Re: Collective dose and its monetary va

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Paul and radsafers,

> The HPS position statement of 1993 dealing with dose limits for the
> general public addresses this issue. It states:
> "We recommend that all radiation doses, including those below the
> annual dose limit, be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).."
> and "For avoiding small radiation doses (i.e. less than 1 rem per
> year) distributed randomly throughout society, the appropriate
> expenditure is a few tens of dollars per person-rem avoided"
> 
> To support this position, they say that the average fatal cancer
> results in a loss of 5000 days of life, and given a probability of
> 5E-4 fatal cancers per rem, this is a loss of 2.5 days per rem. This
> they convert to a detriment of 4 days They go on to say that the
> public is willing and able to spend 5 to 10 dollars per day of life
> saved. Working with 10 dollars per day of life saved, they calculate:
> 10 bucks/person-day x 4 days per rem or 40 dollars per rem avoided.

The 1993 HPS Position Statement and conclusions presented are of course
superceded by the March 1996 HPS Position Statement which reflects the
definitive data that show the lack of effects at low to moderate doses such
that the HPS Position conservatively finds that no risk can be ascribed to
doses less than 5 rem in a year and 10 rem lifetime. 

Any calculation of risk such as proposed here is simply a regulatory artifact
and therefore explicitly unjustified from the actual scientific data, and of
course any expenditure to reduce such total doses is technically unjustified
(especially to those who have to pay the costs). 

Other recent threads on "collective dose", etc, that anticipate equivalent
unjustified  expenditures for low doses are similarly based on questionable
premises. Perhaps the underlying science and data on health effects to the new 
HPS Position Statement need to be more explicitly articulated for general
information about the clear implications for health effects. In the factual
data considered by the HPS SPI, and approved by the Board, not only is there
no evidence to support the "linear hypothesis", there is voluminous evidence
that directly refutes this unfounded presumption. 

> Best wishes
> 
> Paul Frame

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health