[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: U.S. NRC Approves Westinghouse Risk-Informed, In-Service
I believe you're still confusing cancer incidence with cancer mortality.
Also, notwithstanding linearity low-dose arguments, if you otherwise accept
4% per person-Sv as the current risk estimate for fatal cancer in a working
population, then for a dose of 24.99 person-Sv, I would think that the
maximum-likelihood estimate for the number of fatal cancers would be one.
That is to say, for the above assumptions, the probability of 24.99
person-Sv causing one fatal cancer exceeds the probability of it causing
none. Indeed, there is some non-zero probability that it will cause some
number greater than one.
Bruce Heinmiller CHP
heinmillerb@aecl.ca
> ----------
> From: Al Tschaeche[SMTP:antatnsu@pacbell.net]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 2:42 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.
> --------------11494F81641B383BE49F354C
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> 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
>
>
>
> --------------11494F81641B383BE49F354C
> 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
>
>
> --------------11494F81641B383BE49F354C--
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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