Re: Precautionary Principle

[Tom Mohaupt <tom.mohaupt@WRIGHT.EDU>]

Rad Safers,

No one doubts that the lofty ideal of the precautionary principle is an 

appropriate consideration in every activity. But it must remain just 

that a lofty ideal and not the over-riding guideline. Every time an 

accident occurs, the precautionary principle has failed because not 

enough caution had been implemented to prevent it. Therefore, more 

enforceable controls must be used to ensure all precautions are taken. 

Imagine mountain climbers limited to a 6 foot wall, Olympic swimmers 

wearing water wings.  If you apply the precautionary principle to sun 

exposure, which is a known carcinogen, then we would be legally and 

morally bound to reduce solar exposure to ALARA levels. Hence, good-bye 

swimming, boating, skiing, baseball games, etc., etc. Not an enjoyable 

existance, especially when you look at sunlight from the low-level 

perspective where it is considered beneficial, nay, necessary.



Ionizing radiation is simply a form of energy, just as solar radiation, 

heat, potential energy, kinetic energy, etc. are other forms of energy. 

All forms of energy are hazardous in high levels. All forms of energy 

are considered innocuous or beneficial in low levels. Radiation is the 

only form of energy where the precautionary principle is applied at low 

levels. That's why the BEIR VII committee report is important. If they 

only look at high doses and extrapolate downward, they will come out 

with the same answer as previous BEIR committees. If they start at 

background doses and work up, the report will likely be very different. 

There is tons of data in the real low dose region of less 20 rem. Why 

don't they use it? So far the BEIR VII committee has heard from the EPA, 

DOE, Steven Wing, etc. Can you see where the committee is heading?



NCRP #139, Risk-Based Classification of Radioactive and Hazardous 

Chemical Wastes, presents an interesting comparison of the regulatory 

objectives between the two. Radioactive waste is regulated top down. 

Uacceptable risk (i.e., dose limits) is defined and ALARA is applied to 

lower doses. Whereas, for chemicals, acceptable stochastic risks are 

defined below which no control is required; however values above the 

acceptable risk parameters can be exceeded under controlled situations. 

I wonder if the BEIR VII committee has read this.

Tom





-- 

Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP

Radiation Safety Officer

Wright State University

937-775-2169

tom.mohaupt@wright.edu







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

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/