Re: What would we do with a threshold?

[Vere Smyth <vere@nrl.moh.govt.nz>]

I don't agree.  Even with a threshold, you still need ALARA.  What is the 
threshold going to be?  A lifetime limit?  A limit per year?  At each point 
you don't know how much more the person is going to get, so all you can do 
is to minimise the risk of exceeding the threshold some time in the future. 
 (By keeping the doses as low as reasonably achievable!)

But I would agree that it SHOULD make a difference to public perception of 
miniscule risks, or help in explaining risks to medical patients.  But 
knowing human nature it probably wouldn't do that either.

Vere Smyth
 ----------
From: Bob Flood
To: Vere Smyth; Andrew McEwan
Subject: Re: What would we do with a threshold?
Date: Friday, 29 August 1997 09:45

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.