[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Regulations from scratch-reply to Steve Hand
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Regulations from scratch-reply to Steve Hand
- From: Keith Welch <welch@CEBAF.GOV>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 12:33:46 -0500 (EST)
- Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by CEBAF.GOV
I think Frank's statement was intended for the Radsafe audience - i.e. we
know that it means stochastic effects are not "expected" at that dose. I
agree that when conducting training or other interfaces with employees or
"public" that this qualifier needs to be there. When I do training, I
follow the same course as Steve and Brian. We use the conservative
assumption of a stochastic model with non-zero risk at non-zero dose.
Does anyone out there use a different approach during training? Does anyone
go so far as to say, "there are no effects" i.e. no risk below some dose?
I personally use a slightly different approach. After discussing risks and
probabilities (which are subject to the individual filters discussed
occasionally on Radsafe), I do go so far as to ask the question, "Is it safe
to work around radiation?" This is a little more direct, and something
with a yes or no answer. Many of us are programed to respond with an answer
that has so many qualifiers in it that you forget what the question was. I
don't have any problem answering that question with "yes". And then back
that up with "Is it safe to work in an office (post office???)", or "Is it
safe to ride in a car, fly in a plane, walk down the street......"
Basically, I use the risk estimates to define 'safe', and then it becomes a
matter of the participant's level of trust in the risk estimates.
Anybody have any other tried and true methods that work well for them?
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA