Re: Cost-Benefit Analyses

[Scott Schwahn <schwahn@jlab.org>]

OPINION

Ruth Weiner wrote:

> 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.

I would question whether or not such "risk" really exists.  For those of us who
don't believe that linear no-threshold (LNT) is accurate, I don't believe I'm at
greater risk of significance.  However, if I were to volunteer to accept an
excursion of dose beyond legal limits to save a life or major property, yes, I would
expect compensation - sort of like the military hazard pay.

> First, how much
>      choice does a worker really have?

Plenty.  The worker makes the conscious choice to work in a field involving
radiation; I would have to believe that the worker has made at least a small
conscious decision that the perceived risk is worth the compensation received.  This
would not apply if the worker was not aware of the _extent_ of radiation received.
That's where initial education is so important.

> 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)?

Ick.  You get more radiation dose (along with all the other nasties) from living
near a coal-fired plant;  you might _increase_ your dose if you move farther away,
etc., but I won't get into that here.  The public really doesn't have much of a
choice, but all ALARA analyses I have seen have a different dollar value for public
dose (note, collective dose, not individual dose) than for worker dose.  A larger
population, therefore, a lower individual dose assumed, therefore, a lower dollar
figure.  This does not imply that the value of human life to the public _individual_
is less important!

> Second, I don't know that workers
>      are compensated adequately for risks below a sort of vague
>      "threshold."

I contend that below all current regulatory thresholds, that the compensation is for
_perceived_ risk, not real risk, therefore any perceived "compensation for dose" is
undue.  If one wants to say they are compensating for "perception of dose," fine.

> When I worked in radiochemistry labs, nobody told me I
>      would get a bonus for handling hotter stuff than normal.

Did you get additional compensation?  This statement is unclear to me.

> Workers are people.
>      Their lives and health have the same value as anyone else's.

Agreed.  The dollar value per Sv (or rem) is not indicative of the value of life,
but rather indicative of the measures to which we should go to remove potential or
perceived risk.  Does anyone out else out there perceive ALARA dose dollar values to
be the value of a life?  If one uses any dollar figure, it should be clearly stated
that it is not to be interpreted this way.

--

Scott O. Schwahn, CHP
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
schwahn@jlab.org


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