[ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?

Maury Siskel maurysis at ev1.net
Thu Apr 20 20:55:04 CDT 2006

It seems to me and Dog that the meanings of any rule, law, or regulation 
containing the criterion "reasonable" is just as ludicrous and those 
stipulating "zero" tolerance,  defects., or "total" safety, and so on. 
All of these value judgments are synonyms for zero judgment, 
responsibility, and authority. Attempts to make formal use of such terms 
are abdications of responsibility and authority. This seems so obvious 
that it is a continuing source of amazement that any society remains 
willing to employ them. Similarly, those terms place unreasonable 
burdens on the selection or inheritance of leadership. Human animals 
just are not built this way.

At least one improved approach seems to lie in adopting quantitative 
rules and then accept the credit or blame as it comes -- and then modify 
the rules as the accumulation of evidence progresses.

But I'm not confident that human animals show much promise for this 
approach either -- surely it is better to try, however, than just  fold 
to "reasonable" and whatever that means to those happening to possess 
power at the moment.

Best regards,

jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:

>    All of my decisions and actions are reasonable. I am not so sure about
>yours-- and, other peoples decisions have been really bad.
>    The point I have tried to make in this discussion is that  ALARA is a
>basically absurd concept, because what is or isn't reasonable is largely in
>the eye of the beholder. Consequently, ALARA decisions can, and have been
>arbitrary in nature
--------------  snipped  -------------

More information about the RadSafe mailing list