Re: What is Safe

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

The problem I see with the ICRP reasoning is that they use actuarial data on
actual deaths for "safe occupations" and compare hypothetical deaths from
radiation to it.  To me that is not rational.  If they were to do it right, they
would figure out the hypothectical deaths for the "safe occupations" and compare
that to the hypothetical deaths from radiation.  Or, they should compare actual
deaths for the "safe occupations" to the actual deaths from radiation.  Of
course, if they did the latter, the safe dose would be much higher and that
wouldn't suit the ICRP.  So, I don't agree with the ICRP thinking in this
matter.

Reynolds, Harold wrote:

> If I remember my studies of radiological history correctly, when ICRP
> adopted LNT/ 5 rem/yr/ ALARA in 1959 their reasoning was that based the fact
> that using LNT, 5 rem/yr for a working lifetime equates to risk associated
> with hazardous occupations.  If that level of risk was acceptable in other
> occupations, it should be acceptable as a maximum for rad workers.

See my statement above.

> However,
> in order to reduce this risk, all radiation doses should be ALARA and none
> without positive benefit.

And it is the ICRP's idea of what a positive benefit is.  For example, ICRP
doesn't permit any exposure from radioactive jewelry.  They say there is no
benefit from such exposure.  However, there clearly is benefit, both to the
manufacturer of the jewelry and to the wearer.  The ICRP is being elitist in
their judgement that there is no benefit from such exposure.  The NRC some time
ago banned the used of depleted uranium in cuff links for the same reason, even
though the dose to the wearer could not have produced any harm.

> Their document also carried a statement to the
> effect that while risks associated with large does are well understood, the
> risks of low level doses are not known.  It also states that LNT/ALARA are
> recommended "for the purposes of radiation protection."

The problem with this idea is that people have forgotten it and now believe the
LNT is a model of the real world.  And ALARA has been taken to rediculous and
very expensive lengths to reduce dose.  Also, ALARA is being used as an excuse
to reduce doses for reasons other than radiation protection.  It is used because
the regulatory and public relations costs of not using it are too great.  Most
ALARA programs do not include a dollars per man rem saved because of radiation
injury.  So those programs end up being simple dose reduction programs for
regulatory compliance or public relations  purposes.   The ALARA idea has been
corrupted just as the LNT idea has been.

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

>
>


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