Re: NG blast (again)

["Michael G. Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

Jaro wrote:

> I could also add the oft-cited question, if one is interested in safety

and

> human welfare in general, would one not be compelled to expend scarce

> resources in those areas where most lives are saved per dollar spent ?



Ted wrote:

> Why should a particular

> level of mortality from a nuclear accident warrant front-page coverage and

> annual commemoration, when repeated occurances of much greater public

impact

> are accepted as the price we pay for the benefits?



These are salient points. Those of our professional ranks who publicly wring

their hands over sometimes miniscule failures of our protection systems add

to what I believe are completely immoral misdirections of finite resources

("Mega calcs for femtodose" as my friend at St Lucie has coined it, with the

corollary "Mega bucks for femtodose"). We chase theoretical deaths,

suggested by an overly conservative model that has been adopted for setting

worker dose limits, but which has no scientific basis for predicting cancer

deaths at low levels of dose, and then spend few resources on preventing

real deaths. That's bad science and bad public policy. Even worse, the fear

that ripples through the population is causing people to avoid needed

medical exams, which may be leading to other real deaths. I just spent a

good bit of time talking with a woman who had received a number of medical

exams over a decade or so. She was not only fearful of having other exams

that her doctor is recommending currently to look at a heart condition, she

is convinced that she is *going to get cancer* (not just *has a risk* of

getting cancer) because of her previous radiation history, with not a

particularly high cumulative dose. People are diverting their children from

getting recommended CT exams, and are avoiding other medical services

involving radiation because of the rampant fear over this mysterious demon.

Sure, we should investigate industrial incidents and eliminate unnecessary

medical exposures. No one is suggesting that the nuclear industry be as

"careless" as the NG or chemical and petroleum industries, but could they

possibly be as careful as we are? A reasonable perspective in analyzing the

situations and in allocating resources for corrective action (to save real

lives instead of theoretical ones) is badly needed.



Mike



Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Vanderbilt University

1161 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37232-2675

Phone (615) 343-0068

Fax   (615) 322-3764

Pager (615) 835-5153

e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com



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

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/