Re: Threshold

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

are you SURE??



As I recall the original BRC proposal was for 1 mR/year!  And aren't

there EPA limits of 10 or 15 mR/year?



"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:

> 

> 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/

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

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/