RE: ALARA

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

Jerry et al:



Several people asked about the references for my ALARA quotes.  I've

excerpted some words from a recent msg I wrote that may help.  Further

specifics could be easily tracked down (e.g. the ANS statement is PS41).

I'll help if anyone wants further info.



The original was nicely formatted, but since we can't have attachments on

this list (correct?), I'll cut and paste it and hope it's still legible.

______________________________________________

Applying Realism to Radiation Protection



Use of Cumulative Radiation Dose as a Measure of Good Practice or of

Casualty Magnitude



NRC uses as a prime measure of the severity of a casualty, or the efficacy

of “good plant operation,” the total collective radiation dose in

person-rems, multiplying trivial individual radiation doses by large numbers

of people to “predict” thousands of induced cancer deaths.   That process

has been repeatedly described as scientifically indefensible.  Yet we are

told that, in the absence of more data, this is the prudent course.  That

contention is wrong on both counts: there is no lack of applicable credible

data and the data show persuasively that low-dose radiation is not harmful.

The use of this unwarranted practice continues to have serious detrimental

effects.



NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE FOR USING COLLECTIVE DOSE FOR PREDICTING DEATHS.

NCRP-121 does not discuss the data showing that low-dose radiation is not

harmful, and concludes that prudence requires us to presume harmfulness. Yet

the report concedes (p.45, emphasis added):

Few experimental studies, and essentially no human data, can be said to

prove, or even provide direct support for the concept…It is conceptually

possible, but with a vanishingly small probability, that any of these

effects could result from the passage of a single charged particle…It is a

result of this type of reasoning that a linear non-threshold dose response

relationship cannot be excluded.



And NCRP-136 follows the same argument, even after stating bluntly (p. 6):

It is important to note that the rates of cancer in most populations exposed

to low-level radiation have not been found to be detectably increased, and

that in most cases the rates have appeared to be decreased.



The two major professional societies, the American Nuclear Society and the

Health Physics Society have also supported this stance in carefully

considered Position Statements:



It is the position of the American Nuclear Society that there is

insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of the Linear No

Threshold Hypothesis in the projection of the health effects of low-level

radiation.



In accordance with the current knowledge of radiation health risks, the

Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health

risks below 5 rem in one year.



Both societies agree that:

Below 10 rem…risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or

are non-existent.



Regarding adding up trivial individual doses, NCRP-136 warns (p.58):

The summation of trivial average risks over very large populations or time

periods…has produced a distorted image of risk, completely out of

perspective with risks accepted every day, both voluntarily and

involuntarily.



And Roger Clarke, Chairman of ICRP, wrote (1 Oct 98 at:

http://hps.org/documents/controllable.pdf):

 If the risk of harm to the health of the most exposed individual is

trivial, then the total risk is trivial—irrespective of how many people are

exposed.



A practice so universally discredited should not be used as the basis for

national policy.

_______________________________



Ted Rockwell



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

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:15 PM

To: Ted Rockwell; Monica Oosting; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: ALARA





Ted,

    I know of the HPS policy statement on the subject, but am unaware that

either ICRP or NCRP gave such advice. Could you give a citation?

    Actually, if ALARA were to apply only to doses exceeding 5.0 rem/a, it

would be unnecessary, since dose limitation rules preclude  allowance of

such exposure altogether.

                                        Jerry Cohen







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

From: Ted Rockwell <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>

To: Monica Oosting <monica.oosting@zircatec.ca>;

<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:23 AM

Subject: RE: ALARA





> I believe that ALARA already has more pressure behind it than it merits.

> Organizations are rated, in part, by how low they keep their total

> cumulative radiation dose.  This creates an incentive not to do various

> inspections, maintenance and other necessary activities that might result

in

> some small dose.

>

> ANS, HPS, NCRP and ICRP have advised that ALARA should not be pushed below

5

> or 10 rem individual dose, regardless of how many persons get such doses.

> Ignoring such advice is counter-productive.

>

> Ted Rockwell

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Monica Oosting

> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:20 AM

> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: ALARA

>

>

> Does anybody know if there is an industry recognized ALARA symbol?  Does

> anybody have any creative ideas on how to raise ALARA awareness in the

> workplace?  I am looking for new ideas and have not been able to find much

> information in pamphlet or poster form.

>

> Please email me at monica.oosting@zircatec.ca if you can help me out.

>

> Thank you

>

> Monica Oosting

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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/





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

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/