AW: regulatory purpose vs. WILL kill

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc@xrayted.com]

Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. September 2002 15:32

An: Franz Schoenhofer; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Betreff: Re: regulatory purpose vs. WILL kill





Franz - you are switching frames of reference here!



In the EPA citation a group risk is cited and is usually interpreted as

predictive - in the car example you are taking the frame of reference of

individual risk in stating that not everyone who drives dies - indeed

the group risk numbers for driving do say that - but they also say that

a given number of people from the car driving population WILL die next

year, over a holiday or whatever.



I can certainly understand the EPA risk statement being interpreted as

as predicting deaths and saying a little radiation among a lot of people

WILL kill.

--------------------------------------------------------



Ted,



I admit that my example was probably not clear enough or even wrong, because

the risk of being killed in a traffic accident is given by statistics and in

this case statistics work, because the numbers are big enough to apply

statistics. In the case of exposure the numbers are not big enough to

ascertain a clear connection between doses and "deaths". Taking the LNT into

consideration as a regulatory device gives you the upper limit of

detremental effects, but this upper limit does not imply, that there really

will be a certain numbers of deaths caused by radiation. The "risk" is a

worst case scenario, whereas the risk of traffic deaths is an everyday

experience.



The radiation protection scientists in Europe - and not only in Europe -

regard these risks as what they are - risks without any "WILL die". It is a

risk, which does not imply that persons being exposed to these doses will

have a certain probability to die. They appear to be upper limits, when

applying the LNT. Being myself involved in Austrian legislation I can only

state, that it is the duty of a relevant authority to apply a threshold of

risk, unless it can be proved, that this threshold does not exist. It will

not be proved by single persons opinion. Moreover legislation has to take

into account "public opinion", whether it is scientific sound, correct or

not.





Collective dose is something which is hardly used in Europe any more and I

myself have refused to use it from the beginning. It does not show up in the

European Radiation Protection Directive and I do not know of any national

radiation protection legislation, where this would be used as a criterion

for whatsoever. So I wonder, whether it is used in US or other legislation

at all.



I noticed that there is a big difference between US legislation and many

mails to RADSAFE. We in Europe have to follow the rules - whether it is good

or bad.



Franz





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

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/