AW: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made sources

Wed Aug 1 02:22:21 CDT 2007

"... a few of us, unfortunately have a very high [radon] exposure if we live in a problem house ..."

Peter:

Why do you call the 'few of us' unfortunate if indeed the fact of being exposed to higher levels of domestic radon has incontrovertibly been shown to be associated with significantly reduced lung cancer mortality - in line with most other studies, which have investigated the association of low dose and dose rate exposure to ionizing radiation with lung cancer? Proposed explanations of the radon findings by means of confounders abound but I have seen none published which was amenable to a quantitative analysis and which could be upheld in the light of a subsequent quantitative re-analysis by Bernard Cohen.

Regards, Rainer

BTW: Notwithstanding my many recurrent failures, I endeavour to adhere to your admonition transmitted from Paul of Tarsus :-)

Dr. Rainer Facius
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Linder Hoehe
51147 Koeln
GERMANY
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX:   +49 2203 61970

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Vernig, Peter G.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. August 2007 00:14
An: John R Johnson; Doug Aitken; Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made sources

I agree too, one can use NCRP Report 94 which is natural background and has a rounded total of 300 mrem/y.

But it includes Radon which I also don't like because presumably most of us have a pretty small exposure if we live in houses that do not have a significant radon exposure and a few of us, unfortunately have a very high exposure if we live in a problem house and that all is rounded to 200 mrem.  Although Radon in natural.

Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government.

Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig at va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248

"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is found to be excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on these things."

Paul of Tarsus
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John R Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:51 PM
To: Doug Aitken; Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made sources

Doug an Mike

I agree that medical exposures are not background. Isn't that why UNSCEAR
(http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1988.html) has two annexes?

John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
Vancouver, B. C.
Canada
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Aitken" <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Annual dose from Nature/Background/Man-made sources

> At 03:37 PM 7/31/2007, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
>>While I was never a fan of the old pie chart, I am less a fan of the
new
>>one and the message sent by changing it.
>>
>>I don't believe that medical exposure should be included in chart
>>background or average exposure.  No own receives an "average" medical
>>exposure: they either receive a medical exposure or they do not.  If
you
>>have 100 people and 10 of them receive medical exposures of 1,000 mR
>>each, their exposure in no way affects the other 90 people.  If those
>>ten get 10,000 mR each, it STILL doesn't effect the other.  Changing
the
>>number of people in the population changes the average, but doesn't
>>change the effect on the people receiving exposure, or those not.
>
> I have to agree with this!
>
> There is a great difference between (1) what you can avoid
(occupational 
> doses for radiation workers, medical doses for everyone - which should
all 
> be judged/justified on a risk-benefit basis) and (2) those you cannot 
> avoid (natural, fallout, etc).
>
> Of course, you "can" minimize the second category by moving your place
of 
> residence..... (if you see any benefit in this <G>)
>
> Regards
> Doug
>
>
>
> Doug Aitken                     Cell Phone    713 562-8585
> QHSE Advisor
> D&M Operations Support
> Schlumberger Technology Corporation
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/