[ RadSafe ] Faith-based health physics

Thu Mar 3 16:43:38 CST 2011

I would offer a few observations:

1).  This discussion has not addressed a major driver of policy - liability.  If one thinks the science is the primary factor driving policy (including ICRP, NCRP, et al), then you are drinking the Kool-Aid, IMHO. Policy is influenced greatly by industry lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists, and much less so physicists or enviros (who rarely get a win these days). Follow the money... see today's NY Times for an interesting article: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html?_r=1&hp "Politics Seen to Limit E.P.A. in Regulation of Natural Gas"

2) Mike Ryan, I believe, coined a term some time ago that may be germane (I stole it from Dan Strom):
PIZMO-CURIE: The smallest amount of radioactivity I can get you to pay me money to talk about... 
We see some pretty interesting stakeholder comments about the "hazards of toxic radiation" at background and near background levels, even when the source is almost 100 miles from the receptor who is sniveling, and they have moved from sea level to high in the Rocky Mountains (the increase in cosmic dose apparently doesn't count).  It is incumbent upon us to take on radio-phobia through effective communication and stakeholder involvement, while at the same time recognizing the stakeholder's fear as being real to them.

3) I have observed that the depth of a licensee's ALARA program is directly proportional to the depth of the pocket paying for it.  Large companies can afford the resources for a comprehensive program; for the mom and pop well logger or radiographer, not so much. It's all relative and flexible, that is how it is designed.

I must admit I am an ALARA guy; as a state regulator I find it effective in reducing effluents and dose (except for the cardiologists who listen to nobody.) It is how it is applied and regulated that can make it unworkable or unaffordable.  Even the industrial radiographers are doing better, and they are usually the industrial sector with the highest occupational exposure. 

We cannot ignore stochastic risks, we should work on better communication tools to explain them. 
Just my two cents...

Phil Egidi
CDPHE

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:59 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Faith-based health physics

Mike.
I think you show a good understanding of the problem.  Some time ago, on 
radsafe, I suggested a new discipline to deal with such problems and called it 
"Health Metaphysics". The object of health metaphysics was to control radiation 
exposures to a point where everyone feels good about the situation. Somehow, the 
idea was never accepted. I can't figure out why ;-)      Jerry

________________________________
From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu>
To: "radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Thu, March 3, 2011 12:31:49 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] As low as possible

> Why does the "priesthood" propose such policies?  

1) Kool-Aid
2) Lots of research dollars and employment dollars for chasing trivial 
exposures. OK, a take-off on Field of Dreams...If you scare em, they will pay.

The original philosophy was As Low as Possible, but of course this is always 
eventually zero. 'Reasonably Achievable' is open to discussion, the point of 
this article was to suggest that the 'U' is being added to ALARA to make it 
ALAURA. There is no evidence to support the heroic attempts to lower dose 
limits, to shield radiologic facilities to 0.25 mSv, etc. this is just 
'faith-based radiation protection', a la Bob Dixon. Then there is the 'every CT 
is going to kill you' group, 'there is no safe radon level' crowd, etc. The 
argument made in the article is that in the long term this does not create jobs, 
it will kill them, and the main point is of course not about jobs, it's about a 
reasoned approach to public safety. See my recent post about toxic chemical 
shipment accidents and real harm vs. theoretical harm. Where should the money be 
spent? I rant, you decide.

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

------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:15:07 -0700
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [ As low as possible
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,    "The International Radiation
    Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing    List"
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201103030215.p232F2kW084222 at ame7.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

March 2

         Why does the "priesthood" propose such policies?  My guess 
is that many of them have bought into the philosophy of statism.

Steven Dapra

_______________________________________________
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