Fw: [ RadSafe ] Re:LNT and ALARA

[Jerry Cohen]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
To: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>; < radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re:LNT and ALARA


> "Those in the nuclear industry who truly believe that there are no
> reasons for controls, that any level of radiation is perfectly
> acceptable, and who remain in the industry, working in the industry, and
> minimizing the dose to the workers or members of the general public, who
> do not believe that what they are doing is necessary, are hypocrites,"
> S.C. Perle
>
> Sandy,
>    Who are these people who believe that any level of radiation is
> harmless and "perfectly acceptable"?  I know of lots of people who believe
> that any level of radiation is harmful, but none who think that high level 
> doses
> are harmless. Even I, a firm believer in radiation hormesis , and that low
> doses (<1.0 rem/a) might be beneficial in nature, am aware of radiation 
> sickness
> and increased cancer probability at high dose levels.
>    Getting back to ALARA, if my viewpoint is correct ( and I believe it 
> is) then
> the LNT presumption is nonsense, and ALARA not only results in a needless
> squandering of limited resources with no health benefit,
> but also contributes to increased public fear and apprehension toward 
> radiation.
> In the world as I see it, any human exposure to radiation that is <5.0 
> rem/a is
> unlikely to cause any adverse health effect, exposure to <1.0 rem /a is 
> almost certainly
> harmless, and likely to be beneficial in nature. Therefore, in my view, 
> ALARA
> is and always has been a dumb idea! If intended to assuage unfounded fears 
> toward
> radiation, ALARA in not only ineffective, but counter-productive. If 
> intended to
> ward off inappropriate legal actions, the same is true. It seems to me 
> that ALARA
> has more of a religious basis than a scientific one - but it is hard to 
> see which
> god it is intended to appease.
> Jerry Cohen
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
> To: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:10 AM
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re:LNT and ALARA
>
>
>>>Doug, I must strongly disagree with your contention that ALARA is a
> sound policy regardless of whether the LNT presumption is valid.
> Suppose, for example that LNT is nonsense (as I believe), and therefore,
> below some dose level, there is no adverse health effect. What
> difference would it make how far below the specified dose limit you go.
> No effect is no effect, so, from a health and safety standpoint, it
> would not matter how far below the dose threshold you are exposed. ALARA
> may be a satisfying policy for regulators. bureaucrats, and politicians,
> but it achieves no health advantage and often at  significant costs.
> Jerry Cohen<<
>
>
> I am not a proponent of LNT, but I do admit that I don't have enough
> evidence one way or the other, whether or not LNT in total or in part is
> a correct philosophy (nor does the general population of scientists or
> regulators). Therefore, to impose no philosophy or controls is an
> inappropriate action, and not prudent at all. Consider that the USA is
> litigation happy. Consider that 1:2 individuals will have some form of
> cancer. Therefore, consider what the jury of our peers will believe if
> there were absolutely no ALARA programs in place. Consider what the jury
> would impose if any and all radiation dose were permitted to be given to
> workers, members of the general public, without any consideration at
> all. It doesn't matter if it's 0.10 mSv, 1.0 mSv, or 10 mSv. Just give
> it to them. I think we all know what will happen, just as it has
> happened in the chemical industry. The nuclear option would suffer
> tremendously. Worse, we in the nuclear industry would be put at the same
> level as those politicians who are wimps, can't act, can't make a
> decision, and, as the very attorneys who initiate the litigation in the
> first place.
>
>
> Those in the nuclear industry who truly believe that there are no
> reasons for controls, that any level of radiation is perfectly
> acceptable, and who remain in the industry, working in the industry, and
> minimizing the dose to the workers or members of the general public, who
> do not believe that what they are doing is necessary, are hypocrites,
> and should leave the profession. Earning a living in a program that they
> have no belief in, leaves a significant credibility gap.
>
> It all comes down to reasonableness, as I stated previously. Do what is
> reasonable, and stand behind it. Reasonableness assumes that some
> actions can be taken, where there just might be a benefit to the
> individual, and minimum cost. No socioeconomic issues to deal with. But
> to take no actions under any circumstances, well, that is just not right
> at all.
>
> In my humble opinion.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>