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

[Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)]

What's all this?  As HPs should know, "background" came from defining 'the worker dose that's not measured on your film badge!' :-)  (It's just that zt the time the idiocy of this was not so obvious and was 'rationalized' and justified.)

"Natural background" is still "natural background." 

And few people get the average "natural background" with a small group <100 mr and most <800 mr, and a few >8 R, to >20 R.

But that doesn't stop EPA setting limits of natural background in drinking water to 4 mr/yr, despite the fact no municipal source exceeded 20 mr/yr, but then EPA and its minions couldn't have defrauded a non-critical mass of municipal victims.  

That rule is now costing cities and towns $ millions. E.g., Waukesha WI just reported that its new radium clean-up plant has cost $13 million (nothing about operating costs) for an "interim solution" since they are working for an exemption to get Lake Michigan water.

Regards, Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Vernig, Peter G.
Sent: Tue 7/31/2007 6:13 PM
 
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 is natural.


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of John R Johnson

Doug and 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?


----- 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>

> 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 one 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