[ RadSafe ] ALARA

Tue Jun 24 09:11:34 CDT 2008

What it comes down to is how much risk the public is willing to accept.
Because the public likes automobiles, they are willing to accept a higher
level of risk for the PERSONAL convenience, on a daily basis, the car
provides them.

A good example is the accident rate between planes and automobiles.  The
public is a lot more willing to accept a higher level of risk (and an
accepted higher accident level) for cars since the car is something they can
personally own and drive (practically anyone can get a license).  Plus, they
understand how a car works. However, since not everyone can get a license to
fly a plane (or have the money to own one) and it is harder to understand
how a plane operates, the public is not as willing to accept as much risk
for a plane.

The public does not understand radiation and, therefore, is not as willing
to accept as much risk for radiation exposure. Most of the public does not
even understand the basics of radiation.  Most think man-made gammas are
more harmful than natural. The basic thought process: if I don't understand
it, it must be bad for me.

Most of the general public don't understand the basic principles of risk and
risk management and certainly would never think to apply it to everyday
living such as driving a car. IMHO

Tena Graben-Galyon

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf
Of Livesey, Lee M
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:39 AM
To: 'dlawrencenewyork at aol.com'; jjcohen at prodigy.net; Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV;
garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

Gary,

Your transportation analogy is a classic example of how other industries
apply ALARA principles to associated hazards.  During conceptual design of
transportation systems, a great deal of attention, effort, and money is
spent determining an acceptable level of risk versus the cost of
implementation of various designs, materials, and infrastructure.
Off-ramps, on-ramps, traffic lights, warning signs, applicable speed limits
are built into the process using cost-benfit analysis.  Automobile safety
features are incorporated (lighting, brakes, impact-resistance, seatbelts,
airbags, etc) as technology.  Licensing for drivers is regulated with a
minimum acceptable level of traffic safety rules and demonstrated ability
prior to independent operation.  Is there still risk?  Of course.  Is the
risk as low as reasonably achievable?  Depends on your point-of-view.

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of dlawrencenewyork at aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:22 PM
To: jjcohen at prodigy.net; Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV; garyi at trinityphysics.com;
radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

 ALARA is not stupid. As a group it we who are stupid. ALARA is only a
concept designed to regulate exposures with an eye toward minimizing them -
not to eliminate them. The fact that "reasonable" ever entered into the
lexicon is the product of the antaonizing and myopic interpretations of
regulations by those among us possessive of terminal inertia who use their
intelligence to identify "problems" and thwart? solutions instead of
harnessing that energy to achieve goals. There is a yin and yang environment
that prevaricates between the ridiculous extremes of zero exposure and this
stuff isn't really bad for you. That this concept has been so perverted is
the product of that environment which bred it - our environment. It is not
stupid - it is as insane as we are.

Best Regards,
David Lawrence

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
To: Conklin, Al  (DOH) <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV>; garyi at trinityphysics.com;
radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

"So, is ALARA stupid? From a purely dose perspective (saving a few
millirem) probably. But in a political atmosphere, it's not stupid at all."
Al Conklin

Al,
    I certainly agree that in a political atmosphere, ALARA can be a
particularly effective tool. Especially when the objective is to instill
fear and apprehension. The clear message that ALARA imparts is that
radiation must be extremely dangerous even at very low dose levels.
Otherwise, how could such extreme control measures
be justified?   Jerry Cohen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Conklin, Al (DOH)" <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: <garyi at trinityphysics.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

I can tell you one very valuable use of the ALARA principle. We do a lot of
training here in Washington State of first and second responders.
Included in that training are a series of exercises we run with radioactive
materials, simulating detonated and undetonated dirty bombs to show the
responders how to approach a scene ,collect evidence, do surveys, identify
isotopes, etc. We use two cesium-137 calibrators, a variety of mixed
calibration sources, occasionally some natural sources, and Tc-99m, diluted
in a gallon of water and sprayed on debris to represent real contamination.
The training is very popular among the responders, but not so much among our
political non-technical upper management. In fact, most political entities
wouldn't allow this type of realism. The reason we can continue to do it, is
because we are very careful about keeping our doses ALARA. We have RSOs who
keep an eye on everyone and ask them to move if they stand in a radiation
field too long. We send in electronic dosimetry if they don't have their
own, and we record their doses. More often than not, there are no measurable
doses or they are very very small. We keep that as evidence that we can do
the training safely, and we are allowed to continue. We do the work in an
isolated bomb pit that we can keep secure until the Tc-99m decays.
We have a security company guard the only entrance.

So, is ALARA stupid? From a purely dose perspective (saving a few
millirem) probably. But in a political atmosphere, it's not stupid at all.
Our trainees get a good and valuable experience, and practicing ALARA
doesn't hurt it at all. But, it does keep us in business providing realism
that the responders cannot get other places.

-----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 7:59 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] ALARA

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

Consider bone densitometers.  The operater sits unshielded at a computer
about 1 to 2 meters from the scanner.  Is that ALARA?  Yes, the dose is very
low, but ALARA does not care how low it is.  It does not matter.
So if it is reasonable to shield a radiographic room or fluoro room, why is
it not reasonable to shield a DEXA unit the same way, with about 1/16"
lead and a shielded control barrier?  If ALARA is applied consistently, then
perhaps all medical imaging rooms should have 1/8" lead on all barriers,
including floor and ceiling.

This is the bottom line.  Do we get anything from ALARA that we could not
have just by writing clear regs?  I'm sitting here trying to think of
anything at all, but I can't.  I think its better to just tell people what
the limits are and what you expect them to do to comply with those limits.

Somebody might say that ALARA results in lower doses to the population.
That's probably true, but you could have that just by writing the dose
limits lower in the regs.  And this I think shows why we have ALARA -
because nobody in authority has the guts to say "This is safe enough.
This dose level is safe enough."  There are too many nuts who would froth at
the mouth upon hearing those words applied to radiation.

If transportation risk was made ALARA, what would that look like?  I drive a
lot in my business. That puts myself and anybody I pass on the road at risk.
People in houses along my route are at risk, and I bet the risk is
significantly higher than the risk to someone exposed to 0.1 cSv.  How about
that vacation you are planning?  You mean you are free, legally, to put all
those innocent people at risk?  Without even warning them?  OMYGOSH!

-Gary Isenhower
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list