Re: ALARA and "what is safe enough"

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

Isn’t that exactly what the HPS position statement says
( http://www.hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf )?:

"In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year …"

And isn’t it consistent with BEIR statements that LNT is the "prudent" or conservative model? There may be some justification for applying overly conservative models to regulations (i.e. "better safe than sorry"), but for impact assessments, the correct model must be used, which, according to BEIR includes the possibility of no effect at low doses.

What is the justification for the fallout or dirty bomb predictions? They seem to be in direct contradiction to current thinking.

Kai

----- Original Message -----

From: ruthweiner@aol.com

To: joseroze@netvision.net.il ; sandyfl@earthlink.net ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:09 AM

Subject: Re: ALARA and "what is safe enough"

In a message dated 3/10/02 4:16:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, joseroze@NETVISION.NET.IL writes:

If the risk of harm to the health of the most exposed individual is trivial, then the total risk is trivial -
irrespective of how many people are exposed”

what a great idea!  Actually, this is the governing principle for "environmental justice" -- if the environmental impact is not significant, it is not significant to any affected population.

However, if this were adopted, we can expect arguments over the definition of "trivial."

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com