|
Both
comments are valid. I want to add my $0.02-worth, if only to divert some heated
debate.
I
think that it is quite clear that the LNT hypothesis is universally ASSUMED
to be DE-FACTO CORRECT in the absense of a credible alternative hypothesis.
I admit that there are many good reasons for this. But the
unfortunate result is that the LNT assumption
has been ENTRENCHED via legislation. This imposes very
low, unpractical/uneconomical, dose rate limits that the highlighted ALARA
portion, purportedly, mitigates.
This has proven very expensive in the way resources in
many industries, at the expense of the taxpayers and the consumers, any way you
slice it. I know from first-hand experience that some projects, that would
certainly serve the public good, sometimes prove too costly because of the
dose-rate limits imposed by legislation based directly on the LNT model.
Clearly, we can all agree that there are serious negative
consequences to the LNT hypothesis. The question is what theory or working
hypothesis should we use in its place? Many of us anxiously await the
David that can slay this LNT Goliath, lessening the burden on our industry
and on mankind itself. In the meantime, we are all forced to live with ALARA and
the LNT theory - and there is a price to pay.
Best
regards,
Grant
Please
note that these are my personal thoughts only, and they should not be taken to
reflect those of my company in any way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Les
Aldrich [mailto:laldrich@gte.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:55
PM
To: William V Lipton;
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Scientific
responsibility
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
|