Re: Cost-Benefit Analyses

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

     The following could be called "venting," I suppose, but I will keep it 
     short.  I have always resented, and objected to, the notion that rad 
     workers should have to accept greater risk than the general public 
     because workers have a choice and workers are compensated.  This may 
     be true in dangerous occupations like construction, or for truly high 
     rad levels but I don't think it's true about the low levels of 
     radiation exposure that we are talking about here.  First, how much 
     choice does a worker really have?  How much does a member of the 
     public really have (you can move further away from that nuke plant if 
     it really bothers you, after all)?  Second, I don't know that workers 
     are compensated adequately for risks below a sort of vague 
     "threshold."  When I worked in radiochemistry labs, nobody told me I 
     would get a bonus for handling hotter stuff than normal.
     
     Also, with the acres of print media and eons of radio and TV time 
     currently devoted to real and imaginary rad risks, I can't imagine 
     that any member of the non-rad-worker public who wants information has 
     any trouble getting it.  So for heaven's sake!  Workers are people.  
     Their lives and health have the same value as anyone else's.
     
     Clearly only my own opinion.
     
     Ruth Weiner
     rfweine@sandia.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Cost-Benefit Analyses
Author:  ssorensen@doeal.gov at hubsmtp
Date:    9/4/98 9:34 AM


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