Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm

[antatnsu@pacbell.net]

Richard, Mack L wrote:

> I'm not disputing the fact that the NRC made a big deal of the MIT incident
> (NUREG-1535 proves that they did).  I'm not disputing that the NRC holds
> licensees responsible for the actions of their employees - that is a given
> as well.  I'm simply saying that I feel  the NRC's actions were
> inappropriate for the level of harm associated with the MIT incident.

I agree.  However, the NRC philosophy appears to be that anything out of the
ordinary is a big deal.  Until that philosophy changes (by means of BRC or
something like it), we will be stuck with the current system.

>My point is that radiation and radioactive materials have a "mystique"
associated with them, a mystique that both regulators >and licensees promote
when we overreact to incidents such as this.

Only too true.  We have been Pavloved by the anti nukes.  Every time a little
thing happens, the antis make a big deal of it.  And, in reaction, so do the
regulators and the health physicists.  Remember TMI?  Healthwise, for the
operators and the public, it was no big deal (except for the psychological harm
when it became a big deal).  But we all know the big fuss it created.  Even
Chernobyl is not  the unmitigated disaster the antis predicted.

>It all goes back to the fact that we (licensees and

> regulators) need to educate the public.

But not until we have educated ourselves.  The radiation protection community
needs to speak with one voice and say unequivocally that low doses are safe.  We
need to counter every media story that does not agree with that statement.
Until we are agreed that low doses are safe, it will be impossible to educate
the public.

You may remember my article in the HP Newsletter a year or three ago in which I
reported the results of a survey I made of health physicists?  The first
question was: Are the limits (5 rem per year) in 10 CFR 20 safe?  The answer was
98% of the respondents said "yes."  Only a couple of antis said "no."  And many
of the respondents were CHPs.

Then, 31 questions later (yes, I know the questionnaire was too long) the last
question asked, "If you were to spend your own money to reduce your own dose
below the 10 CFR limit, how much would you be willing to spend?  95 % of those
same respondents who said the limit is safe offered an average of $2000.00 of
their own money to reduce their doses from 5 to 0.5 rem!  To me those responses
said that, at the time of the survey, health physicists were schizophrenic about
the dose limit.  On the one hand they said it was safe.  Why, on the other hand,
are they willing to spend their own money to reduce their own dose below a limit
they already say is safe?

To me, these results say even health physicists (who answered the questionnaire)
aren't certain the limit is safe, even if they say so.  Until we agree that it
is, we are lost and will never win.  Comments?

> As long as we continue to speak out
> of both sides of our mouth (i.e., radiation in small quantites isn't very
> hazardous, but we're are going to regulate the heck out of it anyway), we
> will continue to see these types of incidents.

Exactly.

Now, how do we get agreement within the HP community that 5 rem per year is
safe?  Or, at least that some low dose value is safe?

I have proposed the SPI committee of the HPS write a position paper saying such
a thing.  That committee is working on it.

I have proposed an ANSI standard that says such a thing.  That proposal is still
limping along.

Some years ago I petitioned the then AEC to make such a statement.  It wouldn't.

What other concrete things can we make happen so we are clearly in agreement
that some level of low dose is safe?

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