Conflicting paradigms in radiation protection: 20 Questions with answers from the regulator, the health physicist, the scientist, and the lawyers

George Orwell`s {open_quotes}doublethink{close_quotes} should be generalized to {open_quotes}polythink{close_quotes} to describe the multiplicity of views that radiation protection professionals must simultaneously accommodate. The paradigms, that is, organizing principles and beliefs, that (1) regulators, (2) operational health physicists, (3) scientists, (4) lawyers for the defendant, and (5) lawyers for the plaintiff use in their approaches to radiation protection are presented. What we believe as scientists often conflicts with what we do for purposes of radiation protection. What we need to do merely to protect humankind and the environment from harmful effects of radiation is far less than what we must do to satisfy the regulator, whose paradigm has checklists, score-keeping, and penalties. In the hands of lawyers, our work must overcome different challenges. Even if the paradigms of the operational health physicist, the scientist, and the regulator match, the odds against the lawyers paradigms also matching are astronomical. The differing paradigms are illustrated by example questions and answers. It is important for educators, trainers, and health physicists to recognize and separate the score-keeping, practice, science, and legal issues in health physics.