Re: Scientific responsibility

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

Normally, I don't bother responding to rants such as this, but I'm disturbed by two

things:



1.  If you read my response, I  stated that I'm not defending every ALARA decision.

There have undoubtedly been some bad ones.  Blame the decision maker, not the

concept.  You seem to forget, despite my quoting the definition of ALARA, that the

decision should take relevant socioeconomic factors into account.  Since your

posting is notable for its high level of self-righteousness and low level of detail,

I don't know who made the infamous 17 mrem decision or the relevant factors in that

decision.  I thus can't comment on its validity.  However, if you disagreed with it,

you had means for appeal.  If you or your management decided to roll over on a bad

finding, it's not the fault of ALARA.



2.  I am especially disturbed by those who so quickly classify a decision with which

they disagree as "criminal."  I often disagree with decisions by others, but do not

do that.  You should keep in mind that, while science can develop risk estimates,

it's a societal, i.e. political, decision on what level of risk to accept in any

situation. You may think the money is wasted, but society may decide that it's

worthwhile.  If you disagree, you should use the political process, not condemn

those who don't agree with you.  It's called democracy.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

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

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com





Steven Dapra wrote:



> June 19

>

>         It <is> a "Criminal waste of financial resources..."

>

>         Les Aldrich wrote:  "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."

>

>         It's a criminal waste because who in his right mind would maintain that

> even reducing the average site dose from 17 millirems to <zero> millirems

> would make any difference in the health of the exposed person?

>

>         Since the reduction will undoubtedly have no salutary effect on anyone's

> physical health, why should the contractor be forced to spend (waste) the

> money to reduce the dose?  If you want to get technical about it, it's

> fraud.  The contractor is being forced to spend money even though neither

> he nor anyone else will gain anything; while nevertheless being told

> (falsely) that he (the contractor) will gain something -- better health for

> his employees.

>

>         Bill Lipton likes to say "It's not about dose".  Well, this is not about

> safety.  It is about power drunk agencies, and power drunk regulators who

> are deliberately forcing companies to throw away millions of dollars to

> reduce exposures that are already harmless -- at least they are in this

> case with the 17 millirems.

>

>         Note that ALARA also says to make a "reasonable effort".  The exposure

> dose could be reduced to zero millirems by shutting down the site and

> firing all the employees.  Is this a reasonable effort?  How are you going

> to define "reasonable effort"?  Gofmanites and Caldicottians would probably

> say this is eminently reasonable.  In the name of making reasonable efforts

> shall we buy into their irrational view of radioactivity?  I reiterate --

> how are you going to define "reasonable effort"?

>

> Steven Dapra

> sjd@swcp.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/





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

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/