Radiation Risks

[raymcginnis]

The other thread, "how hot is clean" was getting away from the original question, but I feel we are all on a roll here, so I created a new thread to continue the discussion.  All input has been intelligent and has helped me whether I agree or disagree with all of the posted opinions.

Let me start this thread by sharing something I don't know and something that I have observed.  I don't know what gave my Father a rare form of lung cancer that is usually associated with women.  He had a tumor on the outside of his lung, the size of a grapefruit.  It was attached to the outside lining of his lung.

Now, I did indeed suspect that it may be attributed to asbestos exposure from ships that he worked on, but this could never be proven, nor did I care to prove it.  He was not here anymore, so it didn't matter to me or my family if someone were to blame.  No lawyer could bring him back to us, so we just grieved over our loss.

When I was 12, he was driving in an automobile, with us all there, and we were behind a logging truck in Georgia.  A piece of lumber came off of the truck and Dad had to swerve to save us.  That almost killed him then (as well as the rest of my family).   

Now driving is a real risk, compared to residual radioactivity.  I know that some will point to asbestos and radiation risks that may have even been the cause of my Father's death.

Here is what I know myself.  I have been in this business since my early years.  I have lost many friends that I know that I can attribute their deaths to automobile accidents.  I cannot name one person, who has crawled in the bowels of nuclear power plants, that I can attribute their death to radiation exposure.  Not one!

I am still here and I used to get 1 to 3 R per job in the old days.  My Dad almost died when I was 12.  So did I.  We both lived for many years after that.  Maybe asbestos got my Dad and maybe it was something else.

We have to be intelligent about legislation concerning saving lives. That is my point.  Sometimes they can't be saved, no matter how many tax dollars you spend.  Certainly, we don't want evil people in business who kill people for profit, but I have seen no evidence of that happening so far.

What I have seen evidence of is job protectionists who just want job security for what they have been doing for years.  To them, I say, watch out for those logging trucks while on vacation.

[halflifer]

We have to be intelligent about legislation concerning saving lives. That is my point.  Sometimes they can't be saved, no matter how many tax dollars you spend.  Certainly, we don't want evil people in business who kill people for profit, but I have seen no evidence of that happening so far.

...and, of course, in the end no law, nor any act by any mortal can save us for ever.

[halflifer]

Certainly, we don't want evil people in business who kill people for profit, but I have seen no evidence of that happening so far.

there was an internal memo by an official at Johns Mansville to the effect that people who had made a good living working with asbestos shouldn't mind dying from it and they had to die from something.
additionally, with all of the cases of falsified documentation there have been in our field, I'd have to say we have shared the neutrons with folks who wouldn't mind letting a few people die if it would increase the profit margin. we do have some people whose god is green and carries the likeness of a dead white guy.

[remhog]

quite a few people i would say, rush, rush, rush its not enouph to make 2 million a day profit for 325 days a year we need to make 2 million a day for 350 days a year, when does the greed stop ?                                                           

[Already Gone]

I think the last message was a prime example of what Ray is talking about.
There is no nuclear power plant in the United States that makes anywhere near $2million profit per day.  the largest plants make less than $1.5million GROSS revenue at full power, before line losses.  By the time it gets to the meter, taxes, wages, debt service, capital expenses... etc. get paid, and the profit is calculated, there is about $200,000 or so that can be called "profit".
Still, that comes out to about $65 million a year if the plant runs full bore for 325 days.  Sound like a lot?  Not when you consider that the initial investment was around 10 billion in today's dollars.  Profit is not a bad thing.  It is the heart of the American Capitalist economic model.  It is the motivation to build businesses and hire people.  Without it, we would have no jobs.  Before you start dissing profit, remember what feeds your kids.

But, there goes some RP tech who's po'd because he can't collect his paycheck for that extra 25 days a year.  What does he do?   He cries that profits are overtaking safety.  I'm throwing the flag on this one!!!

I admit that it could happen.  I think that we must remain vigilant to prevent the power companies from sacrificing safety for profit.  But, crying wolf won't help.  So far, we hear a lot of techs crying that the utilities have lowered the premium on safety, but how may of those same techs would be willing to work 10 out of their 12 hours in containment if it would make the workers safer?  By the same token, how many of those techs will work at heights without a harness or carry air samplers up ladders to save a little time?

Don't even start complaining about the utilities' commitment to safety until you can show a little of your own.  Then, when you do bring your case, do it without pulling numbers out of your a$$.

[remhog]

where did  you get your numbers?

[RAD-GHOST]

I would like to reply, but I saved you the time of Moderating Me!   

RG

[remhog]

I'll shut -up

[raymcginnis]

I started this thread with the intentions that all the people who dealt with MARSSIM and RESRAD could have their own place to discuss these issues.  I forgot that everyone was reading this.  Nobody should shut up!  Everyone can express their opinions, as long as it meets the site's basic criteria.  Yes, it is moderated, but that is to protect the innocent and the integrity and reputation of the site.  This is my favorite forum!

I love all of these responses to my post so far (BTW I don't moderate it; my initial post could have been deleted).

This plant safety risk factor complaint is something that I heard many people complain about at my last NPP.  I say it fits into my original post, so everyone join in, but be civil and don't use names.

