[ RadSafe ] Re: Fw: Someone just responded to your comment

[John Jacobus]

Don,
I do not have a lot of time to argue with you on this
list server.  My undergraduate training was in
engineering.  ALARA is good engineering practices. 
That is what I focus on, not LNT.  I could save lots
of doses by doing things differently, but I am not
rich like you.  I go for the cheap fixes.

I still say the Primalert would be a money saving
idea.  How much does it cost you in time to do the
same would a remote radiations sensor save?  Why are
you doing the work?  You like hanging around the
equipment?

I have not seen in any of your activities where you
consider the LNT.

--- "Mercado, Don" <don.mercado at lmco.com> wrote:

> John Jacobus wrote: 
> 
> >Don,
> >Read what I said.  I do not think about the LNT
> when I
> >make decisions.  I follow good work practices.  
> 
> If you are using ALARA, you do. Follow the logic
> here. When deciding
> what a "good work practice" is, you make a judgment
> as to what safety
> requirements are reasonable to impose, balancing
> cost against safety
> (risk vs. benefit). Is practice X better than
> practice Y. For each
> practice you evaluate time necessary, personnel
> requirements,
> facilities, equipment, (costs) vs. personnel
> exposures expected
> (benefits?), etc. You choose the practice which has
> the best payoff. If
> practice X costs $1000 and 100 mrem to a worker, and
> practice Y costs
> $2000 and 50 mrem, which is the better practice? LNT
> extremists would
> say practice Y bec any cost is reasonable to reduce
> dose. On the other
> hand non-LNT fans would say practice X bec there is
> no additional risk
> between 50 and 100 mrem. So you make your decision
> on which is a "best
> practice" based on what is reasonable risk, based on
> your beliefs in LNT
> theory.  
> 
> >I do not understand your first example, but if you
> >want an answer, I would not change the work
> practices
> >to save the dose.  Did you?
> 
> How do you answer a question you don't understand?
> ;^) I base my
> decisions on risk vs. benefit. The regs say it is ok
> for a rad worker to
> get (within reason) 5 rem per year. That's a big
> range of allowable
> exposures. Since there's no risk up to 5 rem (minus
> LNT terrorist
> threats :^) ) my guys have a lot of freedom to do
> what they need to do
> to get the work done. They do, quickly and
> efficiently, at low cost to
> the programs.
> 
> >As for the second example, we do a lot of work with
> >P-32.  The $100 shielding can by you a lot of
> savings
> >as the shielding last about 15 years.
> 
> What are you saving? Money? Extremity exposure? What
> is the payoff time
> for that $100 investment?
> 
> >If you are looking for remote radiation detectors,
> try
> >a Primalert. 
>
>http://www.elimpex.com/products/radiation-therapy/primerli.pdf
> >It will save you dose and time.  
> 
> I'm familiar with Primalert's products. I'm not
> looking for one bec it
> isn't reasonable to spend that much to reduce doses
> at that level, ala
> LNT-is-false reasoning. How much does it cost to put
> that system into
> place that I don't need in the first place? Couldn't
> I do more good by
> donating the money to the hurricane victims?
> 
> >Sounds like you are thinking about ALARA and not
> LNT.
> No, I use LNT to help me decide what is reasonable.
> If you are below the
> regulatory limits, reducing dose further isn't
> necessarily a reasoned
> action, and a non-LNT fan would say there's no
> science to support any
> action. But regulators, management and lawyers being
> what they are, you
> have to factor that into the equation of risk vs.
> benefits as well.
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com