Incorporation of epidemiological findings into radiation protection standards

In standard setting there is a tendency to use data from experimental studies in preference to findings from epidemiological studies. Yet the epidemiological studies are usually the first and at times the only source of data on such critical effects as cancer, reproductive failure, and chronic cardiac and cardiovascular disease in exposed humans. A critique of the protection offered by current and proposed standards for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation illustrates some of the problems. Similar problems occur with water and air pollutants and with occupational exposures of many types. The following sorts of problems were noted: (a) Consideration of both thermal and non-thermal effects especially of non-ionizing radiation. (b) Interpretation of non-significant results as equivalent to no effect. (c) Accepting author's interpretation of a study, rather than examining its data independently for evidence of hazard. (d) Discounting data on unanticipated effects because of poor fit to preconceptions. (e) Dependence on threshold assumptions and demonstrations of dose-response relationships. (f) Choice of insensitive epidemiological indicators and procedures. (g) Consideration of each study separately, rather than giving weight to the conjunction of evidence from all available studies. These problems may be minimized by greater involvement of epidemiologists and their professional organizations in decisions about health protection.