RE: Threshold

["Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>]

Ted,

I hope you realize that the NRC has "bought" the idea of having a threshold.

Regulations say licensees do not have to implement programs that reduce

public exposures below 1 mSv/y.  Is the NRC more enlightened than the

public?  ALARA is only implemented for workers' exposure, not the public.

Even if the worker tries to sue and say that ALARA did not protect them from

cancer, as long as it can be shown that the exposures were below the

regulatory limit of 50 mSv/yr, judgments have favored the employer.  It is

Congress, in its infinite ability to be influenced by lobby groups, that

gives away large sums to veterans and DOE employees.  (Makes you wonder why

regulations are made if exceptions are going to be made.  With my money.)



I do not think the problem is with the regulatory agencies.  The problem is

with groups who go before congress and get quoted in the media.  That and

the problem with the public's perception of risk.  My spouse noted that two

of her friends have cancer, and wondered if there is a connection.  My first

comment is that a over 255 of the population gets cancer.  We are at the age

(mid-50's) when cancer incidence's increase.  Yet, the public thinks cancers

are rare.  They are if you are young, but they still occur.  Radiation is

not the only cause of cancer. This is what the public needs to understand.



I refuse to blame the LNT (T is for theory, which makes it an academic

pursuit) for the publics concern about radiation and other risks.  What I

say is that "below these limits we cannot show any harmful effects above the

normal incidence rates.  Just to be sure, we will implement programs to

further reduce your risks."  To me, it is like putting airbags in cars.  The

vast majority of people who drive do not die in automobile accidents.

Airbags are expensive, and I have never had to rely on mine.  But they are

mandated by law.  I think too many blame the LNT for our inability to

communicate risks to the public.  For the same reason, you cannot make the

public accept "hormesis."  The public only hears that two excess cancer

deaths are the result of the TMI accident.  They do not hear that the normal

incidence rate is about 1,400 per year.  These are the things the public

needs to hear.  As you say, "there is no other honorable course."



-- John 

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist 

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD  20715-2024



E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)      



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

From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]

Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 9:43 PM

To: Sandy Perle; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: Threshold



A threshold is an important concept.  But if you say, "All radiation is

harmful but we can only protect you above this threshold, because otherwise

it gets expensive," that understandably scares people and leads to

bottomless ALARA.  That's BRC (Beyond Regulatory Concern), and it can never

be a satisfactory basis for radiation protection, following decades of LNT

scare talk.



But if you say, "Below this level, radiation is not harmful and is usually

beneficial," that makes all the difference.  Then any uncertainties or

differences in responses below the threshold are only of academic interest

and need not affect regulations or protective procedures.



Will the public buy it?  Not until we tell them clearly and consistently

that this is what the facts are.  Will public acceptance quickly follow such

a clarification of the facts by the responsible officials?  Probably not

very rapidly, but there is no other honorable course.

. . .

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/