[ RadSafe ] Chernobyl's Reduced Impact helps establish Threshold

[howard long]

Threshold levels I nominate to start the discussion:
Radon ---  4pCi/l (c148 Bq/cu meter) in bedroom air -
           confluence of the B Cohen and W Field studies
Acute exposure --- 10rem (c rad)
           Breast cancer-bomb studies
Chronic exposure --- 10rem/year
           Taiwan apt, NSWS, Karala etc
Infants, pregnancy, etc might be lower,
 
Arthritis and limited area threhold is higher 
      (where more benefit may balance harm).
 
Beware the alien "Spamfighter" using my address.
Do not open attachments.
 
Howard Long   
          
         John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Maury,
Thanks for comments and sorry for the delay in
responding. I know exactly what you are talking
about. I routinely edit questions from people who
have or have children who had received diagnostic
test. I and those who respond do try and educate the
questioners. We often spend quite a bit of time. 
Such people are not ignorant and present good
arguements about risks. But we try and educate and
reduce their concerns. I am not sure we will
completely reduce their fears, but we try.

What I am coming to realize that this list presnts an
opportunity for people to complain about these issues.
However, few do anything but complain. 

--- Maury Siskel wrote:

> Please forgive the anecdotal intrusion, but ... I
> know and have known 
> uncounted numbers who fear radiation, BUT who have
> little clue what is 
> meant by ionizing radiation (not to say low level or
> chronic), by LNT, 
> by PET, by CT, by MRI, and even in a serious sense
> X-Ray. But radiation? 
> sure everybody knows about that -- the invisible
> rays that killed masses 
> of people from the atom bombs in Japan and that
> might kill us by a 
> terrorist dirty bomb .... John, one can bandy
> technically correct 
> distinctions, but there are vast numbers of folks
> who have a variety of 
> obvious vested interests in exacerbating fears of
> anything suggesting 
> radiation -- including even some sincere believers. 
> This extends to 
> some who expressly expend efforts to distort,
> suppress, and even hide 
> scientific data suggesting human benefits from some
> exposure to 
> radiation. Supposedly, one goal of science and govt
> is to promote 
> knowledge.
> 
> The promotion seems to me to have been increasingly
> poor in recent 
> decades. Often all one can do is feel dismay while
> continuing to work 
> in the correct direction.
> Cheers,
> Maury&Dog maurysis at ev1.net
> =====================
> Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> >John:
> >"Do you know of anyone who has a fear of chronic
> low level ionizing radiation exposure?"
> >
> >
> >Maybe the American media and the public in your
> personal perception retain a more rational stance
> regarding chronic low level ionizing radiation.
> Similarly, maybe your clientele - educated trained
> radiation workers - indeed knows that neither
> theoretical nor empirical reasons exist to worry
> about health detriment from such exposures below say
> between 10 and 50 mSv annually (I concede that the
> true value of a proper threshold is subject to
> scientifically legitimate debate).
> >
> >In Europe and particularly in Germany the examples
> to the contrary abound. Hardly a month elapses where
> radiophobia is not propagated by media reports -
> often backed up by reference to peer reviewed
> nonsense-papers. A not too old example that comes to
> my mind was the following excerpt from the German
> Times or Newsweek Magazine, DER SPIEGEL:
> >
> >
> >Tausende verstrahlt - weil Arztpraxen ums Überleben
> kämpfen
> >
> >Von Markus Becker 
> 
> >
> >Mehr als 2000 Deutsche pro Jahr erkranken durch
> Röntgenuntersuchungen an Krebs. In einer
> internationalen Studie belegt Deutschland damit den
> europäischen Spitzenplatz. Der Hauptgrund: In zu
> vielen Arztpraxen müssen sich teure Geräte bezahlt
> machen.
> >
> >
> >
> >The message: More than 2000 Germans get cancer each
> year due to unnecessary/excessive radiodiagnostic
> exposures which are undertaken for the sole purpose
> to help radiologist pay there equipment. 
