Re: Cost of a Person-Sievert -- LNT and all that

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Joyce Davis wrote:
> I'd like to know what other radsafers  (the pro-,
> anti-, and ??-LNTers) think.
> 
> P.S. It's interesting that this DOE-funded study  "strictly coincidentally"
> came up with the same $2000/manrem as NRC is now using.

1.  Is it reasonable to value a life?  

Yes, it is reasonable.  By that I mean that, rationally, one must do
such a thing if resources are limited, and, if one seeks to balance
costs vs benefits and if there are a number of hazards against which one
must spend money to protect.  Dollars per life is one way to do it.  Is
it morally, ethically and religiously justifiable?  Depends, and
probably not.  Christians generally view each life as precious and every
life is equivalent to every other life.  Other religions may or may not
share that view.  In a non-homogenious country like the USA, it probably
isn't appropriate to impose one religion's ideas on another.  However,
it seems to work better (e.g. there is more "aliveness" in the world) if
human life is considered sacred and not to be taken willy-nilly. 
Therefore, my personal opinion is, as a scientist and rational person,
yes; as a humanist, emotional and religious person, maybe, if it will,
in the long run result in saving more lives than it takes.

2.  Is this a proper use of BEIR/NCRP/ICRP/UNSCEAR risk coefficients?  

Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!
Those agencies say that their risk numbers are for purposes of setting
radiation protection standards only.  Therefore, the numbers SHOULD NOT
be used for any other purpose, particularly this one.  Besides, no one
knows whether the numbers represent reality for low doses.  They may
(most probably are) grossly wrong (too high).

3.  What do they mean by "conservative" and why should a conservative
rather than a realistic estimate be used in the cost/benefit context?

I don't know.  Ask them.

It shouldn't.  Probably the authors (not that I mean to cast aspersions)
had to do both of those things to get the number to come out as the DOE
wanted it to.  Otherwise the number would be very small or zero.  The
DOE couldn't stand that.  Perhaps one should ask the authors why they
did that.

One of the interesting things the authors say is: "One out of every 4 to
5 individuals will eventually be stricken with and die from cancer." 
I'm surprised the reviewers let that one get by (as I am surprised that
the reviewers let several things in the paper get by).   Cancer
treatment is improving by the year.  I fully expect in my lifetime that
"cancer" will be curable and maybe even preventable.  That being so,
this whole question is moot.  So - I don't think such a statement is
appropriate in this article, even though I know why the authors said
it.  And, I'm not sure there is any value to the article for the same
reason since the result is completely dependent on the risk number.  

I don't agree with the author's statement: "While the above factors
(things that cause uncertainties in the risk numbers) are certainly
worthy of note, it is felt that the overall impact of these
uncertainties is sufficiently covered by the conservative approach and
assumptions used in deriving the risk factors as evidenced by the
recommendations of the various international and national reports
referenced."  While the authors may feel they are correct in that
statement, to me it is a cop out.  If the authors really wanted to
develop a reasonable (as opposed to a hypothetical) value for $ per man
rem, they would have to take into account the fact that low levels of
radiation, in addition to the possibility, albeit small, of creating
harm, also might have no effect or even a beneficial effect.  In the
former case, one should use zero dollars per man rem.  In the latter
case, one should use a negative number of dollars per man rem.  In other
words, in the latter case, the recipients of the dose should pay to
receive it.

I fear that we have thought too long and too hard about how radiation
can harm humans that we have completely lost sight of the fact that
radiation may have no effect or be beneficial.  Let the paradigm shift
begin.

Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov