Re[3]: linear hypothesis

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     I guess that this debate will just continue. The philosophy that 
     nothing should be done if the expected dose will not exceed 5 rem/yr. 
     is the same philosophy that has caused the nuclear industry to be in a 
     continual defensive posture. It is the same philosophy that has caused 
     the public to distrust health physicists, government and the science 
     community in general. To reject NCRP, ICRP and all of the BEIR reports 
     is just plain naive. If we, as health physicists, don't recognize that 
     public opinion is a major factor with respect to promulgation of laws 
     and acceptable practices, then we are surely a doomed industry and 
     profession. Public opinion carries over to litigation and increased 
     litigation, with verdicts that have the potential to be negative to 
     our way of life, will cause us to seek new ways to mitigate the 
     damage. The public will not accept an industry going backwards, 
     rejecting "normal business practices" in the name of science, the same 
     science that has gotten us to the point where we are today. Do we go 
     overboard, YES! Do we have some scientific flaws in our basis, YES! 
     But to reject all that has been accomplished and say there is NO RISK 
     is a very large stretch of the imagination.
     
     Why not go back to the post 1968 Public Laws which defined radiation 
     control, or should I say lack of control. No restrictions, continued 
     bomb testing. Don't worry about atmospheric releases, for the 
     exposures to the general public at large are below the 5 rem/yr. If we 
     are to say that occupational workers are not at risk from exposures < 
     5 rem.yr., then the public is not at risk either.
     
     Conclusion: if we are to reject sound scientific dogma, even with the 
     many unknowns at low doses, then we do not need a health physicist 
     profession anymore. Why? Because there have been very few exposures 
     documented above the 5 rem/yr.
     
     In 1993, from NRC data for exposures above 5 rem. only 2 individuals 
     exceeded 5 rem and were less than 6 rem (industrial radiography). This 
     is out of 209,386 workers. In the commercial power reactors, only 3 
     workers exceeded 3 rem and < 5 rem, out of 189,537 workers. This was 
     accomplished via ALARA. It works, we should not reject the concept. 
     
     Am I the only person who feels this way? I surely hope not.
     
     
     
     Sandy Perle
     Supervisor Health Physics
     Florida Power and Light Company
     Nuclear Division
     
     (407) 694-4219 Office
     (407) 694-3706 Fax
     
     sandy_perle@email.fpl.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Right on!!!! If the dose is not above 5 rem per year, there would be no
resources expended to make the dose lower. Only if the dose were
projected to be above 5 rem per year would any resources be spent to see
if it could be lowered to slightly below 5 rem (say 4.999999?).

Yes, we are to say: "... it doesn't matter whether or not an individual
should be allowed to reach the 5 rem/yr. without any intervention,
without any planning, without any goals or targets, without any
trending, without using engineering techniques to reduce exposure,
without utilizing a varied work forced to spread exposure to lower
levels when appropriate, without additional training, pre-job and
post-job briefings." All those things take resources. If there is no
observable effect at 5 rem per year, why spend resources to reduce the
dose below that value?

Please tell me the measurable health benefit from all the resources the
nuclear power industry spent over the years to reach the numbers you
quoted. Are we observably safer having spent those resources than not
having spent them? And don't tell me the doses are lower. What I want is
a measurement of real human health effects improvement for all those
resources expended.

In the airline industry there is a very measurable result in terms of
deaths for all the resources the country spends in airline safety. The
same is true for many other industries. What is the measure for the
nuclear power industry? Again, don't tell me dose. That is not a measure
of harm at low doses such as 5 rem. It is not a measure because we don't
know, on the basis of objective evidence what harm 5 rem per year will
do. However, if you do have a measure, I sure would like to know what it
is.