Cost-Benefit Analyses

["Sorensen, Scott" <ssorensen@doeal.gov>]

RadSafers,

I concur that $2K to $10K is the usual range used in cost-benefit
analyses.  However, a nagging question in my mind whenever these values
are quoted: 

Is a single "Cost per Person-Rem" value/limit appropriate for use in
both occupational and public cost-benefit estimates?

Basic radiation principles allows dose limits which are much greater for
occupational workers (5 rem/y) than the general public (100 mrem/y).
This is acceptable because the workers are knowledgeable of and are
compensated for their increased risk, while the general public is not
(i.e., accepted risk versus imposed risk).

Why would this principle not also apply to cost-benefit values as well?
To be consistent, given that the "occupational" values range between $2K
and $10K, should the "general public" values range much higher (on the
other hand, is the $2K to $10K range for "general public" use while
"occupational" values should be much lower)?

Note I use the term "cost-benefit" analyses rather than "ALARA"
analyses.  This is because the $2K to $10K numbers typically arise from
appointed advisory boards which concentrate on the technical merits.
Wouldn't a true ALARA analysis require social and political viewpoints
as well?  Seems to me that a "general public" value for "Cost per
Person-Rem" should be very site-specific, reflecting the various
viewpoints of  local stakeholders (e.g., $10K at site A, $0.5K at site
B, $50K at site C).

I'm not convinced about my own thoughts on this topic and would consider
(appreciate) any other thoughts/arguments on this matter...

-Scott Sorensen
ssorensen@doeal.gov
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html