Re: Your expert perspective...

[BFLOOD@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

As a refugee from the commercial nuclear power industry, I can state with
confidence that the overall point of the discussion on this subject is
correct: the nuclear power industry has resisted conversion to SI units
based on the very real cost of making such a change compared to the absence
of any financial benefit (the major cost of the conversion would be the
retraining of an entire industry's workforce). Just as the American public
has resisted the Celsius temperature scale in favor of the more familiar
Fahrenheit scale (that's called staying in our comfort zone), industries
that don't generally have to compete on an international scale will resist
changes that cost money, disturb the comfort zone, and aren't necessary to
do business.

The teacher in question should have no difficulty understanding the basis
for establishing SI units for dose (or any other measurement). A teacher of
any science who doesn't understand the SI approach is entitled to be an
unemployed teacher.



>          Good day radsafers
>          
>          An associate of mine is taking a general biology class at a 
>          local community college. The instructor has an anti nuke 
>          agenda. She has given the class an assignment asking the 
>          class to answer particular questions concerning the nuclear 
>          power industry. One question suggests that the nuclear power 
>          industry started to replace REM with the SI unit Sieverts 
>          for dose equivalent reporting. This instructor is convinced 
>          that this was done because the sv equivalent for rem would 
>          appear to be a smaller number, and would not be such a shock 
>          when reported to the public. Rather than reporting 100 rem, 
>          the industry would fool the world by reporting 1 sv. This 
>          change, as the instructor points out, was done after the 
>          Chernobyl accident. 
>          
>          Would anyone care to shed some light on this assumption? I'm 
>          sure one rational shotgun blast will blow her theory away. 
>          Sorry if it raised your blood pressure. Thanks in advance. I 
>          can't imagine anyone being further off base.
>          
>          T.Fox
>          Sr. HP Tech
>          Office of EH&S
>          University of California, San Diego
>          tom_fox@ehs.ucsd.edu
>          
>
Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu