Re: Re[4]: A question of ethics

[bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

>NPP workers derive their benefit (pay) as a result of their services, not
>because they receive a radiation dose.  Some workers may receive no exposure
>and yet receive a good paycheck (e.g. the utility CEO).  In radiology, the
>exposure is essential, not ancillary.  The benefit cannot be achieved
>without it.


NP workers accept as a condition of employment and, therefore, a necessary
prerequisite to receiving a paycheck, that occupational exposure to
radiation is at least possible, and probably likely over a long period of
employment. Since radiation is inescapable in the fission process, the
workforce is inevitably exposed as part of employment. Thus, the workers
derive their benefit (pay) as a result of their services involving exposure
to radiation.

In the same light, a patient may derive benefit from the radiation itself
(therapeutic uses). Howwver, in diagnostic uses of radiation, a patient may
not obtain a benefit directly from the radiation, but rather the MDs use of
the information resulting from the use of radiation.

In each case, because the radiation was an inescapable part of the process
(fission for power and radiation for therapy or imaging), the benefit could
not be achieved without the radiation.

Note that one can argue that power can be produced without fission, but then
imaging can be done by NMR.


Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu