Re: U.S. NRC Approves Westinghouse Risk-Informed, In-Service

["Michael Mokrzycki" <Michael_Mokrzycki@ap.org>]

Jim Dwyer wrote (and others said essentially the same thing):

>>I believe the reference to a reduction of more than 60 rem over a 10 year
period refers to person-rem.  In other words, over a 10 year period, a
facility may be expected to reduce the total exposure received by all of
their workers, by more than 60 rem.<<

A followup question: I gather from this and other responses (to the list
and private) that the dose savings for any individual worker would actually
be quite smal=, perhaps well under 1 rem per year? If that is the case,
would anyone care to comment on whether this new approach really does offer
the "significant health safety benefits" Westinghouse touts? I know, in
part from past threads on this list, that many in the radiation
protection/health physics world believe there is no evidence that low doses
of radiation cause health problems.

-----

DISCLAIMERS:

1. I hope neither the "pro-nuke" nor any "anti-nuke" subscribers to RADSAFE
infer that this or my previous question indicates "pro" or "anti" bias on
my own part. I'll ask tough questions of anyone.

2. Someone referred to the content Sandy Perle relayed in starting this
thread as a "news article." Please understand that copy filed on PR
Newswire consists of verbatim press releases, with no independent reporting
whatsoever. (And Sandy's post did clearly label Westinghouse as the
source.) Reporters may pick up releases from PR Newswire but, as with
"handouts" faxed, mailed or hand-delivered, they do further reporting (or
at least they should) before writing them up.

Mike Mokrzycki
any opinions are my own, not those of
The Associated Press


***************************?*****4$ìg*k*******************>
************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html