[ RadSafe ] No suggestion to change regulatory limits
parthasarathy k s
ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Mar 7 11:34:59 CST 2006
Nobody proposed any change in regulatory limits. The radiobiological evidence gives me confidence so that I shall not lose sleep over exposures of a few millisieverts.(Not withstanding genomic instability, bystander effects etc). The quibling over limits as low as 0.15 mSv or 0.25 mSv for the members of the public from waste storage facilities may be laughable. But when I look at the cost evaluation reported by GAO, I believe that all stakeholders including specialists must attempt to arrive at pragmatic limits.
Probably refined radiobiological data give opportunity to spend money unwisely!
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Dr. Parthasarathy, et.al.,
So, after all of the reading of papers, reviews and
rebuttals, what do you think will come of all this
work? Has anyone seen any indication that regulatroy
limits will be changed?
P.S. Jim, I found the two papers you mentioned in
Radio. Environ. Biophys. and will read them later this
--- parthasarathy k s wrote:
> Dear Dr. Muckerhide,
> True, the papers belong to last year; then we had
> made some brief comments.
> After reading the contents of the report from The
> French Academies, I sent extracts of the report
> criticizing the paper by Brenner et al to Prof
> Brenner for his reaction. I posted his reactions to
> Prof Tubiana. Prof Tubiana sent me a complimentary
> copy of the French report and wrote that at that
> point of time they are going through the full
> version of BIER VII; he said that they are going to
> respond to the points in a separate paper. When that
> was ready, he sent me a pdf version
> I had addressed some issues to BIER VII Chair for
> which I got prompt response. I am currently
> preparing a review article.
> On July 14, 2005, I published an article
> highlighting the differences in the points of view
> of two scholarly academies on LNT in a multi edition
> Indian newspaper the Hindu. This paper is titled
> Health risks to patients and radiation workers
> The Hindu July 14, 2005
> To many scientists, scientific articles are not
> promptly available; very often they are receievd
> months after publication. Many journals are too
> expensive. Whenever there is a cash crunch journals
> take the first hit. At times, the decision is based
> on how many persons read the particluar journal! If
> there are only three or four regular readers, that
> journal is removed promptly.
> K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D
> (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory
> Raja Ramanna Fellow
> Department of Atomic Energy
> Room No 18
> Ground Floor, North Wing
> Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan
> Mumbai 400094
> E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
> 91+22 25555327 (O)
> 91+22 25486081 (O)
> 91+22 27706048 (R)
> 9869016206 (mobile)
> "Muckerheide, James" wrote:
> Hi John,
> If you were up to date on the literature you would
> know that the paper is
> from last year, but the Tubiana/Aurengo paper is
> more recent. :-)
> I didn't think they were the same. I just opened my
> PDF of their paper (Oct
> 05, but I think the issue was late coming out) and
> the PDF is corrupted. :-(
> There is a later brief paper by them (with D.
> Averbeck and Roland Masse), in
> a "debate" format with a brief paper by Dave Brenner
> and Rainer Sachs
> defending the LNT (referring to BEIR VII!?) It was
> online-before-print in
> Radiat. Environ. Biophys. about a month ago.
> Regards, Jim
"It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or
adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical
MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA administrator.
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
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
More information about the RadSafe