Risk

["Cummings, Frederick" <CUMMINFM@inel.gov>]

     Hi, all,

     I thought that I'd join the thread just this once to help with the
     'speed limit' analogy.  It is true that Montana is considering the
     rejection of a 'numerical' speed limit in favor of a 'prudent' speed
     limit.  The catch is that the prudent (or safe) limit must be agreed
     upon by both driver and highway patrol.  So, if the driver and
     patrol-person are within the limits of detectability, and agree upon
     the speed that adequately matches the risk of travel based on density
     and road conditions with the the benefit of spending less time on the
     freeway, all is well.  However, if the patrol-person disagrees with
     the philosophy of the driver, then, guess who gets ticketed?  This is
     my understanding of how Montana plans to implement speed control on
     the freeways (Erick Lindstrom can freely correct me if I'm wrong...are
     you out there Erick?)

     The analogy then for setting risk is that a professional (HP?) is
     required to determine the limits of risk acceptable to the situation
     and requirements by the general public (Montana legislature) and as
     long as the worker and HP are within the limits of detectability, all
     will be well.  However, cynic that I am, I don't believe that one can
     adequately educate the working population to make informed decisions
     regarding risk (highway or radiation).  The reason that I take this
     stance is that at some point our individual decisions impact others in
     society, whether through loss of life or genetically, and I just don't
     believe that everyone has the same perspective (within the required
     two standard deviations from the mean) regarding their own societal
     impact.

     Having said all that, IMHO, the DOE limits for dose to workers are
     appropriate and reasonable.  The problem is that when an
     administrative guide (e.g., the 2 rem WB limit in the DOE RadCon
     Manual) is invoked by a regulatory agency, it is generally implemented
     by the regulated agency promulgating even stricter guidelines to
     ensure that no worker approaches the administrative ceiling.  It seems
     that the real answer to our dilemma is to push back on unreasonable,
     overly restrictive and unnecessarily costly guidelines wherever we
     find them using all the resources at our disposal.

     Rick Cummings
     cumminfm@inel.gov

     **********************************************************************
     *  These specific opinions are just mine as an aging and increasingly*
     * cranky HP, and are voiced to incite further discussion only.  They *
     * obviously do not represent the views of the Department of Energy   *
     * which in the final analysis has a tough enough task without having *
     * to put up with rioting in the ranks.                               *
     **********************************************************************