Re: Dose vs Regs cont'd

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     I agree with Al that epidemiology does not provide the necessary 
     answers. I disagree that there is no evidence that 5 rem per year 
     hurts anyone, if you agree with the first assumption, that 
     epidemiology can't define, with a high degree of confidence, that an 
     exposure to radiation either has or has not caused a negative effect. 
     If the necessary answers aren't available, one can't prove either for 
     or against. How does one prove a negative? There have been many 
     lawsuits filed by individuals who have very low lifetime dose. The 
     average lifetime dose for an individual suing is < 1 rem. The suits 
     are filed by individuals who have maintained their exposure within 
     regulatory limits. If the courts decide that these cases have merit, 
     then meeting regulatory limits will have no bearing on whether or not 
     our operations can be conducted safely, to the point where our 
     economic survival isn't threatened. I submit that we are seeing what 
     Al has talked about .. that being ..."If we don't see any effects,     
     continue to use the limit" .... Well, we have suits focusing on damage due 
     to radiation exposure. Unless we can continue to prove to a jury or a judge
     that this exposure in no way correlates to the damage identified, then I   
     believe that it is prudent NOT to change the dose limits and the basic     
     tenants of radiation protection programs.

     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: Dose vs Regs cont'd
Date:    11/29/95 8:30 AM

 ...There is no evidence that 5 rem per year hurts anyone. There is evidence
that low doses above background are beneficial. Epidemiology can never
provide the answers. 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. I, personally,
would be willing to receive 5 rem per year for my lifetime with no
qualms. Actually, I did that for the first 10 years of my professional
life. I see no ill effects. Al Tschaeche.....

*