Fiscal responsibility (was Re: Scientific responsibility)

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

At 03:49 PM 6/18/2003 -0400, William V Lipton wrote:

>The NCRP, ICRP, ... are NOT claiming that LNT is a valid model.   All they say

>is that it should be used for planning purposes, in the absence of sufficient

>information  to disprove it.

>

>I don't see how these convoluted arguments that, at best, show an association

>(NOT cause/effect) inconsistent with the linear, no threshold (LNT) hypothesis

>are sufficient reason to abandon this prudent precaution.  Politically, they

>won't convince anyone outside of the small circle of "true believers."



Bill,



To me, the "truth" in this matter is important. We are using a "prudent 

precaution" that, taken at its face value, is indeed prudent. However, when 

cost is factored into the prudent precaution, it may be that scarce funds 

are being spent on an over-cautious risk management scenario in one area 

while starving other, more rewarding areas of risk management.



I think it's about the potential squandering of capital for little 

gain--the law of diminishing returns.



Cheers,



Richard 



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

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/