Re: $$$ per Man-rem

[Harald Weiss <weiss@ki.comcity.de>]

Kerembaev@cs.com schrieb:
> 
> Economy still defines the cost.

As I pointed out earlier in a similar thread you may construct a balance
of radiological risk against conventional risks. In an earlier life we
used to use a thumb value of one fatality per billion DM invested money
due to normal accidents in industry, based on averages stated by social
insurances. Combining this with another thumb value of one percent
cancer risk per one hundred person-rem, this yields an amount of 100 000
DM/rem, which is only slightly above the upper limit of IAEA-values as
cited in Miro's message. Investing more money for the sole reason of
radiation protection will probably do more harm than it prevents.
Obviously enough this value depends heavily on the safety in industrial
jobs. In low-developed countries there are more accidents due to lower
safety standards. So the comparison will yield less money per rem. And
of course the safety standards are dictated by economy, so you are
right, anyway.

(Rethink this all under the scope of hormesis.)

Disclaimers as usual.

Greetings, Harald

---
Harald Weiss                   weiss@ki.comcity.de
Preetzer Strasse 263
D-24147 Kiel
..

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html