[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: J. Rad. Protection
Logic and ethics in radiation protection
Bo
Lindell
Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI), SE-17116 Stockholm,
Sweden
Abstract. The International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) continues to accept the assumption of a linear
non-threshold dose-response relationship (LNT) as the most likely one. In that
case, basic logic as well as widely accepted ethics require that the full
collective dose be used for detriment assessments and in procedures for
optimisation of radiation protection. This means that even the smallest doses
must be taken into account in the assessment of the global collective dose if
they contribute significantly together. However, in calculating collective doses
over time, some reasonable restriction of the integration period has to be
employed, mainly because of the uncertainties involved in the assessment of
future detriment. There are also uncertainties in the LNT assumption, but the
precautionary principle would not permit that this is taken as an excuse for
neglecting small doses.
---------------------------------------------------------
As much as I respect Bo Lindell, this strikes me as
little more than self-serving ICRP nonsense. The only "logic" cited to support
LNT seems to be "because I say so, that's why". Such "logic" might be
sufficient for parents to use on small children, but for adults, much less
scientists, it leaves a lot to be desired.
If we buy the preposterous "precautionay principle" then
there could be no such thing as a trivial risk and we would be
condemned to do nothing at all, since all human activities involve some
risk.
Also, what is the "logic" behind ignoring future detriment
because of uncertainties, while ignoring uncertainties (i.e. LNT) in assessing
near-term detriment.