Re: Practically workable? (formerly "ALARA What?")

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 GlennACarlson@aol.com wrote:

> I can hear the slogans now:
> 
> "Death from radiation?  You can't PROVE we did it!"

	--My assertions were based on the linear-no threshold theory. We
surely can "prove" that effects of radiation are not worse than that.

> 
> "Radiation?  We're no worse than air pollution."
> 
	--NO. We are 1000 times *better* than air pollution

> "Radiation - 10,000 dead.  Air pollution - 20,000 dead.  We win!"
> 
	--NO. Radiation - less than 10 dead. Air pollution -- 20,000 dead

> And, don't forget that red means a "bad radiation day,"  yellow means a 
> "moderately bad radiation day";  and green means a "good radiation day."  On 
> red days, we will limit our use of microwave ovens, reschedule appointments 
> with the dentist to another day, and reduce power at nuclear plants by 20%.

	--No need for any of this for radiation
> 
> Mr. Cohen's response reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon in which Dilbert's 
> manager notes that his department had only two lost time accidents when their 
> safety goal was for nine.  The manager announced that seven employees would 
> be required to be injured in order to meet the goal.
> 
	--I don't get the connection here

> 
> 
> In a message dated 3/31/2000 9:50:31 AM Central Standard Time, blc+@pitt.edu 
> (Bernard L Cohen) writes:
> 
> << By the standards we apply to radiation, the scientific bases
>  for air pollution regulations are mediocre at best.
>     But they work quite successfully. They prevent catastrophes and
>  generally avoid identifiable deaths. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> This confidence is not even
>  shaken by studies concluding that tens of thousands of Americans die
>  annually from air pollution. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
>     Our passion for doing much better for radiation than has been done
> for air pollution by using LNT has backfired horribly, costing our Society
> dearly. 
> 
> [snip]
> 
>     Thus, there is no honest scientific reason why radiation should be
>  treated differently than air pollution in the low dose region  
> 
> [snip]  
>   >>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 

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