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

Tue Jul 31 17:50:50 CDT 2007

Peter,

You are right, and it is worse than that.  Radon exposure indeed varies
greatly, and each person is affected by their actual exposure, not the
average.  That is why when I am asked about radon levels I use
qualitative terms like "High potential" for exposure above the EPA's
action level.  Then I suggest they test to find out what they are
exposed to.

I also don't like comparing radon to other types of exposure, as radon
and its daughters are internal alpha exposure to the lung, and most
other exposures are not.  By the time the numbers concerning different
types of exposure are massaged enough so they can be compared, all the
real information has been squeezed out of them.

For radon, when talking to the public I try to keep the discussion at
"Breathing radioactive gas isn't good for you, and the more you breath,
the more not good it is" level.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Vernig, Peter G. [mailto:Peter.Vernig at va.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:14 PM
To: John R Johnson; Doug Aitken; Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: 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/