RE: MRFA

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

Ruth:

 

Thanks for the info.  I have a question.  I understand the end-point is (at least some of the time) a calculated collective dose.  Then, whether you (DOE, NRC, whoever) or Lochbaum does it, someone calculates a number of cancers and fatalities from the dose.  That, of course, is what people want to know.  That's how we've been defining the severity of an accident.

 

My question is: do you (or anyone else reading this msg) know where I can find a reference from a regulator that says "Don't multiply trivial doses by large populations to "predict" deaths"?  They tell me this all the time, in casual conversation.  When you describe a silly situation, they say, "We don't make the regs; we just tell you the science."  (I choke a little, writing that with a straight face.)  And, of course, people like Jaworowski, Higson, et al say so.  But I have a vague recollection of seeing it in an NCRP or similar document.

 

I'd really like to see whatever references anyone has on that general subject.  I still have people telling me that "the generally agreed-on figure for Chernobyl deaths is 30,000."  In that case, I can refer them to UNSCEAR-2000.  But is there a more general statement published?

 

Thanks.

 

Ted Rockwell