Re: justification of practices- part 2

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

I suspect that the project, as defined, is larger than the government 
assumes, especially considering an end date of July 1999. The 
results of the project will surely emulate the intentions of the 
government. If they are pro-nuclear, the results will be conveyed in 
a positive manner. If the government is negative, that also will be 
the end result.

I can only say that what seems to be a simple Action Plan can 
sometimes lead to impossible efforts. I recall when the power 
reactors were asked to conduct a survey of lifetime dose for 
employees, both current and previous. The purpose was to build an 
epidemiological database. The project included records searches of 
all types of exposure data and backup documentation. The project 
included recent data and then looked back, 10 years, 20 years and 
further. The realization soon came that the task was more difficult 
than planned, would require a significantly larger number of man-
years to accomplish, at a cost reaching into the millions for each 
facility. The project was wisely dropped.

In the end, one must ask what is the prime motivation for the 
project, and once that is understood, the results can almost be 
predicted.

Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html