Re[4]: linear hypothesis

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     The dialogue is commendable, with many valid points being made. The 
     unfortunate thing is that there is so little scientific knowledge and 
     so much hypothesis with respect to linear threshold. Where do you draw 
     the line, and is it the same line for everyone. Some are prone to 
     effects at one value while others are affected at a different value. I 
     only want to make a few points:
     
     1. It is absolutely ridiculous to expend huge sums of dollars to save  
        a few mrem, or to prove that one didn't exceed that value. 
     
     2. The NRC, in the current 10CFR20 has for all practical purposes,     
        established a BRC .. with the 10% rule. In previous rules it was    
        25% .. so, there has always been a deminimis value of sorts.        
        Currently, if the DDE is expected to be less than 500 mrem in the   
        current year, no monitoring is required. Surveys and ALARA is a     
        must to ensure this value. The same holds true for internal dose.   
        The NRC has also stated that no special actions need be taken,      
        including not requiring training for individuals who will not       
        exceed 100 mrem in a year. 
     
     3. >>I don't think it is any stretch of imagination to say: "There is  
        NO RISK at 5 rem per year for everyone." It's just the other side   
        of the coin from saying THERE IS RISK at 5 rem per year. The ICRP   
        and NCRP tell the truth when they say: "We DON'T KNOW if there is any   
        risk at 5 rem per year." <<

        Very true. We don't know. And since we don't know, I believe that it    
        would be foolish for we as health physicists to promote the notion that 
        we do not need to be concerned with doses that are less than 5 rem/yr.  
        We all have seen instances where science has been proven incorrect in   
        its assumptions (your analogy is taken well) .. both in favor of and    
        infavor against the popular belief. Now is not the time to go forth and 
        say 5 rem/yr. is perfectly acceptable, at least not until we have some  
        hard evidence, one way or the other.

     4. I also believe that until the scientific community, has defined by NCRP,
        ICRP and other esteemed organizations, state in writing that the current
        recommendations are unnecessary, that there will not be any substantial 
        move to reduce the current level of protective requirements. 

     5. Finally, when the NRC relaxed respiratory protection requirements,      
        basing actions on a TEDE ALARA evaluation, the biggest obstacle was the 
        worker's concern that we were hiding dose from them, that what we had   
        taught over the many years was being eliminated only for the purposes of
        making the collective manrem go down and for saving dollars. If we      
        increase the ALARA or BRC or whatever it is we want to call it, value up
        to as high a 5 rem/yr., I believe we would have a significant chore on  
        our hands to convince the many workers in the field that this is in     
        effect, OK, that they are actually just as safe as they were before.    


     As a health physicist I would be happy to reduce O&M costs, and have a good
     conscience about it, in light of the continual restructuring we are all    
     having to endure.   



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 _________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: linear hypothesis
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet-Mail
Date:    10/18/95 1:35 PM



I started this string to get dialog going among those who are "on"
RADSAFE. So far the dialog has been exceptionally useful. I trust it
will continue. All of us have seen everything (except for some messages
between two parties that, for whatever reason, were not sent to
RADSAFE). The idea that public opinion is a "major factor" with respect
to promulgation of laws and acceptable practices, clearly has merit.
However,if public opinion is "wrong" as it is i n the case of fear of
radiation, it is up to the experts to correct it. As long as the experts
are silent, public opinion will continue to be "wrong." If the experts
continue to espouse an idea that has been corrupted, as the linear
hypothesis has been by the anti-nukes, then we will be stuck. If we
won't educate the public so we can get "unstuck" (as it appears we
won"t), then we must do something else. The "something else" I propose
is just one possible way to get us "unstuck." If someone else has a
better idea (as some may have who have participated in this dialog),
they should present it. If people are satisfied with the status quo,
then there is nothing to be done. However, I sense that there are a lot
of unsatisfied people out there, not the least of which is the public
who are tired of the government spending huge sums of their tax money.
If we can do something to help the public understand that it's
insistance on the EPA, DOE, NRC, ETC. spending billions to reduce public
dose when there is no data to show either that the public will, in fact,
be harmed at higher doses, or that there is a measurable net benefit
from spending all that money, then we should do that. I don't think it
is any stretch of imagination to say: "There is NO RISK at 5 rem per
year for everyone." It's just the other side of the coin from saying
THERE IS RISK at 5 rem per year. The ICRP and NCRP tell the truth when
they say: "We DON'T KNOW if there is any risk at 5 rem per year." The
problem is, scientists have a great deal of trouble saying: "I don't
know." So the ICRP and NCRP made an assumption. You know what happens
when you make assume something? You make an ASS of U and ME. :-) The
corruption of the assumption into: "A little radiation WILL KILL me" is
the problem. If others have ideas on how to combat the corruption and
the concomitant government insistance on ALARA at ridiculously low doses
(less than 15 mrem per year), I'd like to hear of them.

But, to sit still and do nothing at this point when money is very tight
(Wouldn't you like to have your taxes reduced by $1000 per year?), seems
to me to be irresponsible if not downright immoral and unethical. So, I
make the suggesions I do with the intention of developing a national
position that most of us can agree on. Of course, not everyone will
agree. But, in this country, the majority rules (ha ha), or so I've been
taught. So, if we can get even the majority of knowledgeable people to
agree, we might have a chance of changing things.

However, if the knowledgeable people only argue, or find ways why an
idea won't work, instead of finding what does work, we will never assist
the public in the way that I think knowledgable people should. So --
what is your idea to stop spending the billions we do for no measurable
benefit?