> >
> >The peer-reviewed nonsense paper which DER SPIEGEL
> quotes (and this time it is no misquote) to
> substantiate the ridiculous claim is: Berrington de
> Gonzalez A, Darby S, Risk of cancer from diagnostic
> X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries.
> The Lancet 363(2004)354-351
> >
> >Corrective, dissenting correspondences to the
> contrary have been printed by The Lancet, yet they
> NEVER make it to the public media.
> >
> >Another even more ridiculous example of radiophobia
> was generated by these (in Germany) widely
> publicized events - like the "verstrahlte Molke"
> (just 3 of over 300 hits you find when searching in
> Google for "castor polizei verstrahlt"):
> >
> >/**************/
> >
> >"Polizei fürchtet Castor-Strahlen" (police afraid
> of CASTOR radiation) 
> >
> >http://www.akweb.de/ak_s/ak442/18.htm 
> >
> >/***************/
> >
> >Castor-Behälter in Ahaus verstrahlt (CASTOR
> container overexposed)
> >
> >http://www.asamnet.de/oeffentl/bi/castorahaus.htm
> 
> 
> >
> >/******************************/
> >
> >Verstrahlter Behälter entdeckt (overexposed
> container detected) 
> >
> >dpa Wiesbaden. Bei der Hanauer
> Nukleartransportfirma NCS ist ein radioaktiv
> verunreinigter Transportbehälter aus den USA
> entdeckt worden. Das gab das hessische
> Umweltministerium gestern in Wiesbaden bekannt. Die
> Belastung des Behälters von 74 Becquerel pro
> Quadratzentimeter sei nach Aussage von Experten
> nicht so gefährlich, daß eine Warnung der
> Bevölkerung nötig gewesen wäre. Es habe keinerlei
> Gefahr bestanden, sagte ein Ministeriumssprecher.
> Der zulässige Grenzwert liegt bei vier Becquerel pro
> Quadratzentimeter. Der Sprecher räumte ein, daß die
> Firma das Ministerium bereits vor einer Woche
> informierte.
> >
> >http://www.castor.de/presse/ejz/1999/juli/09b.html
> 
> 
> >
> >/******************************/
> >
> >The message: Police escorting in several meters
> distance the transport containers (CASTOR) of burnt
> nuclear fuel to protect the haulage from disruption
> by nuclear activists are afraid of contracting
> cancer from overexposure to radiation.
> >
> >The facts: Behind signboards and at other
> inaccessible places of the container surface like
> the holes for screws, up to 74 Becquerel per cm^2
> were detected when 4 (no joke!) Becquerel per cm^2
> were allowed. 
> >
> >A third example from my own experience: In late
> October and early November 2003 an unusually strong
> active region produced several very intense solar
> particle events in terms of total proton fluxes. Yet
> the energy spectra were so soft that neither at
> cruising altitudes and even less on ground any
> noteworthy increase of radiation exposure occurred.
> To the contrary, the high proton intensity produced
> a subsequent significant Forbush decrease of the
> dose rate lasting for several weeks so that the net
> result of this event was actually a reduction of the
> annual exposure. Yet, during the event and the days
> after our telephone lines were blocked by concerned
> airlines and their personnel which sought guidance
> how to react properly. Since at that time the
> Forbush decrease was already underway, we advised to
> continue business as usual. ALITALIA sought their
> advice somewhere else and burnt many(!) millions of
> dollars on an increased fuel bill by reducing flight
> altitudes. 
> >
> >In summary, to answer your challenge "Do you know
> of anyone who has a fear of chronic low level
> ionizing radiation exposure?"
> >
> > 
> >
> >Police are, 
> >
> >pilots are, 
> >
> >patients are, 
> >
> >the media are,
> >
> >and hence essentially the vast majority of the
> populace are - at least in Europe! 
> >
> >A final note on the implications of improper or
> loose or mischievous use of language:
> >
> >The German verb "verstrahlen" or its perfect
> participle "verstrahlt" is basically a linguistic
> monster. It its one of the mindless neologisms which
> nevertheless has deliberately been designed to
> connote (in German) the meaning that disaster looms
> wherever you encounter (ionising) radiation.
> Patients, 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com