[ RadSafe ] Fw: [ As low as possible

Wed Mar 2 19:06:19 CST 2011

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
To: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 3:58:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [ As low as possible

I hope that you are not suggesting that ALARA guidance is clear, understandable, 
and universally understood. I am quite familiar with this "guidance" which 
includes: taking into account economics, state of technology, cost-benefit 
assessment, and similarly undefined gibberish. I have seen a wide disparity in 
interpretation of ALARA, and have presented a paper at an ANS meeting detailing 
ALARA "horror stories" including: a $2 million expenditure for a tritium 
retention system to prevent releases of << 1.0 curie/yr., and more millions to 
maintain occupational exposures to a small fraction (<0.1) of MPC levels. To say 
the least, there has been a wide diversity of opinion on what is considered 
"reasonable". As a result, judgement as  to what meets ALARA requirements has 
been largely arbitrary . 
Jerry Cohen

________________________________
From:William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
To:Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The  International Radiation Protection 
(Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc:Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Sent:Wed, March 2, 2011 1:27:28 PM
Subject:Re: [ RadSafe ] [ As low as possible

Before going on with your all too predictable rant, consider the definition of 
"ALARA," in 10 CFR 20.1003: 

"ALARA(acronym for "as low as is reasonably achievable") means 
making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below 
the dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose for 
which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of 
technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of technology, 
the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and 
safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to 
utilization of nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest."
Note the terms, "practical consistent with the purpose...," "taking into account 
... the economics of improvements...," and "in relation to utilization of 
nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest."
This is NOT, as you put it:  "... no matter how low the level of
exposure, it could  always be made yet lower by expending more and more
resources toward that end."
If you feel there is a case where ALARA is being misinterpreted, point that out, 
not some far fetched hypothetical case.
Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>wrote:

Michael,
>It is interesting that in your article, you conjectured on a possible future
>policy of "as low as unreasonably achievable" (ALAURA). It should be noted that
>a precursor to the current ALARA policy was ALAP (as low as possible). ALAP was
>superseded by ALARA  because of an awareness that no matter how low the level 
of
>exposure, it could  always be made yet lower by expending more and more
>resources toward that end.
>     The "preisthood" (ICRP, etc) who advise such policies are composed of
>experts on radiation effects. They are not stupid people; so why do they 
propose
>policies that many of us consider ill advised? It may stem from a genuine
>concern for human well-being---or--- could it possibly be from enlightened
>self-interest? It is hard to get funding to protect people against anything 
that
>is not harmful.
>
>Jerry Cohen
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu>
>To: " radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
>Sent: Wed, March 2, 2011 10:44:00 AM
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Health Physics News March 2011
>
>
>Ann, thanks very much for your kind comment. If you don't get the newsletter, I
>have posted a copy of this article (with permission) on the RADAR site:
>
>http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/Roentgen.html
>
>
>Mike
>
>Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
>Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Vanderbilt University
>1161 21st Avenue South
>Nashville, TN 37232-2675
>Phone (615) 343-4628
>Fax   (615) 322-3764
>e-mail      michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
>internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:21:50 -0600
>From: Ann Troxler < Ann.Troxler at LA.GOV>
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Health Physics News March 2011
>
>Anyone who has not yet read the article by Michael Stabin and Jeffrey Siegel in
>the March issue is in for a treat.  They treat the current "proposal" to climb
>on to the IAEA bandwagon for dose reduction with humor, intelligence and
>courage.   A must read.
>
>
>
>Ann M. Troxler,  BS, MEd
>Environmental Scientist Senior
>Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
>Office of Environmental Compliance
>602 N Fifth Street
>Baton Rouge, La. 70802
>225-219-3991 W
>225-219-3154 Fax
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
>http://health.phys.iit.edu
>_______________________________________________
>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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:  
>http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 