[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: $/man-rem
Jerry, Sandy,
I am entering late into that debate. The last line of Jerry's message is :
"Of course this discussion presumes that LNT is a valid concept. If, as I
suspect, LNT is not valid, then the whole thing becomes total nonsense.
"This should have been the opening sentence. The whole approach of
$/man.rem is fundamentally flawed. In the analysis of the
cost-effectiveness of radiation protection, we have an equation with real
numbers on one side ($) and totally hypothetical numbers on the other
(hypothetical number of premature deaths). This does not make sense in
mathematics or in economics unless applied to doses high enough to induce
measurable effects to be put in the "effect" side of the equation.
Philippe Duport
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>
To: <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>
Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: $/man-rem
> Sandy,
> Thanks for trying. I really hope you (or anyone) can dig up the
> rationale, if any, behind the outrageous $10K/man-rem guidance. The reason
> for my curiosity is that perhaps I was the first to offer such guidance.
My
> recommendation was $250 $/man-rem ( see HPJ 19:633 (1970), & HPJ
> 25:527 (1973).
> The $10K/man-rem figure seems to convey a total lack of understanding
of
> the concept of Optimization (cost-effectiveness). The $1000/man-rem in
> Appendix I was bad enough!
> Cost-effectiveness is primarily an economic concept. The
> cost-effectiveness guideline ($/man-rem) defines an optimum. If we deviate
> from this optimum in either direction we are worse off. Health protection,
> like other desirable things is a commodity. Like any other commodity, if
the
> cost is too high people won't buy it (at least not in a free market). If
the
> cost is too low, we lose money. Fundamentally, given limited resources
> (which is almost always the case), if health protection is our goal, we
> should spend these limited resources where they do the most good. In this
> regard, the $10k we squander on avoiding one man-rem, could buy
considerably
> more health protection if spent elsewhere. Of course we don't have a free
> market in health protection which is what allows the bandit bureaucrats &
> politicians to get away with such egregious regulation.
> Of course this discussion presumes that LNT is a valid concept. If, as
I
> suspect, LNT is not valid, then the whole thing becomes total nonsense.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 7:02 PM
> Subject: Re: $/man-rem
>
>
> > On 20 Apr 2002 at 18:19, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > Do you know where the $10K/man-rem figure came from? Just curious.
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > I'll have to go back and dig up some of my old papers. Off the top of my
> >head, don't recall. I do remember there wasn't a lot of
> > scientific basis behind it, but, there were some reason as to how they
> arrived >at that figure.
> >
> > I'll see what I can dig up.
> >
> > Sandy
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/