Effort devoted to various risks

[Holloway3@aol.com]

<< Also, consider the hours spent every day by health physicists "reducing the
 very small risk that is associated with the use of radioactive materials."
 Wouldn't their time and the resources committed to their training and support
 be better spent reducing "the much greater and more important risks
associated
 with common things such as smoking, lack of exercise, abuse of alcohol etc."?
 Applying the logic of some Radsafers, not only would their time be better
 spent reducing these greater risks, but it would be immoral for them not to
do
 so.<<<<<<

Glen:

I would not go so far as to say that it is immoral to work on the less serious
risks.  I think you push my reasoning a little too far.   But I will say that
in most situations, it is a waste of resources for a society as a whole to
spend enormous sums on tiny risks to the neglect of much greater risks.  If
you have some logical argument to the contrary, then I would like to hear it,
since you seem to disagree with my remarks.  I doubt if you can make a
coherent argument that is reasonable to attack small risks while ignoring big
risks.  You have essentially disagreed  by saying that some other group
(Radsafers) operate on the small risks too.  But you cannot justify one
mistake by pointing to an equal mistake, even if the efforts of the
professional community are as you say.  The best remedy is to correct all
misallocations of resources and not to justify one by saying that "everybody
does it".   

Also,  the major reason that the use of radioactive materials is safe is due
to the efforts of those working in radiation protection.  I am not convinced
that there is any added value that derives from the work of volunteer
organizations who take on radiation protection as a cause. Most of the time
they succeed only in introducing irrational fear in the public.  I can give
you many examples of this unfortunate outcome.  You do not say how you earn
your living, but it seems that I have perhaps touched on a tender nerve here,
from your reaction.  

In regard to users of radioactive material,  who have mandated authority for
radiation protection, quite often there is overkill.  I know of one case
where the organization has a full time RSO and the workload does not really
justify having a full time person.  Work usually expands to fill the time
alloted for it, so in this case the RSO found something to do whether it was
needed or not.  In one case someone threw away an empty box without destroying
the radioactive label that was on it.  This minor breech of rules resulted in
a long drawn out and tediously documented investigation that seemed to go on
endlessly.  The RSO seemed to want to give the incident a level of importance
equal to that of the Watergate investigation.  But in fairness to RSOs in
general, I must say that this behavior is not at all typical of RSOs, but
simply peculiar to this somewhat eccentric individual.

Finally, I am not saying that there is no need for radiation protection, but I
will say that resources devoted to it in excess of the real need are wasted
resources.  

                                          
                                                                         R.
Holloway
                                                                         hollo
way3@aol.com