I would still like the pro E-6 people to join in and discuss this, taking into mind what the NPP are saying about the risks that they take everyday, protecting the workers from not only radiation, but from getting hit on the head with an air sampler that falls from 30 feet on a fellow worker's head, when the handle breaks loose, by accident (true story of mine).

I like the new knowledge that we all get from everyone's experience on this subject, so everyone talk, but keep it civil and intelligent.

We should all put our heads together and teach each other our nuclear experience on all levels about what we think about risk.

I did enjoy every post, so far.

[RAD-GHOST]

Ray,

It's a tangled thread we weave!  Sometimes the responses are directed at another member, not you!

RG

[Already Gone]

If I have the sense of what the original question is about, I think you are talking about the relative value of the risk versus the cost of eliminating it below a certain level.

All I can cite is the law of diminishing returns.  If you are reclaiming a site and the residual radioactivity levels are so low that the postulated increase in the rate of cancer is one in ten trillion, how much money is it worth to lower those levels to one in 15 or 20 trillion?  At levels this low it takes hundreds of times as much effort, money, and time to cut the levels in half as it takes to cut higher levels in half.  Is it really worth all that when you are really only guessing at how much good it will do?

Try this analogy to see my point.

Put 20 grains of sand in a teaspoon of water.  Remove at least 18 of them.
Put 20 grains of sand in another teaspoon of water.  Remove at least 19 of them.
Note the difference (if any) in the effort required to do this.
Now - put 20 grains of sand into your swimming pool.  Remove at least 18 of them.
Put 20 grains into your neighbor's pool.  Take out at least 19 of them.
Note the futility of trying to do this and wonder aloud why you bothered to take any of them out in the first place.  Observe the number of neighbors who thought you were goofy to try.  Compare that to the number of  people who think you are goofy for talking to yourself in the back yard.

Is it really going to save someone's life to reduce background radiation levels in some remote location by 1 or 2 microR/hr?  Wouldn't we be better off spending that money on buying smoke detectors for people who can't aford them?  You stack up the number of children who died of cancer caused by the decommisioned site 20 miles outside of town.  I'll stack up the number of children who died in fires where there was no working smoke detector.  Sadly enough, you'll have a "theoretical probability" essentially equal to zero, and I'll have hundreds every year.  But your budget will still be bigger.
People who have seen children die as the result of drunk driving, drug abuse, and violence would look at the effort being put into lowering radiation "risk" and see it the same way the neighbors see a goof who's mumbling to himself in the back yard.

[raymcginnis]

Beer Court:  You are right on top of my original point!  That is the best analogy that I have ever seen about risk and ALARA!  Did you invent that?  Whether yes or no, it is still awesome!  That is exactly what I was trying to say originally.  You said ever so more eloquently though.

Excellent!

Marssim, you had great input also!  I appreciate everyone jumping in!

Now this is a great topic!  Everybody come on in, the water is fine!

[Camella Black]

Ok, I am slightly prepared for the bombardment of negative thoughts and comments that are sure to come my way ...

Why is it that most people in the nuclear industry can not either see or admit that yes sometimes things happen, that yes sometimes a person's ill health just might be the cause of work related exposure, or that that sick child down the road may be sick because of the "decommisioned site 20 miles outside of town"?


My life has revolved around the nuclear industry for the past 31 years, I may have only worked a couple of outages, but I have lived the life believe me. I currently live less than 2 miles from the gates of SRS and of the Duratek/Chem Nuclear Burial Grounds and have defended the nuclear industry for years, but I still believe that we should do whatever is in our power to leave a site clean when we no longer have use for it.

[darkmatter]

Thoughts on Radiation Risks:

Even if you didn't know then, you know now, what are you doing here?

Life itself is a risk, except for us immortals.

I accept the risks needed to pass on my DNA. (family)

Compared to my brothers & sisters & cousins, it seems a nuclear career has been much happier, healthier and longer life. (go figger, their predictions failed)

Maybe its something like vaccination, a little exposure (to anything) makes you stronger.

Somebody's been rollin the Dice.

[raymcginnis]

Wow Marssim!  Excellents stats!  If you footnote them, that could be a paper or someones thesis.  Good thoughts from Camella also!  Everyone keep sharing.  This is a great topic, I think!

Marssim, do you have those numbers in a spreadsheet?  I would like to plot them and study them.

[Already Gone]

Ok, I am slightly prepared for the bombardment of negative thoughts and comments that are sure to come my way ...

Why is it that most people in the nuclear industry can not either see or admit that yes sometimes things happen, that yes sometimes a person's ill health just might be the cause of work related exposure, or that that sick child down the road may be sick because of the "decommisioned site 20 miles outside of town"?


My life has revolved around the nuclear industry for the past 31 years, I may have only worked a couple of outages, but I have lived the life believe me. I currently live less than 2 miles from the gates of SRS and of the Duratek/Chem Nuclear Burial Grounds and have defended the nuclear industry for years, but I am still believe that we should do whatever is in our power to leave a site clean when we no longer have use for it.

There's no way I'm going to disagree with that.  You have to face the reality that nothing is perfect and some people have died differently than they otherwise would have because of their involvement or proximity to nuclear energy.

