Re: Dose studies vs regs, cont'd

[tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)]

>>   In fact, I believe the purpose of dose limits is to ensure that any 
>>   risk added to a radiation worker due to his exposure to radiation does 
>>   not exceed that of so-called "safe industries" such as office work.  

>>   If our role is to keep risk at or below that of a safe industry

I take issue with this concept and always have.  While this phrasiology is 
often used with regards to the goal of radiation safety it is TOTALLY 
ILLOGICAL!

Keeping risks AT OR BELOW safe industry is what leads to the zero risk 
concept since ANY industry but be AT LEAST a "safe industry"!!

The term safe industry refers to the lowest risk activity WITHOUT ANY rad 
work.  If one assumes ANY harm at all from radiation at any dose (not that I 
am asserting such) then the ONLY way to keep radiation work the same as safe 
industry to make compensating changes to the rest of the operation to make 
it "safer than safe"!!

Of course - any changes thus made would also be applied to "safe industries" 
and the spiral would continue!

It doesn't serve us at all well to speak platitudes that are logically 
inconsistent.

Now - if that is taken to mean "an ADDITIONAL increment of risk equivalent 
to that of safe industry" - thus doubling the safe industry risk; it would 
then make some sense.  BUT that is NOT what the words say.