RE: One last comment on Irradiation -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Patricia Wieland called attention to one of the ICRP's more controversial recomendations, i.e
that 'A practice that entails or that could entail exposure to radiation should only be adopted it
it yields sufficient benefit to exposed individuals or to society to outweigh the radiation
detriment it causes or could cause.'  Superficially, this sounds reasonable, but as a basis for
action, especially government action, it is seriously flawed.  The problems result from the lack
of a "significance" limitation.  Critical facts are:

1.  Every human action or inaction involves radiation exposure.
2.  Rarely does any human action entail enough radiation exposure to contribute to  the overall
risk.
3.  Few, if any, governments ever exercised the implied level of control over the activities of its
citizens.
4.  Few populations would tolerate a government that required approval of every new practice.

Would you care to live where the government required a proof of benefit to society from every
new dance, hair style, card game, etc. because these practices entail pico-rem or greater (or
even smaller) doses?  This sort of thing is made especially onerous by the recommendation's
lack of an exemption for the normal cases where the alternatives would entail essentially the
same, or even larger, doses.   

We need to introduce a measure of rationality into our "guidance" and I would like to see it
done before someone initiates legal action because some organization has failed to follow
such guidance.