[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations



It isn't hard, you already have three answers.  Now from my personal
experience, here is how the NRC recently implemented ALARA.  When NRC
managers noticed that inspectors doses were not "high enough" they suggested
that good inspectors should have higher doses.  Also, an NRC inspector was
using Shift Supervisor dose records to see who the "good" shift supervisors
were, the higher the better.

Now in the good ole nuclear navy, the engineer pointed out that the
officers' doses "should be higher" for them to do their jobs right.

So in both cases, I just made sure I lingered a little longer in higher dose
areas.

Don Kosloff dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St Perry OH 44081


----- Original Message -----
From: <GlennACarlson@aol.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations


> Well -- okay -- Mr. Chandler has cast his vote -- "LNT - baaaaad;
hormesis -
> gooooood."
>
> Now, back to my question (first stated in May 1999), which 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.
>
> Suggestions so far include 1) reexamining the use of collective dose, 2)
> abandoning ALARA, and 3) relaxing the limits (though to what is not
> specified).
>
> C'mon, folks.  This is not meant to be hard.
>
> Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
> glennacarlson@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 4/3/2000 10:32:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
> westrad@nimrod.com.au writes:
>
> << Subj:     Re: LNT/ALARA and workable regulations
>  Date:  4/3/2000 10:32:22 PM Central Daylight Time
>  From:  westrad@nimrod.com.au (Western Radiation Services)
>  Sender:    radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>  Reply-to:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>  To:    radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (Multiple recipients of list)
>
>  Comment in reply to Glenn Carlson and others on above subject.
>
>  Firstly, there can be no doubt that the regulations based on an unproven
and
>  unprovable hypothesis (LNT) are unworkable. Any regulation that sets a
limit
>  lower than variations in natural background has to be unworkable unless
one
>  makes the farcical assumption that natural radiation does not have the
same
>  effects as technologically enhanced radiation.
>
>  Secondly, I believe that the vast majority of health physics
professionals
>  believe in the ALARA principle, that radiation exposure to people in and
>  outside the workplace, should be kept as low as REASONABLY achievable.
The
>  difficulty is with the definition of 'reasonable'. The regulators seem to
>  have decided that the principle should be changed to ALAA, as low as
>  achievable, no matter how unreasonable such a requirement may be.
>
>  Thirdly, there are large volumes of data that indicate a hormesis effect
is
>  possible. This data appears to have been totally ignored or dismissed on
>  specious grounds by the people entrusted to advise on the health effects
of
>  radiation: ICRP, NRCP, UNSCEAR, BEIR etc.
>
>  Instead of being summarily dismissed with cries of 'ecological fallacy'
such
>  data should be subjected to rigorous analysis (as Bernie Cohen has done)
and
>  further work carried out to determine whether or not the hormesis effect
is
>  valid. There are several locations in the world where populations are
>  exposed to natural radiation several times greater than the average
>  background. Those locations would be very good starting points for
>  epidemiological studies on the occurrences of radiation related cancers
in
>  the exposed population. Comparison of such occurrences with the
hypothetical
>  number of occurrences predicted by LNT should be sufficient for either
side
>  in the argument to accept either right or wrong.
>
>  To those proponents of LNT & ALAA, instead of resorting to accusations of
>  stupidity and bias, you should show proof of the hypothesis and show that
>  the assumptions you are using are reasonable. Further, you should show
that,
>  even if the hypothesis can be proven to be correct, that the benefits
would
>  outweigh the economic and social costs incurred in implementing the
>  regulations to enforce the limits based on LNT and ALAA.
>
>  There have been reported incidences of falsified and deliberate
distortions
>  of data intended to show that LNT is provable, with some specifics quoted
>  and referenced. Please show that these accusations are unfounded. There
have
>  been other accusations of data supporting the 'hormesis' hypothesis being
>  suppressed, please show that this is not the case.
>
>  I acknowledge that there are people on both sides of the argument who can
be
>  unreasonable and frustrated, but there are also many of us out here who
seek
>  answers to the questions of radiation health effects and we cannot, in
all
>  conscience, tell workers and others exposed to radiation, that any level
of
>  radiation exposure is harmful when the possibility exists that such
exposure
>  may be beneficial.
>
>  The effects of the nonsensical situation that exists at present are shown
by
>  political moves to award large payments in 'compensation' to anybody who
>  ever worked in the nuclear industry on the totally farcical grounds that
any
>  illness they are suffering from or may have suffered from has been caused
by
>  exposure to radiation.
>
>  Bill Chandler
>  Perth
>  Western Australia
>
>  ************************************************************************
>
>   >>
> ************************************************************************
> 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