In defence of collective dose

Fairlie, Ian; Sumner, D. J.

doi:10.1088/0952-4746/20/1/302

Cited by 12 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This model, known as the linear no-threshold model, holds that risks increase linearly with dose and have no threshold. This implies that all doses, no matter how small, impart risk, and truncation in time is inappropriate (Fairlie and Sumner, 2000).…”

Section: Temporal Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The linear no-threshold hypothesis implies that no dose is too small to be ignored and that all doses should be included in the collective dose. Practical experience has shown that including all individual doses in the collective dose leads to expenditures that most would agree are unreasonable (Barraclough et al, 1996;Fairlie and Sumner, 2000;Lindell, 2000). The ICRP has found that inclusion of large numbers of trivial individual doses in the collective dose calculation, which can occur with unlimited spatial boundaries, is an abuse of the collective dose concept (ICRP, 2007a).…”

Section: Spatial Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimization of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site Closure Cover

Shott¹,

Yucel²

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe U.S. Department of Energy Manual DOE M 435.1-1, "Radioactive Waste Management Manual," requires that performance assessments demonstrate that releases of radionuclides to the environment are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Quantitative cost benefit analysis of radiation protection options is one component of the ALARA process.This report summarizes a quantitative cost benefit analysis of closure cover thickness for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) on the Nevada Test Site. The optimum cover thickness that maintains doses ALARA is shown to be the thickness with the minimum total closure cost. Total closure cost is the sum of cover construction cost and the health detriment cost. Cover construction cost is estimated based on detailed cost estimates for closure of the 92-acre Low-Level Waste Management Unit (LLWMU). The health detriment cost is calculated as the product of collective dose and a constant monetary value of health detriment in units of dollars per unit collective dose. Collective dose is the sum of all individual doses in an exposed population and has units of person-sievert (Sv).Five discrete cover thickness options ranging from 2.5 to 4.5 meters (m) (8.2 to 15 feet [ft]) are evaluated. The optimization was subject to the constraints that (1) options must meet all applicable regulatory requirements and that (2) individual doses be a small fraction of background radiation dose.Total closure cost is found to be a monotonically increasing function of cover thickness for the 92-ac LLWMU, the Northern Expansion Area, and the entire Area 5 RWMS. The cover construction cost is orders of magnitude greater than the health detriment cost. Two-thousand Latin hypercube sampling realizations of the relationship between total closure cost and cover thickness are generated. In every realization, the optimum cover thickness is 2.5 m (8.2 ft) for the 92-ac Low-Level Waste Management Unit, the Northern Expansion Area, and the entire Area 5 RWMS. The conclusions of the optimization are found to be insensitive to all input parameters, the monetary value of the health detriment over a range of values from $200,000 to $15,000,000 per person-Sv, and the period of integration of collective dose. A 2.5 m (8.2 ft) closure cover at the Area 5 RWMS can meet all applicable regulatory requirements and maintain radionuclide releases ALARA.

show abstract

Section: Temporal Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spatial Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site Closure Cover

Shott¹,

Yucel²

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main contributions to dose in other tissues—externally and internally—have been assumed to come from 137 Cs and 134 Cs, whereas exposures from other radioisotopes, such as 90 Sr and 239 Pu, or other alpha emitters were presumed negligible beyond distances of about 100 km from the plant (Fairlie and Sumner 2006; UNSCEAR 2000; WHO 2005a, 2005b). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Excess malformations, childhood morbidity, and genetic effects were reported from several areas of Central Europe and Turkey (Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters 2004; ECRR 2006; Fairlie and Sumner 2006; Körblein 2006; Scherb 2006; Schmitz-Feuerhake 2006). These post-Chernobyl observations are consistent with those in the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany following the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s (Körblein 2004; Whyte 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Chernobyl Nuclear Catastrophe: Unacknowledged Health Detriment

Nussbaum

2007

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Fairlie and Sumner (2006) rightly point out the uncertainties involved in reconstructing the accident and thus the need for value judgments in making health assessments. We have doubts about some of the claims made in Nussbaum’s letter, but by pointing out the discrepancies between the views of some scientists and the majority, he reinforces one of our main points.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%