Ted,
I have a feeling that one of the recent ICRP publications, maybe ICRP 81 or
82, says just that: "DO NOT DO IT". And I'm pretty sure that Roger Clarke
says so in one or more of his 'controllable dose' papers over the last
several years.
Mark Sonter
Radiation Control Section
NSW Environmental Protection Authority
Fax +61 2 9995 6603
Phone +61 2 9995 5974
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Rockwell [SMTP:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2002 12:19
To: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET;
sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: MRFA
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
This e-mail is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the Environment Protection Authority.