Re[2]: dose-effect estimates vs privacy

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

About 30 or so years ago the then AEC proposed a 12 page annual report
for all radiation workers that included not only their occupational
radiation exposure, but also their chemical and other hazards exposures,
their medical exposure, some personal habits such as smoking and a lot
of other things. The AEC realized that it must have such data to make
sense out of any epidemiological studies oflow level ionizing radiation
effects. The licensees shot that report format and content down saying
it would be too expensive. Too bad. Hindsight finds that the cost would
have been more than offset by the benefit - of a definitive
epidemiological study of low level ionizing radiation effects, including
all of the confounding factors.

If anyone in the NRC could dig up a copy of that proposed report format,
I would sure like to see a copy. My address is in the HPS handbook.

Sandy, someday we will build new nuclear power plants. They will cost
more if the current radiation protection standards are not revised. I do
not want my children and grand children penalized because I didn't do
all I could to provide for their future. We will be hurting them if we
don't get rid of the linear model!! We are already hurting ourselves. Al
Tschaeche

*** Reply to note of 11/27/95 19:46
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re[2]: dose-effect estimates vs privacy
     We in the commercial nuclear power world are fortunate in that we do
     have complete radiation histories for the majority of our workers. We
     do NOT have other radiation exposure data, such as medical or
     environmental exposure. In those cases where we are made aware of a
     medical procedure, we can assume an estimated exposure, however, this
     data is not included in the ALARA review prior to assigning a job
     function. As Al suggested, this information would be of interest,
     however I am not advocating that we embark on an epidemiological
     nightmare. This has been suggested many times before, but the cost of
     the study, balanced against not being able to capture other causes of
     disease, would make the results questionable at best. The NRC has
     considered this study, as well as further reduction of the regulatory
     dose limits, but has elected not to at this time. WHY? Because the
     older workforce, the group that has received the highest exposures
     during the past several decades, had either passed on, or, have been
     retiring. That means the current workforce for the most part is young,
     and one that has a smaller manrem, collectively and individually.
     Since the regulatory limit has been reduced, and, the licensees have
     reduced their administrative limits even further, there doesn't appear
     to be a real need to conduct this exhaustive epidemiological study. I
     for one hope that it doesn't occur in my working life!

     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

     HomePage: http://www.lookup.com/homepages/54398/home.html


______________________________ Reply Separator ________________________________
_
Subject: Re: dose-effect estimates vs privacy
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet-Mail
Date:    11/27/95 4:45 PM