RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River

[Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca>]

Jaro,

All too true.  The devil is in the details.  How about 'just
fine, warts and all'.  We are bound to have warts no matter what
system we use.  I was just trying to distinguish between LNT as an
administrative tool vs. LNT as a measurement / predictive tool.

Bill

At 02:05 PM 21/02/2011, Franta, Jaroslav wrote:
> UNRESTRICTED | ILLIMITÉ
>  
> Bill,
> Regarding the claim that “Operators of nuclear facilities are able to
> cope just fine with LNT and ALARA because in that environment it is
> understood that these are operational strategies.” – I’m not so sure that
> things are “just fine” here.
>  
> Utilities are rated on their performance in various ways – including
> ALARA, as measured by worker doses.
>  
> While it may be considered “unreasonable” by us, there are instances
> where utilities have reduced the scope and frequency of inspections, and
> then received high praise for great ALARA performance.
> I have seen this claim w.r.t. the Davis Besse near-disaster, where
> corrosion chewed right through the reactor’s vessel head, leaving only a
> thin stainless steel liner to retain the enormous pressure.
>  
> Hopefully things like this wind up in Lessons Learned presentations – and
> in changes in ALARA implementation.
>  
> Jaro 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
> [
> mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of
> Bill Garland
> Sent: February 21, 2011 12:08 PM
> To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
> Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk
> River
>  
> Jerry,
>
> I tend to agree with you that the last sentence of the CRL report smacks
> of bum covering but since the actual dose levels are not given, there may
> indeed be some evidence of increased cancer risk.  They are talking
> about doses at clinical treatment levels, not background type levels, ie
> low compared to tumor radiation levels.
>
> Whether statements that perpetuate a cancer scare about low doses are
> ethical or not is, by definition, context sensitive.  I agree that
> the misapplication of LNT and its progeny ALARA has done more harm
> than good.  Or at least it appears to have done so in
> hindsight.  A judgement on ethics would likely have to rest on
> establishing intent and reasonable expectations.  No doubt that the
> regulators are trying to do good and they have been quite open on the
> intent of be conservative.  In this very nonlinear world, it is
> difficult to say what the world would have looked like if, say, LNT with
> a cutoff had been used rather than LNT down to zero.  One can argue
> that we don't employ LNT and ALARA so religiously in any other endeavour,
> medication being one relevant example, and yet the world has not
> ended.  Maybe that is acceptable because the individual member of
> the public can count pills readily.  Not so with radiation.  So
> I personally will hold off on a judgement of ethics until I learn more
> about what constitutes unethical behaviour in this instance.  I
> suspect that regulatory bodies such as the PEO would not judge LNT and
> ALARA as unethical.  One could easily defend ALARA too since it is
> common sense really - for 'reasonable' people.  
>
> Operators of nuclear facilities are able to cope just fine with LNT and
> ALARA because in that environment it is understood that these are
> operational strategies.  I bet within the walls of a pill factory
> the workers are not permitted to pocket even one benign pill.  Ditto
> for the national mint.  Seems to me what we need to do is work on
> making clear the distinction between administrative strategies and dose
> effects on the body.  I would bet that the regulators and the policy
> makers would be on our side in that task.  I keep saying that one
> cannot deduce car accident death rates from speed limits.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
>
> This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
> is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
> Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
> dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
> may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.  
>
> AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
>
> Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
> l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
> d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
> divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
> non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
> envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement
> interdite.