Re: What would we do with a threshold?

[Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

At 06:43 AM 8/29/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I believe that the primary incentive of arguing for a threshold is to hold
the
>line against further ratcheting down the dose limits, where these
>reductions would not consider costs and benefits.  I am a staunch
>supporter of ALARA - reduce dose consistent with economic and other
>considerations.

My position on this is that, if a threshold is acknowledged by regulators,
then the ALARA concept becomes obsolete. If a dose below the threshold is
deemed harmless, spending more money to be further below the threshold
won't make it less harmless. Thus, there's no justification for spending
money to reduce doses that are below the regulatory limit.

Reality check: it won't happen in my lifetime. Not as long as EPA is
populated with "every photon is a killer" advocates, and they've got a long
way to go before retirement.


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