[Intl_DxMedPhys] The end of LNT and ALARA?

Tue May 27 14:20:35 EDT 2025

!-------------------------------------------------------------------|
  This Message Is From an External Sender
  This message came from outside your organization.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------!

I support replacing LNT with limits based on published research more applicable to medical and occupational exposures that that used by ICRP,  but I do not at all support removing ALARA.  

My main concern is who would be setting the new "determinate limits."  If that is going to happen, then what actions can we take to ensure physicists have a seat at that table so that a scientific, evidence-based methodology is used instead of an AHARA approach (As High as Recklessly Allowed) supported by vested interests?    This is somewhat like the new CMS mandate on CT Dose and Image Quality where the evidence used to support it had a clear conflict of interest.

Mary Ellen

Mary Ellen Jafari, MS, DABR (D,N), MRSE, MRSO, FACR, FAAPM, CIIP
Chief Physicist and Regional Radiation Safety Officer

Kaiser Permanente
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Medical Imaging Technology and Informatics
199 S. Los Robles Ave., Pasadena CA 91101
626-430-1231 (office mobile)
Maryellen.Jafari at kp.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+maryellen.jafari=kp.org at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Gary via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 10:24 AM
To: William Sensakovic via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] The end of LNT and ALARA?

Caution: This email came from outside Kaiser Permanente. Do not open attachments or click on links if you do not recognize the sender.

______________________________________________________________________
I hear what you're saying William.  Sounds like:
	regulations being broken
	environmental damage

There may be some of that.  If so, I lay the blame at the feet of the same regulators and policy makers getting pushed out now.  Did the last 30+ years of federal strategy and regulatory policy lead to nuclear power innovations that would make it safer and cheaper?  Did they give it the same incentives that solar and wind got?  I wonder where we would be today if they had.  

I also like to image physicists (lots of them) working on developing and maintaining advanced nuclear power generation methods, instead of boiling water.  We are still boiling water, for crying out loud.  That is just sad.  Can you image your car boiling water, instead of being gas or electric?  It really looks like we wasted those 30+ years, almost like the feds were trying to destroy instead of develop.  And we need power badly, to say nothing of how we are going to need it with the rise of AI and other new tech.  It seems unthinkable that we would just keep burning fossil fuels.  Does anybody want that?

---
Thanks,
Gary Isenhower
garyi at paxradia.com

On Sun, 25 May 2025 19:43:20 +0000, William Sensakovic via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

>I completely agree with Gary that this is the time to invest. The more 
>the relevant regulatory agencies are gutted, the less the short term 
>costs for spinning up new sites. Further, reduction in oversight costs 
>will be lower due to less regulations and fewer people to record 
>regulations being broken and fewer of the existing regulations being 
>enforced. Not to mention the reduced cost of keeping safety people on 
>staff. This results in lower medium range costs as well. Long term 
>costs.... well it depends what the cost share is for environmental 
>damage and fallout from nuclear accidents. If the government takes on 
>the burden, then there will be relatively little cost to the industry 
>except public trust, but that might not be much of a problem with 
>rebranding and clever marketing. Also they are unlikely to develop for 
>a decade or so. Hard to tell.
>
>I will let everyone determine for themselves whether recent changes to 
>the regulatory and emergency response landscape set off any alarm bells 
>or constitute best practice when reading the lessons learned from 
>Fukushima by the NRC 
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25392
>3/__;!!KGKeukY!yy19_Yyu4uIBTivCLHEBRsaDDRSRNs_-OR-XqL5MbNhMFoy6aA8cPquD
>-8DzSmaD8jmgvhUJhPJDGgBeMdkxb09ouzBmNQ0HHQ3jpt0u$
>Or how political involvement, regulations, and organized crime 
>intertwine in the right environment 
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
>special-report-help-wanted-in-fukushima-crime/__;!!KGKeukY!yy19_Yyu4uIB
>TivCLHEBRsaDDRSRNs_-OR-XqL5MbNhMFoy6aA8cPquD-8DzSmaD8jmgvhUJhPJDGgBeMdk
>xb09ouzBmNQ0HHTZt3jYp$ I don't want this to get "political" so I think 
>I will suggest the mantra of "do your own research" I think the cited 
>articles are stick to the science and are a good start.
>
>William F. Sensakovic, PhD, MRSC(MRSE), FAAPM Chair and Assoc. Prof., 
>Mayo Clinic (Arizona) Founder, Telerad Physics Teaching, LLC
>Twitter: @wfsensak
>________________________________
>From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
><intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+wfsensak=outlook.com at lists.osu.edu>
>on behalf of Gary via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list 
><intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> Sent: Saturday, May 24,
>2025 8:17 PM To: intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu
><intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> Subject: Re:
>[Intl_DxMedPhys] The end of LNT and ALARA?
>
>One thing it may mean is a rebirth of nuclear energy for the US.  Pro
>tip: now is the time to invest.
>
>
>---
>Thanks,
>Gary Isenhower
>
>
>On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:24:33 +0000, Mary Ellen Jafari via 
>Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>I didn't post the announcement from the White House to generate 
>>political commentary but rather to start a discussion on implications 
>>of such a change to radiology, medical physics, and occupational 
>>radiational workers, and how our professional organizations should 
>>respond to the Executive Order.
>>
>>I'm not the list moderator but is it possible to keep the discussion 
>>focused on those issues?
>>
>>Thank you.
>>Mary Ellen
>>
>>Mary Ellen Jafari, MS, DABR (D,N), MRSE, MRSO, FACR, FAAPM, CIIP Chief 
>>Physicist and Regional Radiation Safety Officer
>>
>>Kaiser Permanente
>>Southern California Permanente Medical Group Medical Imaging 
>>Technology and Informatics 199 S. Los Robles Ave., Pasadena CA 91101
>>626-430-1231 (office mobile)
>>Maryellen.Jafari at kp.org
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
>><intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Nicole 
>>Ranger via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2025
>>10:19 AM To: David Clunie <dclunie at dclunie.com> Cc:
>>intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu Subject: Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] 
>>The end of LNT and ALARA?
>>
>>Caution: This email came from outside Kaiser Permanente. Do not open 
>>attachments or click on links if you do not recognize the sender.
>>
>>______________________________________________________________________
>>I can’t help but feel that all these maneuvers are distractions. Also 
>>would be interested to learn of any binding agreements between the 
>>U.S. and the IAEA that are predicated on the long-standing and stable 
>>agreements around these regulatory concepts and limits.  International 
>>shipping of radioactive sources, enforcement of waste handling 
>>procedures, etc…
>>
>>These concepts should be agreed upon through scientific consensus and 
>>not political grandstanding.
>>
>>Nicole
>>
>>
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>  
>>> On May 24, 2025, at 12:09 PM, David Clunie via 
>>> Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list 
>>> <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe this is a great way to improve genetic diversity in the US 
>>> population with more mutations, to substitute for a lack of 
>>> immigration.
>>
>>NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  If you are not the intended recipient of this 
>>e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using 
>>or disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in 
>>error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and 
>>permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, 
>>forwarding or saving them. v.173.295  Thank you.
>