[ RadSafe ] Agreeing with Franz on "dogma"

Thu Aug 20 12:50:14 CDT 2015

Nice perspective Andy.

Regards,

Sandy
Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:47 AM, KARAM, PHILIP <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org> wrote:
> 
> One of the problems is that "safe" is a qualitative term while "risk" is quantitative. 
> 
> We can determine risk with some degree of precision (maybe not accuracy if our model is wrong, but very precise!) down to very low levels, we can discuss the assumptions and bases for our risk calculations, and so forth. And, if everybody agrees on these assumptions, then everyone will agree on the risk number. But there will still be disagreement over whether or not those numbers are "safe." For me, if the risk is lower than the risk from driving (about 1% over a lifetime) then I don't worry much. For others, a risk of one in a million is far too high. But, again, that's because "safe" is a subjective term.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> P. Andrew Karam, PhD, CHP
> NYPD Counterterrorism
> One Police Plaza, Room 1109
> New York, NY 10038
> (718) 615-7055 (desk)
> (646) 879-5268 (mobile)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sander Perle
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:15 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Agreeing with Franz on "dogma"
> 
> Mike, I agree. We wear a lot of hats, depending on where we work and accountabilities. My position required a varied look when I worked for the State of Florida, 21 years at Florida Power and Light Company and 18 years at Mirion. Never a dull moment!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sandy
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:
>> 
>> While as a Heath Physicist I am a mere stripling of 25 years, I view my role a little differently, perhaps because I deal more with the general public (as the person running our radon program, and working in our environmental section) than I do radiation workers.  I spend a fair amount of time trying to help people understand relative risk, so they can make informed choices.  As an example, in the Fukushima aftermath I spent a fair amount of time convincing people that fleeing Seattle for places like Denver or Spokane was not decreasing their risk, or that their constant state of agitation was probably a greater health risk than any radiation exposure they would ever receive.  
>> 
>> As others have said, I don't have negative feelings towards the word "dogma", and I believe that it actually describes LNT fairly well, at least in the regulatory and activist communities.  I don't, however, believe that simply because something is dogma that is should be exempt from questioning, and I think questioning LNT is very worthwhile.  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sander Perle
>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:50 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>> List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Agreeing with Franz on "dogma"
>> 
>> As a Health Physicist for 44 years, our role is to ensure a safe radiation environment work place, not just at high dose/dose rates, but at any dose/dose rate. This includes ensuring that the facility, NPP, University or Medical Institution meets all applicable regulations, license conditions, public dose, etc. 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Sandy
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 9:36 AM, Joseph Preisig <jrpnj01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Radsafe,
>>> 
>>>   Nuclear reactors, when operated properly and when they are not 
>>> being hit by a tsunami or a large/great earthquake, are inherently 
>>> safe.  They are designed to be safe.  They operate well and provide 
>>> useful amounts of power.  There is risk in walking down the street.
>>> Is it safe???  (question is asked in the movie the Marathon Man)....
>>>   Why are we always worried about LNT and the low dose end of the 
>>> curve???  Isn't the health physicist's job at higher doses/dose 
>>> rates????
>>>   Joe Preisig
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 8/20/15, Bill Prestwich <prestwic at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>>>> I think it is possible to expose the falseness in the anti-nuclear 
>>>> movement within the LNT approach as used by regulators.  The 
>>>> argument used by this movement is that science has shown no level of 
>>>> radiation is safe. In the first place there is no scientific 
>>>> definition of safe. What the opponents of nuclear power are claiming 
>>>> is that safe is defined as a process that has zero probability of 
>>>> harm. With that definition almost nothing is safe. The reply to 
>>>> these people is that they are claiming that a probability of one in 
>>>> a trillion that an action could cause some harm means that action should be abolished.
>>>> Instead I think one could argue that the LNT is over restricting and 
>>>> hence overly careful in protecting the public.
>>>> 
>>>> Bill Prestwich
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu 
>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, 
>>>> PHILIP
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:41 PM
>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>>>> List
>>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Agreeing with Franz on "dogma"
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think that the word "dogma" is at all derisive in and of 
>>>> itself. In biochem we learned the "central dogma of molecular 
>>>> biology" (which you can find in any number of textbooks in precisely 
>>>> that phrasing), which was DNA-RNA-protein. In Sunday school
>>>> (Catholic) we learned a number of dogmas of the Catholic Church. Used properly, the word is descriptive, not loaded.
>>>> 
>>>> In the case of LNT, the use of the word dogma is certainly 
>>>> appropriate in a number of cases.
>>>> 
>>>> -As Franz pointed out, it is NOT appropriate for the scientific 
>>>> debate, which continues to be lively.
>>>> -In the regulatory realm (and in the area of ALARA), LNT certainly 
>>>> has become dogma in the sense that it is the central belief behind 
>>>> the way that regulations are written and ALARA is practiced - and if 
>>>> LNT were to be shown to be false then we might well have to re-think 
>>>> the way that we practice ALARA as well as the way we regulate.
>>>> -And among the anti-nuclear and anti-radiation activists LNT is most 
>>>> certainly dogma in that it is virtually the only argument they use 
>>>> to demand that all reactors be shut down and all use of radiation 
>>>> that can expose the public be banned - if LNT is shown to be false 
>>>> then their central argument crumbles to the ground.
>>>> 
>>>> The word itself is neither positive nor negative - it is simply 
>>>> descriptive.
>>>> But, like the word "evolution," it has come to mean more to some 
>>>> than ought to be the case.
>>>> 
>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Peter 
>>>> Crane
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:02 PM
>>>> To: RADSAFE
>>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Agreeing with Franz on "dogma"
>>>> 
>>>> It's a pleasure to be able to agree with Franz for once. This use of 
>>>> loaded words such as "dogma" and "cult" to denigrate the LNT (and, 
>>>> on the other side, the hormesis theory) adds nothing to the debate. 
>>>> The propagandistic purpose is too obvious. Maybe that's OK if you 
>>>> are just preaching to the choir, since you are not out to change any 
>>>> minds, but trying to convert opponents by calling them cultists following a dogma? It doesn't work.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd love to know more about infighting in the Austrian bureaucracy, Franz.
>>>> I
>>>> thought the watchword there was Schlamperei, of taking things easy 
>>>> and not too seriously, but I suppose I'm forgetting my Kafka, plus 
>>>> the golden rule of organizations -- governmental, academic, etc. -- 
>>>> that the smaller the stakes, the more vicious the internal battles 
>>>> can be. By the way, if you know Bad Ischl, Villa Rothstein, my 
>>>> great-grand-uncle's summer home, was where my grandmother played as 
>>>> a child, back around 1901-1903. Das gibt's nur einmal, das kommt nicht wieder....
>>>> 
>>>> -- Peter Crane, Seattle
>>>> NRC Counsel for Special Projects (retired) 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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