[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AW: Hanford Site cleanup standards
- To: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>, Franz Schoenhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
- Subject: RE: AW: Hanford Site cleanup standards
- From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:53:46 -0700
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 13:59:02 -0600
- Cc: "Taylor, Douglas" <Douglas.Taylor@shawgrp.com>, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM, crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM, tdc@XRAYTED.COM, jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET, Al.Conklin@DOH.WA.GOV, BLHamrick@AOL.COM, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
- Reply-To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>
- Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
- Thread-Index: AcNuIvITlB1MiXhSSbeJLjnUKmR38QAOZz3g
- Thread-Topic: AW: Hanford Site cleanup standards
Bill Lipton wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 4:45 AM
To: Franz Schoenhofer
Cc: Taylor, Douglas; RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM; tdc@XRAYTED.COM; jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET; Al.Conklin@DOH.WA.GOV; Dukelow, James S Jr; BLHamrick@AOL.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: AW: Hanford Site cleanup standards
<snip>
I also find the sudden interest in the welfare of cleanup workers and school children truly inspiring. Yes, at some point the occupational risks would override any marginal benefit from the work. I really doubt that such concerns are likely to become the deciding factor in a decision on cleanup levels.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
==================
Bill's approach seems to be that if he isn't aware of an issue, it doesn't exist. Would that be a flavor of solipsism?
My awareness of the issue doesn't go as far back as Ruth's, but dates to the mid-80s at the latest, when I had the responsibility of planning the risk and safety analysis for a large project. The trade-off between worker and public risk was a critical part of the formulation of risk acceptance criteria. The factor of 5000 difference in what DOE was willing to pay to prevent one worker fatality versus one public fatality cited by Herbert Inhaber seems consistent with other studies I have seen.
We are all members of the public. I suppose that if neither you nor anyone you care about is a worker, you can afford to be indifferent to worker risks. Indeed, if you set the acceptable level of risk to workers high enough, it WILL NOT BE the deciding factor in a decision on cleanup levels.
Best regards.
Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by may management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
************************************************************************
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/