Notice that I didn't say that they died "because of" nuclear energy.  People die because they were alive.  There are no exceptions.  The very notion of "saving lives" is absurd.  The best we can do is preserve the quality of those lives and extend them by promoting healthy conditions.  If we can help people live healthy lives they will live longer and suffer less.  But, they will still die.

So the question becomes one of degree.  How clean is clean enough?  How much time and money do you want to take away from other causes to continue abating a hazard that is not very hazardous at all?

No, I don't think that all radiation is harmless.  But face it.. we have done such a good job at rendering it harmless that a time comes to move on to something else.  Once the levels get to a certain point, the further reduction of them should take a lower priority than some other, more hazardous, environmental condition.

I don't know the answer to this, but let's consider it for a moment.  If you keep a remediation going for a couple of years longer, how much damage are we diong to the environment (and those who live in it) by preventing the reforestation of the area?  Can it be possible that delaying the introducton of trees and vegetation is making the site more toxic than the material we are trying to remove?  Is it possible that we pass a point where we are actually doing harm by continuing a cleanup?

[radgal]

Excellent points Beer Court!   I never thought about it quite that way.  I like everyone else comments too.  Hey the scarriest, riskiest thing I do to myself and my daughter is drive on I294 to and from work everday!  There is at least one bad accident a week on my commute.  Talk about risk!

[SloGlo]

So the question becomes one of degree.  How clean is clean enough?  How much time and money do you want to take away from other causes to continue abating a hazard that is not very hazardous at all?

ware's my phlag!?!  fifteen yards.... illegal use of anudder thread!   play the post over!

[SloGlo]

'k... talkin about risks 'n radiation.  an old rule of thumb type of stat is that in the average body, every minute, ~10e6 cells are interacted with by radiation.  that's 6e8 cells/hr.  what's the average background rate in the continental u.s. of a?  10 µr/hr (i got dat 'un from the atomicarcheologist.... kewl, huh)?  that's, like, 6e7 cells/hr/µr.  so, iffen yer inna 2 mr/hr field, yinz got ~1.2e12 cells per hour getting interacted with.  'n yew thought ya was just standing around doing nutting, huh?

[Deep'n the Swamps]

I have been an HP since 1985...plants, DOE, Decommisions, ..just about everything. I have recently been passed for a couple of projects looking for "Marssim experience." What a joke. A guideline for establishing and evaluating release criteria/data being used to exclude a HP? for surveying? I think something is being misapplied here.

Somebody help me understand this IDIOCY.

[raymcginnis]

I have been an HP since 1985...plants, DOE, Decommisions, ..just about everything. I have recently been passed for a couple of projects looking for "Marssim experience." What a joke. A guideline for establishing and evaluating release criteria/data being used to exclude a HP? for surveying? I think something is being misapplied here.

Somebody help me understand this IDIOCY.

This is getting off topic a little, but I will reply.  Some smaller MARSSIM sites, like the one I work at, require their technicians to be at almost an engineering level.  I don't expect our technicians to know everything about MARSSIM.  That is my job and my manager's job.  Technicians have to document their surveys in a way that is MARSSIM compliant and also complies with the "Final Status Survey" procedure written by me.  Technicians who have done this before are valuable, because they require less training and understand the procedures, based on MARSSIM faster.  Our technicians have all been in the business since the 1970s.  They are computer literate and know exactly how to document their work.

If you never did shipping surveys, on your own, you would not know how to properly document an SCO shipment survey, for an example. 

In larger organizations, the MARSSIM documentation is taken care of by people in between the engineers and the technicians.  In smaller organizations, the line between engineers and technicians is very thin and there is much sharing of duties.  That is where the fun begins.  I suspect that the jobs that you are applying for expect you to start approaching engineering type duties, and previous MARSSIM experience would be a legitimate thing to look at for job qualifications.

Yes anyone can go to a large release site and just turn in survey data.  For small sites, they expect more.  I hope this answered your concerns.  Your concern was short, so I may be pulling a rabbit out of the hat, or not.

In some cases, idiocy is not the case.  Necessity is.

[alphadude]

take the MARSSIM class..

sincerely,
Mr. MOTO

[alphadude]

What is the mission of this thread?  I see all these risk statements but it preaching to the choir. Discussion of risk in this venue is somewhat moot.   

[alphadude]

perhaps the issue is not "how clean is clean" or "will D&D hurt the environment." Its really an issue of the threshold of sensitivity for liability and suit. Statistical management of data as with MARSSIM ultimately provides stakeholders some degree of confidence that suit and liabilty will be reduced to a minimum by todays standards.  Risk can be managed, the degree of that management depends on the the issues hinted at here in this thread.  (HPs are professional risk takers and managers.)

Are there any among you that would not sue if a causal link with your cancer and your job could be proven or statistically surmised?

Remember, in America, "the logical man" situation does not apply to any situation little lone D&D or "nuke" ! After traveling to other "more logical countries" you see things like open holes not blocked and barricaded or posted, no warnings on hot coffee etc. WHY? Any logical person would know that if you walk into an open hole or spill hot coffee on you something will happen.. Only in this country do we promulgate the "non-responsible" man culture. (Why meee! You built this nuke here and I got cancer!)  This could tie in with our 76% rate of literacy and poor education system which motivates out lower class kids and allows school drop outs.   

Point being, preach ye may, its not going to change until you change the system that supports this lunacy!

