[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LNT and resources [Was: Scientific responsibility]
You're joking, right? You are going to tell people to go live in an area
heavily contaminated with reactor fallout, saying, "Trust me, it's safe." I
wouldn't. Why don't you set an example, and go live there?. If I had been
living there and my life were disrupted because of those major screwups, I'd
want compensation. While a nuc med patient receives a benefit from the
radionuclides in his body, bystanders do not. I could go on and on, but I don't
have the time.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're making those
egregious statements in good faith, but please be aware that it's statements
such as that which give us a bad name.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Ted Rockwell wrote:
> John:
>
> Can't think of how dropping LNT will make a difference? Try some big ones:
> They could have moved only a few people out of the Chernobyl area, and moved
> them back soon after. Assure them that this amount of radiation will not
> hurt them. Result? Avoid the greatly increased suicide, depression,
> alcoholism and unemployment now seen. Plus $billions of compensation costs
> for "Chernobyl victims" by a government teetering on the brink of financial
> ruin.
>
> Assuring Europeans that that the trivial radiation levels in the Chernobyl
> fallout is harmless might have prevented the estimated 100,000 additional
> induced abortions downwind.
>
> Now apply that to US NPP evacuation plans. The Indian Point power plant may
> well be closed down because FEMA rightly states that evacuating millions of
> people out of that area in a hurry is unworkable. Some hospitals shut down
> nuclear medicine facilities because of the draconian requirements for
> controling dose levels from sources presumed safe inside a person's body are
> somehow dangerous in urine disposal systems.
>
> Thinking only of protecting health, after a dirty bomb with Cs one would
> wash the stuff down the storm sewers and life would go on. The residual
> contamination would be no more troublesome than from a serious oil or
> chemical spill. But current guidelines would cordon off the region for
> decades, enabling some lucky corporations and scientists to glean billions
> of dollars for no benefit and giving terrorists the satisfaction of having
> really caused us pain.
>
> Etc. Do you really not understand this??
>
> This is particularly egregious when the NCRP reports adopted as
> justification for this practice concede that the science does not provide
> any evidence of harm from LDR and that "most populations exposed to LDR do
> not show deleterious effects and most show beneficial effects." So it can
> be justified only as "prudent." Does this really strike you as prudent?
>
> Ted Rockwell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant
> (Kanata)
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:34 AM
> To: 'John Jacobus'; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: RE: LNT and resources [Was: Scientific responsibility]
>
> Hi John,
>
> Here is a very simple example:
>
> Say you are in the cancer-fighting business and wish to try-out a promissing
> new technology. You wish to build a glove box to handle, say 10 Ci, of a
> radionuclide that, aside from its predomiantly low-energy spectrum, happens
> to have a very low-intensity (say, 0.01%/dis) high-energy component (say,
> 500 keV).
>
> Try designing a (transparent) glove box (or one with a see-through window)
> that effectively reduces the transmitted field to below 3 mR/h at 6 inches
> from the glove box surface, as required by legislation. You will find that
> the difficulty and cost associated with this simple task is very high
> indeed.
>
> You state that you "do not accept" that the resources (read "cost") involved
> pose a detriment to society. Cost and profits determine whether projects get
> completed. Not completing a project due to the high capital cost of a new
> form of cancer treatment can prove an obvious case of where there may be a
> detriment to society.
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> Grant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:17 AM
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: LNT and resources [Was: Scientific responsibility]
>
> I have a question for the group. Can anyone give a
> idea how replacement of the LNT with a different
> model, e.g., threshold at 500 mrem or 5mSv, will
> change how business will be done in radiation
> protection? What practices will change? Surveys?
> Documentation of environmental monitoring? Staff?
> What legislation and regulations will change?
>
> More importantly, how much cash will be saved? I will
> not consider that the "resources" saved will be used
> for public good.
>
> --- "NIXON, Grant (Kanata)" <GNIXON@MDS.Nordion.com>
> wrote:
> > 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 -----
> > From: William V <mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com>
> > Lipton
> > To: Les Aldrich <mailto:laldrich@gte.net>
> > Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> > <mailto:radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > 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.
> >
> . . .
>
> =====
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.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/
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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/