[ RadSafe ] Re:U-238 spontaneous fission

[Doug Aitken]

The UK term is "Practicable" not "practical"..... (and the definition of
Practicable is OK: "Capable of being put into practice or of being done or
accomplished : feasible" - from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary). But
this is, to my archaic ears, a clumsy term, prone to
misinterpretation/misunderstanding (as evidenced by this string.....<G>).

Which is why I prefer to stick to "Achievable"....

Cheers
Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of WILLIAM LIPTON
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:29 PM
To: garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re:U-238 spontaneous fission

"Reasonably practical" seems like something from The Department of
Redundancy Department.  Is there such a thing as "reasonably impractical"?
Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.



----- Original Message ----
From: "garyi at trinityphysics.com" <garyi at trinityphysics.com>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:52:28 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re:U-238 spontaneous fission

Personally, I prefer the word "practical" to "achievable".  Achievable
sounds too much like it
belongs in a motivational mantra, like "What the nuts can believe, the
regulations can
achieve."

-Gary Isenhower

On 18 Jun 2008 at 23:11, Ross Beveridge wrote:

From:              "Ross Beveridge" <rgb at rrbev.co.uk>
To:                "'Doug Aitken'" <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>,
    <LNMolino at aol.com>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Subject:            RE: [ RadSafe ] Re:U-238 spontaneous fission
Date sent:          Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:11:51 -0400

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

The ALARP principle is a key part of the UK radiation protection, not
just something to be 'different'!

The requirement to reduce doses to As Low As Reasonably Practicable,
ALARP, is a statutory requirement of the Ionising Radiations
Regulations 1999 (IRR99). The definition of ALARP in law was
established by a judgement of the Court of Appeal, which concluded
that it is reasonable to require an employer to avert a risk unless
the 'sacrifice' (cost, time or trouble) is 'grossly disproportionate'.

The employer must therefore be able to demonstrate that they have; o
Assessed the risk o Estimated the 'sacrifice' o Performed a comparison
between the two o Taken action to avert the risk where appropriate

Demonstration of ALARP is achieved by application of a process, this
involves a series of steps to ensure that doses are carefully managed
throughout the work. This does not necessarily mean that dose has been
minimised, as minimising dose in isolation could have an unreasonable
impact on other key factors such as project timescales or cost. The
requirement is therefore to minimise the overall project risk (as far
as reasonably practicable) by optimising the key elements of: o Dose o
Cost o Project timescale o Number of people o Environmental Discharges
o Conventional Safety

The key point is ensuring that your risk assessment and subsequent
justification is robust enough to stand up to the scrutiny/cross
examination if you find yourself in a Court of Law defending your
recommendations/advice.

Best Regards

Ross

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/