Re: Cost-Benefit Analyses

[Anthony Barber <a.barber@qut.edu.au>]

With respect and I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the
20mSv/yr limit was set by the ICRP to ensure that radiation workers did not
assume greater risk (of occupational death) than any "similar" profession.
The point on the LNT "curve" that corresponds to 20mSv/yr provides the same
risk "of death" as that endured by non-radiation workers in other jobs due
specifically to their occupational exposure to their own unique
occupational hazards. (excluding professional base-jumpers and experimental
rocket pilots)

Regards

Anthony Barber
QUT
a.barber@qut.edu.au

At 10:58 4/09/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>     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
>
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html