Re: Dose studies vs regs, cont'd

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

Y'all keep missing the point. WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE ARE ANY RISKS
FROM LOW DOSES OF IONIZING RADIATION - ESPECIALLY SPREAD OUT OVER
TIME!!!! The ICRP and NCRP have not done "science" in recommending their
system of radiation protection, e.g., justification, optimization, and
then limits. In addition, their comparison with "safe industries" is a
farce. They compare apples and alligators. They compare hypothetical
radiation risks with real accident statistics. What they should do is
compare hypothetical radiation risks with hypothetical risks from
chemical exposures. Or, they should compare radiation deaths with
accidental deaths. But, in their usual fashion, they take the absolutely
most conservative approach. That approach is too expensive and we, the
radsafe community must say so and offer an alternative. 5 rem per year
for everyone is not an unreasonable concept. We used it for years. Many
people have cumulative exposures of many 10s of rems. In Russia they
have many people with exposures of many 100s of rems. There are no
acceptable data that I know of that show those doses ARE, in fact,
harmful. We must put the monkey back on the correct shoulder. Make the
standards setters demonstrate harm rather than making us demonstrate
safety. The latter is impossible!!!!!! There is enough information now,
40 years after10CFR20 was firs t promulgated, to demonstrate lack of
harm. There is even data to demonstrate benefit. There will never be
data to demonstrate absolute safety.Let's keep up this thread. We need
to reach agreement on how to change the paradigm.

*** Reply to note of 11/28/95 07:39

From: Ted M. de Castro
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: Dose studies vs regs, cont'd
>>   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.