Re: RADSAFE digest 3067

[Holloway3@aol.com]

<< What is acceptable risk for radiological workers?  Should it be 8
  fatalities per 100,000 or perhaps 1 per 1,000?  Who determines
  acceptable risk?  Is it the USEPA or Cohen et al?  I hope not.
  
  A great majority of people who take radiological work do so because they
  seek a higher standard of living for themselves and their loved ones.
  They are similar to many Appalachian coal miners who in the past
  contracted black lung because they were unable to seek better
  employment.  Certainly life is more important than nuclear money or
  accolades. >>

I wonder what you think the risk is in radiological work?   From all 
available information, the risk from radiation from occupational exposure is 
far less than the risk of coal mining, working in agriculture or in the 
trucking industry.  For you to make the above analogy suggests that you do 
not understand the relative risk involved in for these occupations.  All 
occupations have risks. If you are going to attempt to discuss this issue in 
the manner above, why not get down to the nitty gritty and present the 
numbers?  The actual data do not support your comments above.  The risk of 
fatalities in agriculture or mining or in transportation is several times 
higher than the risk from average occupational exposure to radiation.  Cohen 
has pointed this out in at least one publication. 

Robert Holloway (holloway3@aol.com)
Nevada Technical Associates, Inc.
http://www.ntanet.net/
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html