[ RadSafe ] ALARA

Fri Jun 20 12:39:07 CDT 2008

Sandy,
It was great working with you.  Now that I'm retired, I still enjoy your postings.
I generally agree with your statement, and want to add to it.
For me, there is a significant distinction between occupational and public doses, since the benefits are different.  Those who receive occupational exposure generally also receive the benefit of a well paying, safe job.  For the general public, however, the direct  benefits are harder to find, and, hence, we must be concerned with even small radiation doses..  
We also have an obligation to demonstrate proper stewardship of the technology.  Any loss of control is a concern, even when the resulting public doses are low, for two reasons:
1.  Even when the resulting doses are low, they were avoidable.
2.  Major incidents are often preceded by smaller, precursor incidents, where there were missed opportunities to correct the process.  Thus, even an incident with minor consequences must be taken seriously.  Failure to do this is the equivalent of saying that you shouldn't get a citation for running a red light since there was no accident.
Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

----- Original Message ----
From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
To: garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:53:16 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

Hi Gary,

I agree with your point that focusing on very small doses sends a
message to the public that these low doses need to be concerned with and
actions taken to eliminate. I have stated this many times in the past.
After the Tokamura incident many years ago, I questioned why the
regulatory entities took action in the neighboring towns where there was
actually no effect or adverse conditions, and they were very aware of
that. The response was, the population would feel like something was
being done to protect them. My comment, they then through that there was
in fact an issue. So, I again return to the concept of reasonableness.
ALARA is a good tool if used properly. During my 22 years in the NPP
world, I saw many examples of where dose was reduced (reasonably), but
also resulted in cost savings, better trained staff and an improved work
morale. 

Therefore, I completely support the ALARA principle as long as there is
a viable evaluation of the current situation, what steps really need to
be implemented, what the benefit of the reduced dose is and how much
will it cost to save the dose and to how many individuals. Another
factor is that ALARA just doesn't become to goal, at no cost, and
required as such by regulatory entities. Personally, I think most
regulators are quite reasonable and that they do understand where there
is or is not a need for an ALARA evaluation plan.

Regards,

Sandy

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle 
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division 
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of garyi at trinityphysics.com
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:39 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

Sandy,

It pains me to disagree with people I admire, so why not just change
your mind and agree 
with me?  :)

I almost agree with you that "it works just fine", in the sense that
doses are kept low and occupational exposure is very safe under ALARA.
But my beef is that we foist a myth on the world by pretending that they
should worry about miniscule doses.  Its like being locked in a room
with someone who believes that tiny bugs are crawling everywhere and
must be stomped and swatted.  Do you go along with that, stomping and
swatting, or do you bang on the door and ask to be let out?

I stick by my statement that ALARA gives us nothing we could not have by
writing clear regs.  Do tiny doses pose a risk?  Maybe.  But maybe we
should tell people to hold their breath so they can be safe from radon.
Or just breath very very shallow.

-Gary Isenhower

On 20 Jun 2008 at 8:23, Perle, Sandy wrote:

Subject:            RE: [ RadSafe ] ALARA
Date sent:          Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:23:19 -0700
From:              "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
To:                <garyi at trinityphysics.com>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>

>>ALARA is just stupid.  No doubt, people believe they are fulfilling
ALARA, but does anyone really do it?  Or do they just reach a point
where they think, consciously or not, "That's low enough" and stop
trying to reduce doses?<<

Gary,

ALARA is only "stupid" when the term Reasonable is not considered in
the operation. If a reasonable approach is implemented, then ALARA
works just fine. It's all how one defines reasonable.

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE:  This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
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/