[Deep'n the Swamps]

Thanks for replying to my off topic question. I have performed shipping surveys including air cargo, land, and sea. I found some training info for Marssim:

Description

This five-day course emphasizes the decision-making processes involved in the design and implementation of a MARSSIM-based decommissioning survey. Topics include an overview of radiological survey types, the data quality objectives process, selection and application of DCGLs, background reference area selection, survey instrument detection sensitivity, area classification, statistical design of surveys, measurement uncertainty, and performing statistical tests.

Who Should Attend

This course is designed for those individuals who will be responsible for designing the decommissioning radiological survey plans, overseeing the implementation of these plans, and evaluating the collected data. It is not aimed at the technicians who will actually be performing the surveys.

Cost

A tuition of $1,695 includes the full cost of training and instructional materials.


another one states:
three day MARSSIM workshop trains personnel to develop site closure radiological surveys, implement the surveys, evaluate the collected data, and prepare the site release documentation required for approval by the appropriate regulating authorities. The workshop also provides instruction for management and regulatory personnel in the assessment of site release documentation.

Sorry....I won't be spending any money (as a tech) to qualify me for something I can already do, or learn quickly onsite. I have seen many, many projects where the criteria for survey release limits vary, and I agree this is a good tool for standardizing decommission data. However, to exclude experienced techs from a project for lack of "Marssim Training," is misguided, or being used to help ensure incoming techs know what they are doing. In either case...misguided.

Thanks for the reply.

[alphadude]

well its not misguided its a specification of the job.  sounds like they want someone familiar with the DQO process and implementation of that process.  We use generic techs for MARSSIM but its in a controlled environment.  (Oversite by someone familiar with the process.) I think the events of Ft. St. Vrain still linger and cause some issues.. or could be the body shop guy is just asking for a customer spec.  (If you have done FSS you have the experience..) and this goes back to risk management.. if you are documented "as trained" stakeholders have a warm fuzzy vs. someone that kinda knows what to do-even though it may be correct. 

Take me for example- I have been  a HAZWOPER instructor since 1986 but I still have to take the 8 hour refresher... I cant qualify myself.. I still take the class and ace the tests.. its all good...

never know what doors may open when you take that class.. its tax deductable. Eric and the ORISE boys do a good job presenting it, and it never hurts to have a review of stats every few years!

WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday.

The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it addresses radiation amounts commonly used in medical treatment and is likely also to influence radiation levels the government will allow at abandoned nuclear sites.

[alphadude]

Maybe I need to start a "MARSSIM for technicians" training class. I could do it by distance leaning and keep the costs low.  Any interests?

[radgal]

Sounds good!  I sometimes cover D&D jobs.  Training is always good.  Any idea on cost?

[alphadude]

you are more than likely qualified.. but its an interesting idea. I'll develop some learning objectives see how it goes. 

[halflifer]

DOE is deff. the way to go and MARSSIM knowlege and certification is going to help you be a 'keeper' when the 'downsizing' projects start....well, downsizing. Count me in and I'll bet you'll be able to get some of the DOE contractors and the Unions at the sites to patronize it too.

[raymcginnis]

OK, The Swamps response to this seems to be more popular than my original question, so I'll jump in again. 

All sites have a right to make any certification or qualification requirements that they want.  Our site only wants people with 7 or more years in the field and we prefer people with D&D experience.  Some sites are OK with 2 year people.  We have a process where the whole team (including the manager and the current techs) go through all of the resumes and each individual assigns points to what they feel the experience of the person is in a large variety of categories.

We then look at what that tells us, but then we meet and talk about gut feelings.  Every HP department member contributes to the decision about who we hire.

We have a right to put any hiring criteria that we want (except for those involving bigotry and predudice).  We are the ones hiring the people.  We know what we need.

If companies doing D&D are pushing for MARSSIM certification, they have a right to do that.  It is no different than NPPs requiring the North East utilities exam to work as an HP at their plant.

I have a Bachelors and Masters in IT now, but some companies want certifications in Microsoft Certified Engineer, Oracle databases or Java before they will even interview a candidate.  They have a right to make their qualifications for the job whatever they want, as far as education and experience goes.

Halflifer gives good advice on this.

Alphadude, post your course cost.  I have had my head in MARSSIM, NUREGs and Abelquist 's book for a long while now, but if the cost were reasonable, I'd take your course.  It is a complicated set of criteria, and I am most positive I might learn a thing or two.  I certainly have not memorized MARSSIM, LOL!

[RAD-GHOST]

Remember, in America, "the logical man" situation does not apply to any situation little lone D&D or "nuke" ! After traveling to other "more logical countries" you see things like open holes not blocked and barricaded or posted, no warnings on hot coffee etc. WHY? Any logical person would know that if you walk into an open hole or spill hot coffee on you something will happen.. Only in this country do we promulgate the "non-responsible" man culture. (Why meee! You built this nuke here and I got cancer!)  This could tie in with our 76% rate of literacy and poor education system which motivates out lower class kids and allows school drop outs.

This is way to Funny....... and Sadly enough, way to True!

Then again, it does make some interesting stories for the Dawin Awards!

RG.

