Re: Scientific responsibility

["Les Aldrich" <laldrich@gte.net>]

Bill,



For those of us who have had to "accept" the LNT error in our careers when

we knew better, the REASON for getting rid of the "prudent precaution" is to

stop spending megabucks to save millirem!  When the average site dose is 17

millirem and we're told by the oversight government agency that we have to

reduce the dose further because "ALARA says so" (a direct result of

worshiping the idol of LNT), that is a criminal waste of financial resources

that could be better used elsewhere.



There are two ways to consider the situation.  The NCRP, et.al., operate on

the "we can't prove low exposure is absolutely safe, so we must assume it

isn't" concept.  I prefer the other possibility: "There is no evidence of

permanent negative effects from radiation at levels below X mrem, so let's

stop wasting time and money trying to reduce exposures below X mrem."



If you don't believe we're wasting money, watch how much is spend when a

government facility inadvertently transfers low-level waste to the local

public land-fill.  The cost of searching for and retrieving the offending

radioactive material is easily in 5 significant figures, if not six.  The

maximum dose rate that would exist at the land-fill surface if the

radioactive material was left there is usually somewhere in the microrem/y

range.



I prefer my tax dollars to go toward using ALARA principles to protect

workers who are engaged in high-dose rate work and/or site cleanup

activities.



I'm retired, so noone else can be blamed for my opinions.



Les Aldrich, CHP



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

From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

To: "William Prestwich" <prestwic@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>

Cc: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:49 PM

Subject: Re: Scientific responsibility





> 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."

>

> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

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

> Curies forever.

>

> Bill Lipton





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

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/