[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"