[ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?

[jjcohen at prodigy.net]

John,
    By golly--your numbers look quite reasonable to me. Now, if we could
omly convince the EPA, who seem to be concerned with doses in excess or 4.0
mrem/a.
BTW, what do you think is a reasonable cost to avoid 1.0 person-rem---- pick
the closest: $1.0, 10.0, 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000, or 1 million???
Jerry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?


> Jerry,
> Yes, 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr).
>
> For occupational workers, I would also say that 5
> mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr) as there is no requirement for
> monitoring, so therefore the risks must be minimal.
> For monitored doses between 500 and mSv (5,000 and 500
> mrem) one would monitor exposure results to determine
> if any changes in personnel exposures have changed.
> However, changes in shielding or work practices would
> have to be based on reasonable costs.
>
> If anyone besides Jerry Cohen, who does not work in
> the field of health physics, has any comments, I would
> be interested in their perspectives.
>
> --- Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > John,
> >      I don't understand what "toxins" have to do
> > with it. In Industrial Hygiene, as long as any
> > exposure is below the TLV level, no action to
> > further reduce it is necessary. So, let me rephrase
> > my question. In radiation safety, is there any level
> > of exposure so low that action to further reduce it
> > can be considered unwarrented?
> >
> >
> > John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >   Jerry,
> > As an industrial hygienist, how would you answer
> > this
> > question with the toxins you have to consider?
> >
> > --- jjcohen at prodigy.net wrote:
> >
> > > John,
> > > The obvious presumption of this question is that
> > > somehow the worker
> > > needs to be better protected. What's the basis for
> > > this presumption?
> > > Jerry Cohen
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Sandy Perle"
> > > To: "Sandy Perle" ;
> > > ; "Flanigan,
> > > Floyd" ; "Michael Bohan"
> > > ;
> > > ; "John Jacobus"
> > >
> > > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:56 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 21 Apr 2006 at 10:20, John Jacobus wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How do you determine how better to protect the
> > > > > worker. Do you go with days-lost-on-the-job or
> > > mrem?
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > "A scientist's aim in a discussion with his
> > colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify."
> > Leo Szilard
> > -- John
> > John Jacobus, MS
> > Certified Health Physicist
> > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade,
but to clarify."
> Leo Szilard
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com