Re: Dose vs Regs cont'd

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

I don't disagree and understand completely your comment. I have had
exactly the same feelings and thoughts over the years. When Bob
Alexander and I used to discuss this matter, he accused me of wanting
bodies in the street before being able to set appropriate radiation
protection standards. And, to some extent, he was right. However, we
know much more about radiation effects, and lack thereof, than about
almost any other similar hazard to which humans are exposed. Clearly, we
know a lot about accidental death, in automobiles, for example. The
insurance companies have actuarial tables that can be turned into real
risk numbers. But we can't do that with radiation, and a lot of other
hazards such as many chemicals. I sympathize with those who want no
risk. And I know that such a situation is impossible. I agree that there
should be some kind of a limit based on acceptable risk. My problem is
that we don't know that there is ANY risk for low doses of radiation
such as 5 rem per year. To spend billions of dollars on the basis of a
bad guess is, to me, unconscionable and just plain wrong. We, in this
country, are very inconsistent in the application of remedial actions to
reduce risk (see Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their
Cose-Effectiveness, Tammy O. Tengs, et. al. Risk Analysis, Vol. 15, No.
3, Pg 369, 1995). For example, we spend, according to that reference,
$69 to save a life-year when we have mandatory seat belt laws for
automobiles. And we spend $99 billion to save a life-year by requiring
pulp mills to adhire to a chloroform private well emission standard!
That's 9 orders of magnitude difference. Radiation control numbers are
much more like the latter than the former. All I indend to do is get the
radiation control numbers back down to more reasonable values. Changing
the radiation protection standards is a way to do that. I have not seen
any other suggestions. Until there is a better suggestion, I will
continue to carry out my intention. I appreciate all the comments. They
help focus thinking. However, we have to handle emotions too. That's the
hard part and goes directly to your concern. This should not be seen as
the "forbidden experiment", Alexander's comment not-with-standing. It
should be seen as a practical limit until data demonstrate otherwise.
Based on all that is currently known about radiation effects on living
things, I am sanguine that we will never see harmful effects at 5 rem
per year. And, yes, the fact probably must be "couched in very different
terminology" to be acceptable to an unknowledgable public and
legislators. But -- let's call a spade a spade within the radiation
protection organization. I hate subterfuge and recognize that sometimes
it is needed to get something good done. Keep the comments coming. Al
Tschaeche.

*** Reply to note of 11/29/95 08:59

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

Subject: Re: Dose vs Regs cont'd
>>I continue to believe that we should set the limit,
>>work to it, do ALARA above it, and study those who actually get about
>>the limit each year. If we don't see any effects, continue to use the
>>limit. It is only after we have convincing evidence that 5 rem per year
>>is, in fact, harmful that we should lower the limit.

Al, While I find myself in agreement with most of what you are saying -
after supressing the gut reaction from YEARS of conditioning - the protocol
you outline above could be easily construed to be the "forbidden
experiment"!

If such were in fact done it would need to be couched in very different
terminology to not sound so much like a human experiment.