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

Re: ALARA



The problem is that while ALARA is a workable philosophy, it  does not work as a regulatory mandate.  As a regulatory mandate, the word "reasonable" becomes subject to the individual interpretations of regulators, and ultimately lawyers, with unreasonable results.  The mistake occurred when the revised 10CFR20 blurred the distinction between ALARA as a philosophy and ALARA as a mandate.

DLoeser@larsonking.com
>>> Glenn Roberts <glenn@u1st.com> 04/04/00 12:20PM >>>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------BB5AE51F1574D02C9CF534AB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Notwithsatanding comments as to the some ridiculous applications of
ALARA, ALARA should apply to total risk, not just the risk due to
radiation, or even man-made radiation.  This means that the risk due to
the radiation exposure, even if LNT is applied, should be greater than
the risk of alternatives such as continue use of fossil fuels, before
nuclear is ruled out or required to reduce exposures.  As stated by many
others, the focus is on REASONABLE, an admittedly subjective term.  The
result of ALARA (population dose evaluations) and LNT risk projections,
not mention the inability of both industry and regulators to educate the
public, has lead to anti-nuke everything, especially nuclear power. 
This has lead to more expensive, environmentally harmful, and yes even
more radiation dose (not to imply this minimal dose is bad to anyone)
due to naturally occurring RAM in fossil fuels.  PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THE
NAME OF NUCLEAR SAFETY thanks to the misapplication of these concepts.

We can only hope that politicians and the public will figure out before
it's too late for the environment that nuclear power is the only current
technology that has a remote chance of preserving our planet for future
generations.  Being a Health Physicist AND a true environmentalist are
not mutually exclusive conditions.

Purely my own thoughts.

Glenn Roberts  

Jeffrey J Hoffman wrote:
> 
> Can some of you actually be arguing against ALARA?  Don't you think it
> good to minimize your dose?  If your natural yearly dose is 1R and you
> save 25mr from a man made source, have you not saved the body from being
> exposed to 25mr?  ALARA is good for all things that could potentially be
> harmful.  If I shoot at you 5 times a year with a gun and miss, do you
> care if I try 2 more times?  I think you would mind.  25mr may or may
> not be harmful but why take the chance?  Why drive on the highway during
> rush hour if you don't have too?
> 
> Thoughts are my own so flame away!
> 
> Jeff Hoffman
> HoffmanJ@DTEEnergy.com 
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html 
--------------BB5AE51F1574D02C9CF534AB
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="glenn.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Glenn Roberts
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="glenn.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Roberts;Glenn
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:UniTech Services Group, Inc.
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:glenn@u1st.com 
title:Corporate Heatlth Physicist
end:vcard

--------------BB5AE51F1574D02C9CF534AB--

************************************************************************
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