Using A Thought Experiment To Clarify A Radiobiological Controversy

Are philosophers of science limited to conducting autopsies on dead scientific theories, or might they also help resolve contemporary methodological disputes in science? This essay (1) gives an overview of thought experiments, especially in mathematics; (2) outlines three major positions on the current dose-response controversy for ionizing radiation; and (3) sketches an original mathematical thought experiment that might help resolve the low-dose radiation conflict. This thought experiment relies on the assumptions that radiation "hits'' are Poisson distributed and that background conditions cause many more radiation-induced cancers than human activities. The essay closes by responding to several key objections to the position defended here.

[1]  E J Calabrese,et al.  The marginalization of hormesis , 2000, Toxicologic pathology.

[2]  Y M Shcherbak,et al.  Ten years of the Chernobyl era. , 1996, Scientific American.

[3]  R. Clarke,et al.  Control of low-level radiation exposure: time for a change? , 1999, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.

[4]  V. Bond,et al.  Current misinterpretations of the linear no-threshold hypothesis. , 1996, Health physics.

[5]  T. Jones.  A unifying concept for carcinogenic risk assessments: comparison with radiation-induced leukemia in mice and men. , 1984, Health physics.

[6]  W. Schull,et al.  Effects of Atomic Radiation: A half–century of studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki , 1995, Nature Medicine.

[7]  L. Anspaugh,et al.  Health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident , 1987 .

[8]  R. Fry,et al.  Effects of low doses of radiation. , 1996, Health physics.

[9]  B. Modan,et al.  Thyroid cancer following scalp irradiation. , 1977, Radiology.

[10]  W. Schull.  Radioepidemiology of the A-bomb survivors. , 1996, Health physics.

[11]  G. Caldwell.  Radioactive Heaven and Earth: The Health and Environmental Effects of Nuclear Weapons Testing In, On, and Above Earth , 1992 .

[12]  J. Forbes.  INCREASED RISK OF BREAST CANCER AFTER LOW-DOSE IRRADIATION , 1989, The Lancet.

[13]  John D. Norton,et al.  Thought Experiments in Einstein's Work , 1991 .

[14]  L. Sagan,et al.  On radiation, paradigms, and hormesis. , 1989, Science.

[15]  E. Schrödinger.  Science and the human temperament , 1935 .

[16]  J. A. Myrden,et al.  Breast cancer following multiple fluoroscopies during artificial pneumothorax treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. , 1969, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[17]  J. Gofman,et al.  Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis , 1990 .

[18]  E. J. Mishan,et al.  Economics for social decisions : elements of cost-benefit analysis , 1973 .

[19]  W. Kohnlein,et al.  Health Consequences of Exposures to Ionizing Radiation from External and Internal Sources: Challenges to Radiation Protection Standards and Biomedical Research , 1995 .

[20]  R. Monson,et al.  Breast cancer in women after repeated fluoroscopic examinations of the chest. , 1977, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[21]  John D. Norton,et al.  Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? , 1996, Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

[22]  Catherine Caufield,et al.  Multiple Exposures: Chronicles of the Radiation Age , 1989 .

[23]  Rob Lovering,et al.  A Defense of Abortion , 2003 .

[24]  Thomas D. Luckey,et al.  Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation , 2019 .