[alphadude]

Well, since I never retired off any of my other training classes I sold, the cost would be less than $200.  More than likely it would provide 20 hours of equivalent training, some "free" CDs of data and examples. I'm thinking about putting report examples, automatic spread sheets (fill in the blanks) and share ware on the CDs. If I got a CHP to review the mix for me and sign the certificate it might raise the cost a little. 30-40$. If you already have the 40 hr MARSSIM don't bother taking it.

[Marlin]

To head this string back to risk, here is a link to a new report by the National Academy of Sciences that tends to support LNT even for low LET at low doses. (I still like Radiation Hormesis as a factor for low level dose risk. )

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030909156X?OpenDocument

[Already Gone]

Thanks for putting us back on topic.  I've never havd a problem with the non-threshold model.  My biggest concern about the latest report is the way it sounds to the general public.  It comes off as a scare.
The should have done more to stress the obvious which is so often missed in discussions about scary stuff like radiation.
To wit:
1. If the risk is proportional to the dose, it needs to be said (because people miss this) that very small doses are associated with very small risk.
2. They have not shown the risk of cancer vs. dose to have a linear proportionality.  Even without a threshold value, there still may be some doses where the risk is proportionally higher than for other doses.
3.  Unmeasurable differences in dose will most likely result in unmeasurable differences in risk.
4.  Even without a threshold, the levels of exposure for most people, including occupationally exposed workers, result in a level of risk too low to be measured directly.  AND that those levels of exposure pose a risk so low in proportion to all other forms of risk that there is no cause for fear.

Every time the pocket-protector crowd opens their mouths, they should remember that the average person has an innate fear of radiation caused by the horrific scenes from Hiroshima and all the science-fiction movies since then.  They need to learn that people react with fear when they don't understand even if the news is good to those who do understand.
Whenever they publis these reports, they need to include a chart containing all the numbers in Marssim's earlier post.
It's all really a matter of proportion and perspective.  From the perspective of the layperson, the perceived risk is blown out of proportion to the real risk.  We tend to respond to the perception rather than the reality.

[SloGlo]

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030909156X?OpenDocument

what a hoot!
first question...  with 14 paragraphs, 'n 19 members listed, who was screwing off?
2nd question... "since the scientific research indicates that there is no threshold of exposure below..." my question is what is the threshold at which said exposure will definitively become causitive?
3rd... "rise proportionally with exposure..."  therefore the inverse is true, correct?  scientifically speaking.
4th..."likely will develope solid cancer or leukemia froom an exposure of 0.1sv."  acute exposure, right?  for 10rem?  what's the average dose for cancer treatment?"

[Marlin]

what a hoot!
first question...  with 14 paragraphs, 'n 19 members listed, who was screwing off?

This is just the press release...

2nd question... "since the scientific research indicates that there is no threshold of exposure below..." my question is what is the threshold at which said exposure will definitively become causitive?

Good question, quoting myself I still like the input of Hormesis on risk or effect.

3rd... "rise proportionally with exposure..."  therefore the inverse is true, correct?  scientifically speaking.

That just means its linear right? I think that was the entire point of the paper....

4th..."likely will develope solid cancer or leukemia froom an exposure of 0.1sv."  acute exposure, right?  for 10rem?  what's the average dose for cancer treatment?"

Doesn't make sense to me either...

[raymcginnis]

Thanks for putting us back on topic.  I've never havd a problem with the non-threshold model.  My biggest concern about the latest report is the way it sounds to the general public.  It comes off as a scare.

Beer Court:  Great post!  I learn so much from every post that you do. I agree with everything that you say, every time.  Yes, especially "back on topic."  I thought this post was headed for the "locked" mode for a while.

I got a CHP to review the mix for me and sign the certificate it might raise the cost a little. 30-40$.

If I could see a preview, on a website or something, I could most likely convince my company to pay for it.  I would prefer that to tavelling to ORISE and doing the full training.  I might even buy it for myself for that price, just to see if there is something that I missed from self training.

I still like Radiation Hormesis as a factor for low level dose risk.

Marlin, I agree.

[alphadude]

Ok so the BEIR panel is a funny group of people??? Remember when we went from  12 rem then 5 rem per year? hmmmm maybe there was a reason for that. Their job is not PR, or to soften the blows. Thats what we do and face it we are part of the pocket protector crowd. (although i never had one, I did have a Pickett slide rule)  We use ICRP, BEIR as the foundations for all of our work, (I hope you all know that) Their work is often cited as "Biblical text" in litigation and rule making.  Time for a paradigm shift.

[SloGlo]

marlin.... iffen the relationship of esposure 'n cancer is truely linear, then there is a point where it is negligible and gets caught in the general societal causes of the disease.  but i didn't see this listed anywhere.  don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing with ya on this, 'k?

[SloGlo]

Ok so the BEIR panel is a funny group of people??? Remember when we went from  12 rem then 5 rem per year?

Time for a paradigm shift.

i remember when the ncrpm came out in '80 with their dref, dose rate effectiveness factor, also.  that was to be a numerical constant to be used to reduce received occupationial radiation dose prior to entry into personnel radiation histories.  'n they recommended a dref of something like 7 for low let radiations. 

[alphadude]

remember its STATISTICALLY negligible... dilution will was away most sins....

