[ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
victor.anderson at frontier.com
Tue Mar 19 08:36:27 CDT 2013
Its very simple and complicated. First, the government of Japan must declare
that it is safe to return to the evacuated areas. There must be an
acknowledgement of any residual radiation accompanied by a statement that
these levels do not pose a public health risk. This is similar to what
public health officials did in the United States during the initial releases
from Fukushima. Yes, we detected radioactivity in air and sometimes other
media such as water and milk. In California, the Department of Public
Health simply declared that these levels of radioactivity posed no public
health risk. We did not compute any risks or state any as this would have
been a contradictory message. We did publish reports of levels in air and
milk as found. (These reports took far too long to get published; but
that's another story.). By being forthright in declarations concerning
environmental radioactivity, CA Department of Public Health was able to
prevent the vast majority of people living in California from panicking and
not drinking milk, water, eating food, etc. These actions also protected
our agricultural sector. The critics and those claiming that everyone was
going to die or suffer cancer were just ignored.
Yes, public health officials made a statement and stuck to it. They did
take personal responsibility for what was said. I was one of them. The
same general plan will work in Japan. It just takes courage.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mohan Doss
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:40 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Improper Application of ALARA following
stabilization of Fukushima Nuclear Reactors
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 Doss, Ph.D., MCCPM
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
Guidelines for reponse to nuclea
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....
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?
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.
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.
I would delete the statement " and cancer risk according to the LNT model,"
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.
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.
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...
You are preaching to the converted on Radsafe!
Should record respondents expertiese in survey
Dose in the evacuated areas is not high enough to deny entry.
I beiieve ALARA was used incorrectly.
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.
all health effects of all alternative options should be included in
ALARA to achieve the lowest health effects, costs also taken into account
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.
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.
Educating their public as to what levels there should be a concern.
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
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe