|
Bill,
How nice of you to underline the part of the ALARA
definition that I stressed, unsuccessfully, every time someone wasted money
fighting millirem. The part you don't understand, apparently, is that the
underlined part has been ignored and basically erased by the government overseer
of non-reactor nuclear facilities.
Actually, my argument is that there shouldn't be a
red light there in the first place, because there is no possibility of an
accident.
When someone tells me that any amount of radiation,
no matter how small, is dangerous, a statement that is demonstrably untrue, and
takes (tax) money out of my pocket to protect against the small amount of
radiation, they have obtained my money by fraud.(see any dictionary for the
definition of fraud). With the exception of the NRC, who at least tried to
establish a level below regulatory concern, all government agencies continue to
perpetuate the LNT myth.
It has always been, and will continue to be, about
dose.
I'm retired, so noone else can be blamed for my opinions.
Les
Aldrich, CHP
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:41
AM
Subject: Re: Scientific
responsibility
"Criminal waste of financial resources..." Wow! I
didn't know about that. Have you called the Attorney General? I'd
at least call the NRC Chair and tell him that he has the right to remain
silent!
While I can't defend every "ALARA" decision, I suggest that you read the
definition of ALARA in 10 CFR 20.1003: "ALARA ... means making
every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the
dose limits in this part as is practical consistent with the purpose for which
the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into account the state of
technology, the economics of improvements in relation to the state of
technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the
public health and safety, and other societal and socioeconomic
considerations..." [emphasis mine]
Exactly what part of this do you find "criminal"? If you have
problems with an inspector's interpretation of this concept, then that's
what you should be disputing.
You mention the case of radwaste in a landfill. To me, the reason for
making the licensee recover the waste is as much to deter future mishaps and
promote good practices as to minimize the risk from that incident. Your
argument is equivalent to saying that you shouldn't get a citation for running
a red light, since there was no accident.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's
about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
|