[SloGlo]

remember its STATISTICALLY negligible... dilution will was away most sins....

statistics drive lawsuits, health care options, medical decisions.   iffen it's statistically negligile, then it is virtually void.  be that as it may, what is that point, the point of negligility?

[raymcginnis]

ote]statistics drive lawsuits, health care options, medical decisions.   iffen it's statistically negligile, then it is virtually void.  be that as it may, what is that point, the point of negligility?

I agree SloGlo, but back to my original point, this whole thing is driven by fear of death.  We never got a lawyer involved when my Father passed away.  We accepted it.  People die from many things every day.  Who is to blame for that?  If it is murder, then it is the person who committed it, and the great policemen are on that.  If it is cancer, then who knows?  It is ridiculous to legislate this when there are so many causes of death that have a higher risk level greater than 10 mRem/year.

Education of this info is the key.  The whole hormesis theory says that if there were no natural radiation on Earth, mankind may not have survived, as a whole.  For people to live in an environment where a tiny bit more radiation is added to natural radiation seems safe to me.  OK, I get 370 mRem/year for being alive on this planet.  Do I really care whether I get 380 or 371 mRem/year?  This is where ALARA or ALARTRA comes in.  I say "so what" is "what's so"!

People where I live should focus on smog, not radiation.  Smog, cars, now that is what kills a lot of people.

I am reminded of what my favorite comedian, Bill Hicks said before he died of pancreatic cancer (I am summarizing), "If you are so afraid of death then go to grave yards and protest.  Lock hands and and block the grave yard.  Protesters say : 'Go away she ain't getting in'  Buriers say 'but she is dead, we need to bury her'  Protesters say 'there will be no death on this planet so take her somewhere else" 

Now that is what I am talking about.  Forget the math.  This is what is real.  This whole risk thing is emotional, not scientific. 

Get rid of the natural uranium and then I will enjoy the math that I do every day,  then it will make sense to go to chemical E-6 levels.  How can we do that without destroying the planet though?  Riddle me that riddler!

Now if I were afraid that I was sick, I would gladly get 100 mRem from an x-ray or CAT scan and realize that it was a wise risk.

What we are saying that mostly people die of natural causes (old age) and that if a person who was supposed to die of natural causes were to buy a house built on a former nuclear facility that gave him 15 mRem/yr extra exposure, he would die earlier.

I just don't believe that.  Anyone who believes differently, I need more than science, mathematics and statistics to convince me.  You have to convince my belief system and logical mind.

I know that we are headed away from ALARA, but to me, it is an unwise decision for ordinary USA citizens.

OK, off my soapbox.  Everyone else jump in!

[Already Gone]

Well Ray, it all depends on where you get stuck in the acronym.  ALARA of course has five words, three of which are significant - Low, Reasonably, & Achievable.
A lot of people get stuck on the word "Low", forgetting to ask themselves, "how low?"  The answer, of course, is to continue reading the acronym.  Then, a few people blow by the word "Reasonably" and arrive at the answer, "Achievable".
If you take out the modifier "Reasonably", then you essentially have "As Low As Possible".  I think that a lot of people see ALARA as meaning ALAP, because they don't want to be the arbiters of what is reasonable and what is not.  It is not the worst quality in the world to be tenacious at doing a job to its completion.
I catch myself doing things that would never fall into the category of "reasonable" if I were to analyze them.  For example, I'll back up my lawn mower to get a few blades of grass that I might have missed.  It isn't really worth the time, effort and fuel to slice an inch off of ten blades of grass.  They will still be there next time.  But who DOESN'T go back to get them?  I just got done cleaning my pool.  I confess that I went back after putting away the hose and vacuum head to get one more leaf (the size of a fingernail) with the net.  I swear that there was not one speck of anything in that pool but that leaf.  Still, I connected the net to the pole and scooped out that tiny fragment of a leaf.  At the moment, my kids are in the pool, where they could easily have removed that little leaf, but I wasn't about to wait for them to do it.  I was going to leave that pool totally clean or not at all.
I'm prety sure that I wouldn't have spent any money to get that leaf, but I do spend money on those blades of grass when I waste gas to clip them.  Here's the dilemma: which is more unreasonable, saving that gasoline or calculating the cost vs. benefit of leaving that grass uncut?  Is splitting hairs ever a good idea?
Anyway, it is often pretty hard to know when you have crossed the line between reasonable and unreasonable.  I think it is okay that the line is pretty wide and dotted in places.

[raymcginnis]

Beer Court:  You made me laugh and you taught me with you words of wisdom.  I am trying to think of a word, oh yeah, you made me joyous.  I love your analogies!  Good posts always!  Keep the cool ideas flowing.

[halflifer]

ahhhhh, reason. One man's reason is another man's excuse and somebody's reasonable man is somebody else's fanatic. (the word 'man' was used generically in this posting and was not intended to exclude women from any of the issues discussed herein)

[RDTroja]

I think that a lot of people see ALARA as meaning ALAP, because they don't want to be the arbiters of what is reasonable and what is not.

