterize their claims. HPS does not claim <5 rem doses are "not a problem" -- they said the effects are such are "either too small to be observed or nonexistent". (It does not follow that a health effect too small to be epidemologically noticable is "not a problem"). "Too small to be observed" is NOT a quantifier of significance; it is an explanation for the lack of empirical observations. That position statement (PS010-2) is a recommendation against quantiative estimation of the effects of <5 rem radiation doses, not an assertion of their absolute safety.

>It appears to be "Radiation Risk in Perspective", PS010-2 (which I assume is the updated version of PS010-1). It has nothing to say about doses over short time periods.

It does not appear to have been referenced for that purpose.

[nubian]

> It does not appear to have been referenced for that purpose.

Your comment referenced it for that purpose.

Your comment about dose per unit time not mattering referenced an article which referenced their position paper which didn't support what the article said. Hence the article was simply the opinion of the author.

> (And you mischarcterize their claims. HPS does not claim <5 rem doses are "not a problem" -- they said the effects are such are "either too small to be observed or nonexistent". (It does not follow that a health effect too small to be epidemologically noticable is "not a problem").

"Nonexistent" sounds like "not a problem" to me.

"Too small to be observed" is the same. How is a problem that causes no observable effects a problem? That's the practical definition of "not a problem".

And if dose per unit time doesn't matter, then their per-screening and annual limits for these small doses wouldn't matter. They are contradicting themselves.

Further, as mentioned, they are not an independent safety group. They are an industry group for the pro-nuclear lobby. This is like relying on the Business Software Alliance (BSA, a front group for Microsoft and other large software corporations) for opinions on the harmful nature of DRM, copyright laws, etc.