[ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?

John Jacobus crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 21 11:48:43 CDT 2006

I take a broader definition of ALARA and do not have
the perspective you have with commerial nuclear power.
 Afterall, I would at a biomedical research facility,
have worked with the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program,
and medical facilities. 

The underlying goal in these and many industries is
worker protection.  The difference is that in the
nuclear industries is that you can measure "risk" in
mrem.  Therefore, you can quantify what you do.  In
medicine, we can also measure risk from radiation
exposure to the patient and staff.  However, the
measured output is not kW/hr, but medical treatment. 
We certainly spend on radiation protection equipment,
e.g., leaded aprons, survey meters, etc.  But we also
spend on disposable gowns, gloves, pathological
wastes, etc.

In your example, you had to deal with the Public
Utility Commission.  In hospitals, you have to deal
with operating costs and profits.  

--- Sandy Perle <sandyfl at earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2006 at 6:38, John Jacobus wrote:
> > The LNT has nothing to do with these
> > issues, despite your efforts to make that
> argument.
> Hi John,
> I'll take a little exception to this overall
> conclusion. In NPP, the 
> ALARA requirement was a direct result of assumed
> risk (LNT) and we 
> were required to reduce dose whenever the very low
> threshold of dose 
> could be saved, by using tens of thousands of
> dollars to save a 
> manrem. Back in the late 80s our company evaluated
> the significant 
> cost incurred to reduce manrem and the conclusion
> was that millions 
> had been expended without any observable benefit,
> and made up about 
> 30 to 40% of expenses. This was also provided to the
> State Public 
> Utility Commission in that they looked at every
> dollar spent and were 
> interested in how much was spent in the name of
> "protecting the 
> public and environment", very important during rate
> hearings.
> I don't know who you can separate ALARA, dose and
> funds from each 
> other. If there were no assumed risk, then the
> dollars should not 
> need to be expended. Simply spending on money
> without evidence of any 
> benefit, solely to meet the ALARA principle actually
> took dollars 
> away from doing actual work that may have
> potentially improved safety 
> and efficiency in other real areas within the
> plants.
> Respectfully ..
> -------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle
> Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
> Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614 
> Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
> Fax:(949) 296-1144
> E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
> E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net 
> Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ 

"A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify." 
Leo Szilard
-- 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 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list