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

Re: ICRP 2 standard



I think it was Bismarck who said, "It is a good thing that people do not know how either laws or sausages are made."
As regards the derivation $1000/man-rem guide, I may be able to shed some light on its origin since I was peripherally involved. In 1970, in the HPJ (19:633) I authored a paper that suggested a value of $250/man-rem. That paper generated much criticism to the effect that I was implicitly placing a value on human life. However, in the following year, several others publications (including those by Dunster, Lindell, & Lederberg) also gave estimated values ranging from $10 to $960 per man-rem. So in response to the criticism I received, I submitted a rebuttal letter to the HPJ editor summarizing these other estimates which had a median value of ~$200/man-rem to argue that my original estimate was not unreasonable. This letter was published (HPJ 21:567) in 1972, and was cited by Walt Rogers in his testimony before the NRC hearings to develop Appendix I on controlling liquid effluents from nuclear power plants. To be "conservative" the commission chose the highest estimate ($960) and rounded it off to an even $1000/man-rem. Out of curiosity, I contacted the author of the $960/man-rem value to see how this estimate was made. I learned that it derived from the estimated cost-effectiveness for ejector seats for Air Force fighter planes. Bismarck was right!
---------------------------------------------------------------
>From Bill Lipton :          I'm not questioning the
> integrity of these people, but those decisions were wrong.  If benzene, a
> radiomimetic, can have a PEL, why can't radiation?   How did we decide that we
> should spend $1000 to avoid a man-rem (10 CFR 50, Appendix I; I've heard of
> figures as high as $10000/man-rem.) when a significant fraction of our
> population is denied access to basic health care?
>
> I have probably benefited personally from these decisions.  As a colleague once
> stated:  "Radiations's been very very good to me!"  Yet I am not happy about
> it.  It is ultimately demoralizing to devote your life to protecting people from
> imaginary hazards.  This, not academic funding is the reason for the "Human
> Capital Crisis in Radiation Safety" (HPS Position Statement, August, 2001.)
>look at the real problem, for a change.
 
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
 
The late Leonard Sagan commented, "A lot more have lived off of radiation than have died from it"