The acronym was originally ALAP -- As Low As Practicable. There were two problems with this: the first was that no one could pronounce 'practicable' and the second was that no one knew what it meant. The use of 'reasonably achievable' softened and clarified it a bit, but still failed to quantify the concept... like Beer Court said the line between reasonable and unreasonable is a vague line at best and a moving target as well. So the NRC tried to quantify it by suggesting that you should spend $1,000 to save one Rem, which evolved into $5,000/Rem and settled on $10,000/Rem (see a familiar trend forming?) which is still not adequate to provide 'reasonable'. Using that standard someone could justify about 50 Rem to cut one day off of an outage (replacement power costs + labor) and even more if you consider fines imposed by grid managers for missing outage completion dates. Spend 500 Rem to cut 10 days? I hope not. Reasonable? Depends on who you talk to (and who is getting the dose.)

When you are an HP doing the negotiation dance with contractors on a fixed price contract, trying to get them to spend money to reduce dose is not an easy task and you are forced to find ways to show that you are going to save time as well (lower dose = less HP related interruptions, less lead to deal with, etc.) because if you pull out the $10,000/Rem number all they have to do is say 'critical path' and you don't have a leg to stand on. It is the contractor's job to spend less money, it is your job to spend less dose and 'reasonable' is a negotiation. Fortunately for the HP side, most utility managers are very conscious of the response they would get if they allowed what the NRC (or INPO) considered to be too much dose for a job or an outage overall. In any case, you have to find the 'reasonable' ground between those that don't care about dose and those that don't care what it costs to save dose... a grey area at best.

[halflifer]

the National Acadamy of Science sez that ANY radiation exposure results in increased risk. 
How do we square that with our views on Hormesis?

[atomicarcheologist]

How do we square that with our views on Hormesis?

The same way that we square our views on space exploration with the risk of death in the sky.  Or our recent ancestors squared their views of  global exploration with increased death due to infectious disease unknown to the population.  There is no advancement with out risk.  Not all risk yields change.  Not all change is bad.  After all, even the most ardent conservative evolutionist would not advocate the reinstallation of the tail to the gene pool of the current model of Homo Sapien.

[halflifer]

gee thanks, Arch, but I was trying to stimulate debate on the merits of the NAS's new pronouncement vs. the 'conventional' (at least the NukeWorker convention) wisdom re: hormesis....not pose the question "should we all run away lest we incur a .000002% increase in the likelihood of developing some biological disorder as a result of our minimal exposure?"
Besides, I know several people who are richly deserving of tails.

[Already Gone]

the National Acadamy of Science sez that ANY radiation exposure results in increased risk. 
How do we square that with our views on Hormesis?

I think that this latest report does not address hormesis.  It is possible that the two theories can coexist.  Even when there was still some question about the existence of a threshold for cancer risk, we always preached that any exposure carried some risk.  The hormesis theory does not contradict this, although I have never heard any solid scientific argument in its favor.
Something can simultaneously be good for you while putting you at risk.  Miost prescription drugs, while designed to be beneficial to health, carry side-effects as severe as sudden death.  Something that kills bacteria, improves circulation, reduces risk of heart attack ... etc. can cause liver damage and make driving a car dangerous.  Of course I'm talking about alcohol.  Even in moderate doses, alcohol kills brain cells, slows reaction times, and hardens the liver.  The positive effects can only outweigh the negative if the damage caused by drinking occurs more slowly and to lesser degree than the damage it is preventing. 
Any doctor will tell most of his adult patients that it would be good to drink one glass of red wine a day.  Drinking two bottles a day will eventually kill you.  Drinking none for a month and making up by having 30 glasses all at once could kill you right away.  But even that one glass each day is causing damage to your body - only it is happening slowly enough that your body repairs most of it and tolerates the rest.

[SloGlo]

the National Acadamy of Science sez that ANY radiation exposure results in increased risk. 
How do we square that with our views on Hormesis?

iz e-z!  iffen ya gots a risk of cancer, then ya gotz a risk of abherrent growth, kerrect?  sew, supposing this abherrent growth benefits the organism.  wutz the prob?

[Marlin]

   I would like to propose the "Little Dipper" curve.

1)It is difficult to claim that there is a point of zero effect as even one interaction with DNA may cause a change.

2)We can observe a linear effect at higher doses.

3)A reduced morbidity rate was observed at a point of slightly increased doses above background at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fungus shielded from normal background shows a reduced fecundity rate.

   I think that this is a stellar proposal that all of us junior scientists can grasp (Fecundity is your word of the day, look it up). Keep looking up boys and girls.

[Danielson13fx]

I skipped most of this.. Actually, I only read the first few posts. So, sorry if I missed something.

But, anyway. Isn't it true that most reactor operators get less radiation from working in a plant, than women (or men) do, going to a tanning salon?

[halflifer]

Patrons of tanning salons are exposed to ultra violet radiation which is non-ionizing (unlike the gamma radiiation that makes up the lion's share of the exposure received by nuclear workers). You are right in that Reactor Operators receive minimal exposure though. This is due to the fact that ROs work is performed in the control room which is generally in an area comparable to the Admin Offices from a radiological standpoint. Apples and Oranges, though.

[raymcginnis]

I skipped most of this.. Actually, I only read the first few posts. So, sorry if I missed something.

But, anyway. Isn't it true that most reactor operators get less radiation from working in a plant, than women (or men) do, going to a tanning salon?

