Re: Collective dose and its monetary valuation

[LIPTONW@detroitedison.com]

--Boundary-1732582-0-0

Mr. Mure: 
 
You're obviously not familiar with the American legal system. 
 
But, putting that aside, the whole concept of $/man rem is based on the belief 
that any exposure is harmful.  This served us well, when doses were high and 
employers pushed exposures to the limit, but it is now largely irrelevent.   
 
We must resist the temptation to seek job security by protecting people 
against trivial risks.  The question of whether a radiation injury threshold 
exists is meaningless in practical terms, since there is a de facto threshold 
at which the risks, if any, from radiation exposure are undetectable when 
compared to other risks of life.  It is really pointless to spend any amount 
of money to control radiation exposure below this point, since the money could 
be better spent on activities which reduce other risks, such as stop-smoking 
programs, better medical care, improved industrial safety, etc.  The 
credibility of our profession is at stake. 
 
Here's to a risk free world, and other fantasies. 
 
Regards, 
 
Bill Lipton 



--Boundary-1732582-0-0
X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: 13 Mar 1996 09:35:57                    Sent: 13 Mar 1996 08:28:15
From:"radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
To: Multiple,recipients,of,list,radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Collective dose and its monetary valuation
Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Errors-To:  melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Originator:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
X-Orcl-Application: Precedence:  bulk
X-Orcl-Application: X-Listserver-Version:  6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Orcl-Application: X-Comment:   Radiation Safety Distribution List 


Mr Bill Clipton,


I think you're missing the point. The monetary valuation of collective dose
is not meant to be used in the way that you are trying to suggest it. I am
totally aware of the fact that this is a concept which must be dealt with
very carefully because it refers to the value of human life.
I guess you have heard of ALARA principle and its implications.
Would you be ready to spend the same amount of money to prevent a 1 Sv
exposure and a 1mSv exposure ?
The answer is not so obvious and you need to consider the amount of exposed
people, the cost of reducing exposure and other concepts such as  risk
aversion. Furthermore, there is an inverse proportionnality relationship
between the cost of radiation protection and the risk of exposure. In other
words, a small amount of money can be used to reduce high doses but it
becomes very expensive and difficult to reduce very low exposures.

So how do you deal with all these problems and concepts ? One solution is to
introduce a monetary valuation of collective dose in the optimization
process which can help the decision maker to use available resources in such
a way that it produces the highest benefit to the group of people (workers,
public ...) while making sure doses are kept as low as reasonably achievable
(See ICRP 22, 37). This is the basis of cost-benefit analysis.

My interest lies in the fact that this valuation is not universal (it may
depend on the standard of living), that is can be different depending on
which groups of people you are dealing with (children, adults, patients,
radiation workers ....) and BY NO MEANS  in setting up any liability for a
concept which is, by the way, widely and universally  used across the field
of radiation protection.

All my regards,

Jean-Michel Mure

E-mail : Jean-Michel.Mure@andra.fr


At 07:15 13/03/1996 -0600, you wrote:
>
>--Boundary-1727167-0-0
>
>Before we go overboard in setting a $/man-rem value, think about this: 
> 
>If my employer sets a $10,000 / man-rem value and I have a lifetime exposure 
>of 50 rems, then I can obviously sue my employer for $500,000 if I later get 
>cancer.  Plus punitive damages, of course. 
>After all, if they refused to spend the money to prevent the exposure, they 
>owe it to me, now that I've been injured by the exposure. 
>Also, the employee will probably challenge the employer's dosimetry program 
>and hire his own "expert" to estimate a much higher dose. 
>Does your employer want to be set up for that liability?   
>Do you want to be known as the one who set them up? 
> 
>Bill Lipton 
>
>
>
>--Boundary-1727167-0-0
>X-Orcl-Content-Type: message/rfc822
>
>Received: 13 Mar 1996 05:23:45                    Sent: 13 Mar 1996 04:14:08
>From:"radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>To: Multiple,recipients,of,list,radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Collective dose and its monetary valuation
>Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>X-Orcl-Application: Errors-To:  melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>X-Orcl-Application: Originator:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>X-Orcl-Application: Sender:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>X-Orcl-Application: Precedence:  bulk
>X-Orcl-Application: X-Listserver-Version:  6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by
Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Orcl-Application: X-Comment:   Radiation Safety Distribution List 
>
>
>Hi there,
>
>Radsafers,
>
>I am  searching for different monetary values of collective dose as used in
>optimization of radioprotection in different countries, for different
>classes of people and different levels of exposure.
>I would also be interested in potential uses of collective dose other than
>in the field of optimization as for example in performance assessment.
>
>Thanks for any references or contacts,
>				Jean-Michel MURE
>Email : Jean-Michel.Mure@andra.fr
>
>ANDRA
>DESS/SBSE
>Parc de la Croix Blanche
>1-7, rue Jean Monnet
>92298 CHATENAY MALABRY Cedex
>FRANCE
>
>Tel : (1) 46 11 83 74
>Fax : (1) 46 11 80 13
>
>
>
>--Boundary-1727167-0-0--
>
>



--Boundary-1732582-0-0--