RE: ALARA What?

["Abelquist, Eric" <AbelquiE@orau.gov>]

Stanley Fitch wrote:
"Next question, why are HPs pushing governmental agencies to raise the
exposure bar to levels that unnecessarily irradiate people?  Go figure.
Nuclear engineers hear me ANS) don't make very good HPs."

Radsafers-

Right or wrong, this perception (as stated above) that health physicists are
too concerned/supportive of the pro-nuclear agenda is a real concern.  Many
see our support of the nuclear agenda as a perceived conflict of interest:
they sometimes wonder aloud how well we can do our jobs while at the same
time being so concerned about the image of the nuclear industry.  In this
regard, I sometimes think that the separation between the ANS and HPS is not
as clear as it should be.

However, that being said, I must also confess my own transgressions in this
area.  Speaking from a personal standpoint, I can see the roots of my own
biases to being pro-nuclear. Its the whole decommissioning industry, and the
difficulty that many HPs have in believing that the domain of 25 mrem/y
constitutes a safety issue. In fact, this is one of the major reasons why
I'd like to keep the names "health physicist" and Health Physics Society,
rather than "Radiation Safety Specialists".  I think the new name would give
more credence to the position that believes we should be cleaning up sites
that have radioactivity on par with the variations in background.  

Anyway, that is why I think many of us (at least in decommissioning) find it
difficult to view our jobs as radiation protection specialists. But
nevertheless, I think that it wise if we temper our pro-nuclear zeal, and
remember that line between HPS and ANS.

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