True that Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) spend a lot of time in the control room, but before they gain that status they do many plant entries for valving changes, etc.  It is also true that they get less dose by turning a valve than say a fitter who tears the valve apart and the HP who takes the air sample and smears.  They do power entries though, usually with an HP escort.  They do get some dose before making SRO.  This topic is not about operating plants, but mainly about risks to future real estate buyers of released sites or hikers after remediation (the public).

Danielson, read the whole post.  It is not too huge.  There are many great points made by intelligent people.  It is an interesting topic.  Much of what the people say can apply to risks in operating plants though.  If that is where your interest is on this topic, read all of the posts.

[widow_of_a_nuke]

I just read a post from a while ago in which the writer claimed to have been in the nuke field for decades and he had yet to hear of one death due to radiation.

My husband died from an aggressive form of leukemia three years ago. He never came close to the 500 rem allowed per year in the Navy. He worked for the Navy for 20 years as a Shift Refueling Engineer. We were married 20 years and had seven children together.

When I asked my husband's hemoncologist what role, if any, his job played in his acquiring leukemia, especially in light of the fact that his dosimeter never registered even close to the limit imposed by the Navy, he replied that it wasn't necessarily the amount of radiation my husband received, but that a random particle hit his body in a certain way many years ago. So, "Yes," he said, "his leukemia could indeed be attributed to his occupation."

My husband was only 43 when he died after 8 months in the hospital and a stem cell transplant. The treatment was brutal. We "celebrated" our 20th anniversary knowing it was our last. The day before he died he was able to say goodbye to our four oldest kids (our youngest were only 4, 3, & 3--he died on our twin sons' third birthday).  He was the picture of health at 6'2" and 175 pounds.  He hadn't been in the hospital since he was born. There were no weaknesses in his immune system.

I wonder if he knew of the danger of a random particle. We thought he was very safe under the Navy's strict guidelines. He supervised refueling of Los Angeles Class submarines as well as the NR-1.

I would appreciate comments and information on this topic.

Regards,
Kate

[RDTroja]

Did you read the rest of the posts in this thread? There is a lot of good information in there already.

Your husband's doctor was right -- a single gamma ray, from any source, is enough to cause cancer. The odds of it happening are very low, but not zero. The human body is well equipped to deal with most of the insults that we naturally subject it to on a day-to-day basis, but there is always that chance that the protective and reparative functions fail.

The likelihood that radiation exposure caused your husband's death is also low, but not zero. There are many things that cause cancer, and the vast majority of Leukemia victims never have any exposure above background at all. The cause of their cancers is also possibly radiation due to background sources, but is much more likely to be from another carcinogen such as pesticides, water contaminants, air pollution, or even something as simple as grilled meat (yes, grilling meat produces carcinogens -- lots of them.) Even the smoke from the grill could be the cause.

It is impossible to pin a cancer on any single source because it is impossible to isolate a single cause from the sheer number of possibilities. Could the cause be radiation? Absolutely, yes. But you have to look at probability versus possibility. If your husband 'never came close to the 500 rem allowed per year in the Navy' (actually it is 500 millirem) then the majority of the radiation your husband was exposed to was either natural background or medical. You and everyone else that never sets foot inside a nuclear plant or submarine get an average of 620 millirem/year (http://www.new.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/) so there is more probability that your husband's cancer, if it was caused by radiation, was caused by a source other than his occupational exposure.

Additional exposure adds additional risk, according to the most conservative theory. Another theory shows additional risk only above a certain threshold level (probably above the level your husband was exposed to) and yet another theory suggests that a certain amount of exposure actually lowers your health risks. Nobody knows for sure which model is correct, because it is impossible to remove all other factors that may influence the results of studies. The biggest (uncontrolled and therefore unscientific) study of all -- those of us who work in nuclear plants -- seem to indicate that we do not as a group have a higher incidence of cancer than the general public. In fact there is evidence that our rate is slightly lower than average. Again, that is not a controlled study so no real conclusions can be reached.

So could your husband's death be related to radiation exposure he received in the Navy? Certainly it is possible, but it in not probable. Statistically, it is much more likely he contracted it from some other source. It is tempting to blame occupational exposure and be able to point to a cause other than just random chance or other factors we have little or no control over. Unfortunately there is no way to tell for certain and the chances are better that it was something other than his Navy exposure.

In either case I am sorry for your loss.

[Marlin]

He is right in only the most most theoretical sense. Comments on cause and effect due to a single interaction have some theoretical validity, but practically it is a false statement to assign a cancer to single radiation interaction and would be impossible to distinguish from background non-occupational exposure. There is no such thing as zero radiation background radiation annually may be equal to or higher than his occupational exposure. The annual limit would be 500mRem (0.5 Rem) not 500Rem.

Here is a link to the Health Physics Society Q&A on background radiation

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q824.html

Here is a link to Radiation Effects Research Foundation (note that the 3.6mSv they cite is 360 mRem.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/glossary_e/backgrou.htm

[Marlin]

Roger we must have been typing at the same time. 

[RDTroja]

Roger we must have been typing at the same time. 

No doubt... I was surprised I didn't get the 'Someone else already responded to this thread while you were typing' message.

[Marlin]

No doubt... I was surprised I didn't get the 'Someone else already responded to this thread while you were typing' message.

I did but I had already typed up a response and didn't feel like deleting it, they say pretty much the same thing with different links.