We richly deserve all the negative cancer publicity.
Jerry
--- On Tue, 2/22/11, Whitlock, Jeremy <whitlockj@aecl.ca> wrote:
From: Whitlock, Jeremy <whitlockj@aecl.ca>
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Stop linking nuclear to cancer. Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" <cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA>
Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2011, 4:23 PM
Ah, if only science were that simple Jerry. The fact remains that there is no proof of zero cancer risk from low-level radiation exposure. All we can say is that any risk is not statistically detectable – so it could be one of the thousands of pathways leading to cancer in our everyday environment, or maybe it isn’t. There is some evidence of positive health effects which, if real in humans, would outweigh said low-level cancer risk if it existed. This is what the AECL article that started this thread said – correctly.
Jeremy.
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of JERRY CUTTLER
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:28 AM
To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Stop linking nuclear to cancer. Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
This keeps becoming complicated when it should be very simple.
Let's end this dialogue by just agreeing to stop linking nuclear technology to a risk of cancer. Period.
Jerry
--- On Mon, 2/21/11, Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
From: Bill Garland <garlandw@mcmaster.ca>
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Innovative radiobiology at Chalk River
To: cdn-nucl-l@mailman1.CIS.McMaster.CA
Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 6:22 PM
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.
_______________________________________________ cdn-nucl-l mailing list cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l |
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. |
|