Re: ALARA

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

On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Franz Schoenhofer wrote:
> 
> No, you are not alone. Yes, ALARA is not minimization, but optimization
> with respect to cost-benefit. This would even include hormesis (because
> this would be a benefit) if it existed. So what is all the "fight" against
> ALARA good for???? To claim zero exposure is not ALARA.

	--This is OK for professionals. But to the public, ALARA means
that any little bit of radiation can kill you. They don't quantify risks,
so that means that any radiation is bad, and therefore anything involving
nuclear technology is bad.
	Note the difference from air pollution on this matter. Any air
pollution below the limits is "good air quality", so the public doesn't
worry about it. The mayor of Pittsburgh is very dedicated to a
clean environment, but he eagerly works to bring in new industry as long
as it keeps pollution limits below the limits. The public supports him on
this. But the public never even considers limits in judging nuclear
technologies. There was great adverse publicity after Three Mile Island
when it was determined that the average exposure, about 1 mrem, would lead
to one extra cancer death in a population of several million. People
were interviewed on TV saying that maybe it will be my child.





Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu


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