Re[3]: dose from airborne emissions

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

For an excellent and illuminating view of the cost of regulation, I suggest 
reading "Five Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost Effectiveness" by
T.O. Tengs, M. E. Adams, J. S. Pliskin, D. G. Safran, J. E. Siegel, M. C. 
Weinstein, and J. D. Graham, RISK ANALYSIS v. 14 No. 3, 1995, pp. 369 et seq


Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Transportation Systems Department
Sandia National Laboratories
Mail Stop 0718
P. O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791
505-844-0244 (fax)
rfweine@sandia.gov
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: re: re:dose from airborne emissions
Author:  damschenga@MKF.ORNL.GOV at hubsmtp
Date:    1/9/98 11:29 AM


This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand 
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.  Contact your 
mail administrator for information about upgrading your reader to a version 
that supports MIME.
     
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD1D02.784FD5C0 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
     
Al,
     
How do you enforce the 0.1 millirem standard? Wouldn't the error band be far 
greater than 0.1 millirem when attempting to calculate the off-site dose to 
a member of the public from just about ANY measurable emission of 
radioactive material? It's just a guess, but I'd bet that moving across town 
or spending an extra hour a week in the basement would change a person's 
annual dose more than 0.1 mrem. This raises the question of what purpose is 
being served by setting a regulatory limit that low. If it's really 
protection of the public, do you require a warning label on gas stoves to 
inform the public that using a gas stove instead of an electric one may 
increase their radiation dose more than 0.1 mrem/yr? Are contractors 
required to warn people that finishing their basement and using it as a 
family room may increase their dose more than 0.1 mrem/yr?
     
Also, I don't think the cost question had to do with the state's cost in 
implementing the standard. Even though I'm not directly involved in the 
issue (I teach radiation safety) I'm VERY concerned with what you might 
consider an indirect cost of such regulations - the cost of overcoming the 
fears that are fostered by rules like this one. The initial anxiety that I 
frequently see when showing an orange Fiestaware plate, a shaker of salt 
substitute, or a gas lantern mantle to a group of visitors or a class of 
potential radiation workers is not relieved by a regulatory limit of 0.1 
mrem/yr POTENTIAL dose. If anything, it is increased by such regulations, 
and leads to confusion and distrust of either the regulators or the HP 
profession when the student realizes that regular usage of any of these 
unregulated items would probably result in a dose >0.1 mrem/yr.
     
My job would be MUCH easier if the regulations were based on good science 
and were truly designed to be protective of the public health. I have made 
the point before that money spent remediating ANY "hazard" that presents a 
lower risk than that posed by the greatest identified risk to the public is 
wasted and condemns one or more people to die sooner than they would have if 
the money had been spent to remediate the primary hazard. Therefore, 
spending ANY money to ensure emissions do not pose a potential dose of 0.1 
mrem/yr is wasted money, whether or not it meets anyone's definition of 
"expensive." In the view of the "anti-" crowd, the dollars not spent to 
reduce ALL radioisotope emissions to the most restrictive regulatory level 
they can find are blood money - and they are very adept at telling the 
public that the thirty pieces of silver are in our hands.
     
I don't mean to be strident, but I deal with the effects of regulations like 
a 0.1 mrem/yr potential dose limit on a regular basis, so my tolerance level 
for such things is very low. I really am curious though, how DO you: 1) 
justify a 0.1 mrem/yr potential dose limit, and 2) enforce such a rule?
     
-Gary Damschen
damschenga@mkf.ornl.gov
     
These opinions are mine and not my employer's. All other disclaimers apply.
     
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD1D02.784FD5C0--