[ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors

[Mohan Doss]

Dear All,
     I realize the result numbers from the survey did not come through 
in my last message.

For the Statement: In view of the emotional toll the prolonged 
evacuation has taken on the affected public in Fukushima, the evacuation 
should be ended soon, even though it may increase their radiation 
exposure and cancer risk in the future according to the LNT model, since 
ending the evacuation will improve their emotional health, likely 
resulting in a net gain of health. In addition, we can help to reduce 
the cancer risk by encouraging and supporting lifestyle changes in the 
affected public. In my opinion this is the proper application of the 
ALARA principle.

Results of survey:   Yes -   34
                                   No -     3
                                                        Mohan

Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
Medical Physicist,
Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
333 Cottman Avenue,
Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
Phone: 215 214-1707
Fax:   215 728-4755
E-mail:  Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu


On 3/19/2013 7:40 AM, Mohan Doss wrote:
> Dear All,
>   Thanks for your responses to the survey.  In addition to Radsafe, 
> the anonymous survey was also sent  to "HPS" & "Help Japan" Groups in 
> LinkedIn, and ~50 additional scientists in the radiation field.  Below 
> are the results. Based on this straw poll, there is general agreement 
> that the evacuation should be ended.   One key question to decide 
> before recommending this to the government is:  How to reduce the fear 
> and concerns about the low level radiation they are going to find (I 
> am assuming the general public now own many sensitive radiation 
> detectors, so they will be able to observe the slightest increase in 
> radiation levels) when they return.  Any ideas?
>   With best regards,
>                                                                                                      
> Mohan
>
> Mohan Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
> Medical Physicist,
> Associate Professor, Diagnostic Imaging,
> Fox Chase Cancer Center, R427
> 333 Cottman Avenue,
> Philadelphia, PA 19111-2497.
> Phone: 215 214-1707
> Fax:   215 728-4755
> E-mail:Mohan.Doss at fccc.edu
>
>
> The comments:
>
> *Number*
>
>
>
> *Response Text*
>
> *1*
>
>
>
> Guidelines for reponse to nuclea
>
> *2*
>
>
>
> LNT is no more applicable to radiological issues as it is to emotional 
> health.A little bit of stress won't kill you,and in fact will likely 
> make you stronger.Same for Radiological exposures....
>
> *3*
>
>
>
> We should encourage the development of holistic policies that protect 
> the environment and public health by using and acknowledging the WHO 
> definition of health: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental 
> and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or 
> infirmity."Could it be that our use of the LNT model has caused more 
> harm than good for scenarios like Chernobyl and Fukushima?
>
> *4*
>
>
>
> Although, from a litigation perspective. it is important that we, HPs, 
> show that there is still risk, yet associate with other route hazards 
> that people face, ie. drinking, eating fried foods, charred foods, etc.
>
> *5*
>
>
>
> If the persons evacuated are dying because of emotional stress then 
> the whole purpose of evacuation is not dealt with in a proper manner. 
> The alternatives need to be looked into definitely.
>
> *6*
>
>
>
> I would delete the statement " and cancer risk according to the LNT 
> model,"
>
> *7*
>
>
>
> I agree in principle.The decision would be much easier for elderly but 
> no so much for a young family with infants.The problem becomes how to 
> counter the false scaremongering of anti groups convinced that small 
> amounts of radiation are a big danger. We need better risk communication.
>
> *8*
>
>
>
> The ALARA principle is fundamentally flawed. Where there is zero 
> evidence of harm, there should be no restriction on technologies that 
> are known to provide a benefit compared to alternatives.
>
> *9*
>
>
>
> Additionally, proper control level should be used and explained. Not 
> only are families distressed from evacuation conditions, but fears and 
> concerns of radiation has been so blown out of proportion and not 
> sufficiently addressed that normal background levels are considered 
> too high for products suspected of 'Fukushima contamination'... To 
> qualify this I have only read several stories, I do not have first had 
> accounts of the occurrence of lower than background limits being used...
>
> *10*
>
>
>
> You are preaching to the converted on Radsafe!
> Should record respondents expertiese in survey
>
> *11*
>
>
>
> Dose in the evacuated areas is not high enough to deny entry.
>
> *12*
>
>
>
> I beiieve ALARA was used incorrectly.
>
> *13*
>
>
>
> Until we determine a "good way" to inform/train individuals on the 
> risks (or non-risks) of exposure to radiation applying ALARA as you 
> suggest will be very hard.We have long recognized the need for 
> effective education on all things "radiation"; we just haven't been 
> able to find a good way to do it.
>
> *14*
>
>
>
> all health effects of all alternative options should be included in 
> ALARA to achieve the lowest health effects, costs also taken into account
>
> *15*
>
>
>
> The public media are the main culprits - even if they act in good 
> faith, they sould have studied and learned before perpetuating 
> inittially ideologically based desinformation on radiaiton risks from 
> low doses.
>
> *16*
>
>
>
> ALARA includes consideration of "economic and social factors", and 
> health status is included in these. I t is a nonsense to deny people 
> access to their homes for doses of around 20 mSv/y.
>
> *17*
>
>
>
> Educating their public as to what levels there should be a concern.
>
> *18*
>
>
>
> This is a good example of the hazards CAUSED by continuing to apply LNTH.
>
>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private, 
> confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole 
> use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are 
> not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, 
> please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently delete 
> all copies of this email including all attachments without reading 
> them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a 
> manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal 
> requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information.
> _______________________________________________
> 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


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication may contain private, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated and/or duly authorized recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and permanently delete all copies of this email including all attachments without reading them. If you are the intended recipient, secure the contents in a manner that conforms to all applicable state and/or federal requirements related to privacy and confidentiality of such information.