Re: NG blast (again)

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

If I remember correctly, this thread started over the Japanese criticality

accident.  It does not seem that the root cause of this disaster involved money,

and the results were definitely more than "femtodose."  To trot out that time

worn, "expend scarce resources" argument does the nuclear industry a great

disservice.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com







"Michael G. Stabin" wrote:



> 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/