Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations (formerly"Practically workable?")

[GlennACarlson@aol.com]

Just in case I might have missed something, I did a little digging in the 
RADSAFE archives and came up with the following:

My original 5/6/1999 post which stated "My issue is not whether LNT, or LT, 
or NLT, or NLNT is the more accurate model for calculating risks from 
radiation exposure, but, rather, how any alternative to LNT would be 
implemented."

On 9/3/1999, Christoph_Hofmeyr/CNS1@cns.co.za wrote a lengthy and thoughtful 
response to my May 1999 post, but Mr. Hofmeyr seemed as uncertain as I about 
how to draft meaningful radiation protection regulations to include 
hormetic/threshold effects.  He did comment, "Collective dose (man-Sieverts) 
would become meaningless as an expression of risk, except where individual 
doses are well in excess of the threshold."

On 9/3/1999, Bill Lipton responded to Mr. Hofmeyr, "The point is that if we 
had a reasonable threshold, we wouldn't have to worry about collective dose."

So we have three proposals:  Relax limits, abandon ALARA, abandon collective 
dose.  Abandoning or revisiting collective dose is worth consideration.  Any 
other thoughts?

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
glennacarlson@aol.com

In a message dated 4/2/2000 12:08:12 PM Central Daylight Time, GlennACarlson 
writes:

<< Subj:    LNT/ALARA and workable regulations (formerly "Practically 
workable?")
 Date:  4/2/2000 12:08:12 PM Central Daylight Time
 From:  GlennACarlson
 To:    radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
 
 In an attempt to get back on track, I repost my original message:
 
  "And even if hormetic/threshold effects were real, there is no way to 
assure a 
  particular incremental dose didn't result in a cumulative dose exceeding 
the 
  threshold and resulting in increased risk.  As a matter of radiation 
  protection policy, hormesis/threshold effects are practically unworkable.  
  ALARA lives."
 
 Except for Mr. Cohen's, the responses to my original post in this thread 
have been off point; instead replaying the too commonly expressed RADSAFE 
theme that the proponents of LNT/ALARA are stupid or dishonest and the 
proponents of hormesis/non-ALARA are intelligent and honest.  
 
 Mr. Cohen's approaches seems to be 1) relax the exposure limits on radiation 
until the number of people who identifiably die from the effects of radiation 
could no longer be swept under the rug of statistical background noise or 2) 
relax the exposure limits on radiation until the number of people who 
identifiably die from radiation is comparable to the number who die from 
other environmental pollutants such as air pollution (tens of thousands?).  
The rationale is that these deaths are the acceptable or, even, desirable 
sacrifice to technological progress and creation of wealth.
 
 I read a lot of whining on RADSAFE about "LNT - bad; hormesis - good," 
"public - stupid; nukes - smart," "regulators - dishonest; industry - 
righteous," but I have yet hear a specific, reasonable, workable change to 
radiation safety regulations implementing hormetic principles.  Is hormesis 
just the nuclear industry's way of saying "I told ya so," or part of the 
pro-nuke public relations campaign ("Radiation - the healthy alternative."), 
or just an attempt to rub the anti-nukes' noses in it ("Is SO!")?
 
 Let's see.  So far we have relax the limits and abandon ALARA.  Any other 
suggestions?
  
  Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
  glennacarlson@aol.com >>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html