Re: Linear Hypothesis

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

Steven Garry's article is an excellent summary of the paper in Risk
Analysis about the cost effectiveness of various life-saving
interventions mandated by various branches of the Federal Government. I
agree that all who are interested should read his article AND the
original paper. Then, we should all send a letter to Newt Gingrich in
Congress and request Congress to pass legilation that mandates each
Federal Agency to protect to a level that costs no more than $5000 per
real life saved and no more than $100 per hypothetical life saved. The
letters should all contain a copy of the original article. If enough of
us do that, it might have some effect. But -- we must do it quickly
while the mood of the Federal government is cost-cutting. I will send my
letter as soon as I get a copy of the original article. Anyone else
willing to do that?

*** Reply to note of 10/17/95 08:47

From: D. Lee Beidelman
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: Linear Hypothesis
It seems to me that current efforts by some to debunk the use of the linear
assumption, with a view to change public policy, are highly unlikely to
succeed.

A better approach is suggested in the October 1995 HP Society Newsletter
editorial by Steven Garry, CHP, entitled "The Cost-Effectiveness of
Environmental Regulations Questioned".  The point is made that, for example,
the average Consumper Product Safety Commission rule costs $68,00 per
life-year saved, while radionuclide emission control at nuclear power plants
costs about _$100 million_ per life-year saved.  The last figure, I assume,
is calculated by using the linear assumption (i.e., theoretical lives lost).

I would suggest that those interested in this topic read Steven's editorial.

D. Lee Beidelman (beidelma@tis.inel.gov)

Standard Disclaimer: these are my personal opinions only.