Re: Just what is SAFE?

[LIPTONW@dteenergy.com]

I firmly agree that the overemphasis on radiation "injury" is not rational 
from the point of view of protecting occupational health; but it does, 
unfortunately, make sense from the point of view of successfully managing a 
nuclear facility.  Consider this:  Nuclear facilities have had fatalities
due 
to industrial accidents.  While unfortunate, these have not generated any 
significant public outcry or regulatory hassles.  Now, imagine that one of 
these fatalities had been due to radiation exposure.  The whole industry
would 
probably be shut down. (BTW, this is the equivalent of grounding every 
commercial airplane because of one crash.)  Even for events far short of a 
fatality, the regulatory sanctions and public relations problems are far 
greater for a radiation overexposure than for a serious industrial accident.
 
This is the "real world."  (Which everyone tells me I haven't found, yet.)   
 
There seem to be multiple reasons for this, only some of which are due to
our 
professional actions.  Part of this is the unknown nature of radiation to
most 
people.  Also, the first time radiation became a significant issue is with 
nuclear weapons.  (Imagine what would have happened if the electric chair
had 
been invented before the electric light bulb.  As a matter of fact, in the 
protracted battle between Edison and Westinghouse over whether DC or AC
would 
become the national standard, Edison used the electric chair as an example
of 
the unsafe nature of AC.)  Unfortunately, this has been aided and abetted by 
early hp's.  Go back to the "good old days."  Remember "electricity too
cheap 
to meter."  In the days when most nuclear facilities were either government 
run or government subsidized, there was plenty of money available for hp. 
Why 
not set the standards at an extremely conservative level,and protect
everyone 
against even hypothetical risks?  There was money available, and the public 
supported this.  Now that the nuclear industry must compete with other 
technologies, we're stuck with these standards, which will be difficult to 
change.  Remember what happened with deminimis?   
 
I'll get down off my soapbox; have a great weekend, everyone! 
 
The opinions expressed are strictly mine. 
It's not about dose, it's about trust. 
 
Bill Lipton 
liptonw@dteenergy.com 
 
You wrote: 
 
>The reason so many folks are afraid of anything radiation is that 
>people in our profession get bent out of shape anytime someone 
>picks up 100 mrem or a few hundred counts on their skin.  But there 
>is no "injury" in these events.  In fact they pale in comparison to the 
>real injuries that do occur (back strain, heat stress, lacerations, 
>broken limbs)... sometimes due to the very controls that we 
>implement to "protect" our workers from radiological hazards. 
 
... 
 
>Have a great day! 
>v/r 
>Michael 
>mford@pantex.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html