What would we do with a threshold? -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Eric,

Every participant in this discussion has his/her own viewpoint but, as I see it, the
primary concerns about the LNT model are (a) political/public relations and (b)
economic.

So long as we have the LNT, in any public discussion of a nuclear facility, we
are forced to say, in effect, that:

     Well, yes, this may kill you and your children, but probably not.

We do our best to dress it up, to add that this would also be true of a shoe store or
anything else, etc., but the basic story remains there.  It does not sell very well. 
The political/public relations impact has been severe in many areas.

As for the economic concerns, the DOE cleanup problems seem most conspicuous.
We seem to be talking about spending billions of dollars to avoid doses that are
well below the levels at which deleterious health effects are seen.  If there were an
accepted threshold, or some other cut-off, it seems that a major fraction of this
money could be saved or spent on something useful.  Occupational exposure limits
do not seem to be a serious problem most places, but "ALARA" costs are real. 
For example, nuclear power plant operators report spending over $25,000 dollars
to avoid a person-rem of occupational dose.  Add that the NPP workers still recieve
some 20,000 person-rem annually (down from over 56,000 person-rem in 1983) and
it is evident that there is a significant sum involved; the benfit is not so evident.  

It is not certain that this issue can ever be be resolved but it is evident that the
concerns are real and significant.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov