[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: U.S. NRC Approves Westinghouse Risk-Informed, In-Service
I was neglecting the 4. But , to continue my thought, even if one considers the
4 then 2499 person rem would not result in a single cancer and the 60 person rem
will result in even fewer than one cancer (if that's possible). Al Tschaeche
Heinmiller, Bruce wrote:
> Using the present paradigm, wouldn't 10 000 person-rem be expected to result
> in four divided by some weighted aggregate lethality fraction (of, I don't
> know, about 0.7) cancers? Or, to avoid the lethality-fraction mess,
> wouldn't the present paradigm suggest that 10 000 person-rem would be
> expected to result in (i.e., give an expectation value of) four fatal
> cancers in this working population?
>
> Bruce Heinmiller CHP
> heinmillerb@aecl.ca
>
> > ----------
> > From: Al Tschaeche[SMTP:antatnsu@pacbell.net]
> > Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Monday, February 08, 1999 7:13 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Re: U.S. NRC Approves Westinghouse Risk-Informed, In-Service
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > --------------6C212628B395A784EB76C5BA
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Even though I come late to this thread, I can't resist this one.
> >
> > 60 person rem is not a particularly large collective dose, even if one
> > believes
> > collective dose has some realistic relation to low dose health effects.
> > It
> > takes (theoretically, hypothetically or ephemerally) 10,000 person rem of
> > low
> > dose radiation to create one cancer (according to the present paradigm
> > with
> > which I strongly disagree). Any collective dose lower than that creates
> > less
> > than one cancer and so, logically, does not create any cancer since one
> > can't
> > have a fractional cancer. Yes, I know this is bunk. But so is collective
> > dose. Even the IAEA/ICRP are beginning to see that. Roger Clark at the
> > last
> > annual HPS meeting gave us a preliminary view of what may soon be the
> > death of
> > collective dose. So I agree with you Mike and think there will be
> > absolutely
> > no real, measurable health improvement (let alone any "significant health
> > safety benefits) because of lower doses from use of the Westinghouse
> > instrument. Now, if Westinghouse is talking about benefits other than
> > radiological safety and health, they should say so and may have some.
> > But,
> > radiationwise there will never be observable ones to the workers. There
> > may be
> > some to management, regulators, lawyers, epidemiologists, etc., but not to
> > the
> > radiation workers. Al Tschaeche, CHP antatnsu@pacbell.net
> >
> > Michael Mokrzycki wrote:
> >
> > > 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 small, 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------6C212628B395A784EB76C5BA
> > Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
> > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
> >
> > begin: vcard
> > fn: Al Tschaeche
> > n: Tschaeche;Al
> > org: Nuclear Standards Unlimited
> > email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
> > title: CEO
> > x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
> > x-mozilla-html: FALSE
> > version: 2.1
> > end: vcard
> >
> >
> > --------------6C212628B395A784EB76C5BA--
> >
> >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > 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
begin: vcard
fn: Al Tschaeche
n: Tschaeche;Al
org: Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title: CEO
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard