[ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?

[Jose Julio Rozental]

Licensee are obliged to follow regulation, in this specific topic to prepare
the optimization according the dose constraint fixed by Regulatory
Authority, so dose constraint should not be confused with the dose limit.
The difference between constraints and  a limit is in the action taken when
they are exceeded. Exceeding the constraint requires corrective actions to
prevent recurrence. Exceeding a limit also requires corrective actions to
prevent recurrence, but in this case, enforcement may also be taken.

 There are an interesting report prepared by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and European Commission on Considerations on the Concept of Dose Constraint,
to those interested I can send a copy.


Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze at netvision.net.il
Israel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn R. Marshall" <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>
To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <jjcohen at prodigy.net>;
"Flanigan, Floyd" <Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com>; "Michael Bohan"
<mike.bohan at yale.edu>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?


>
> That's exactly the point!
>
> The fact that annual doses are maintained below the regulatory limit of
> 5 rem per year does not mean my employer is protected fro future
> litigation, because the regulations also say we must maintain exposures
> as low as reasonably achievable.  What does that mean?  Yeah, I know
> what it means to me, and I know the regulatory definition.  But in a
> court of law, it means whatever a sleazy lawyer can convince a judge and
> jury to agree to.
>
> If the law were to say the annual limit is 2 rem (3 rem, 0.5 rem -
> whatever), fine - I can do that.  But the law also says I must adhere to
> some gray area.  LNT says every photon is potentially fatal.  ALARA says
> every time someone is exposed to a single photon, the employer is
> potentially at risk of legal action unless he can prove that single
> photon could not have "reasonably" been avoided.
>
> Vast sums of money are spent chasing after a constantly moving target.
> The public health benefit from all this, if there is one, is so small as
> to be impossible to measure.  But the costs - additional payroll, taxes,
> mental anguish, worry, withheld diagnostic or therapeutic procedures,
> petroleum imports, etc. - are so high as to also be immeasurable.
>
> So while ALARA looks good on paper, its practical application is far
> from reasonable.  It, fed by misuse of LNT, has become the ace in the
> hole for the Anti-Everything crowd.
>
> Glenn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 9:39 AM
> To: jjcohen at prodigy.net; Flanigan, Floyd; Michael Bohan;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?
>
> Jerry,
> I certainly have no way of knowing if you actions are
> reasonable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>