[ RadSafe ] Radiation for health

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

Should the ALARA dose for workers set by gov. (or company) be less
than that shown to be beneficial in NSWS or Taiwan apts or background where longevity greater?
Submariners got less radiation because shielde from both cosmic and their reactors.

Luckey's ZEP (where neither benefit nor harm) is about 20rem (cSv) /year,
Cohen's ZEP for radon graphs about 8 pCi/l in home.

For the public, should it be different? I like the idea of people being able to choose whether they want to spend a lot of time next to Grand Central Station granite, have granite kitchen counters, etc.

Howard Long


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com> 

> I think it is important to realize that, no matter whether LNT is or is not 
> valid (and whether or not hermetic effect of low-level doses exists), there 
> is a need to set dose limits on occupational exposure, just as there is for 
> any toxin or hazardous substance in the workplace. Which I personally feel 
> is a reasonable justification for ALARA/ALARP. The important point being the 
> Achievable/Practicable part! 
> 
> Then if an individual decides that he/she does not get enough radiation, let 
> them sleep with a packet of fertilizer or welding rods, or move to 
> Guarapari, Brazil, to increase their dose..... 
> 
> Much of my personal/professional efforts are to ensure the occupational dose 
> received by personnel when handling radioactive sources are kept well within 
> the regulatory (and company-mandated - which are lower than the US regs!) 
> dose limits. And through a combination of engineered systems, 
> policies/procedures and competent personnel, this is easy to achieve. And, 
> of course, occupational doses are monitored, records kept and any anomalous 
> doses investigated! 
> 
> And, of course, every person in industry with similar responsibilities is 
> doing exactly the same thing! 
> 
> Failure to do so would not only expose companies to not only regulatory 
> sanctions but the potential for litigation from any employee that, in the 
> future, might develop a cancer (and many will) and be persuaded that it 
> might be due to negligence on the part of the employer... (with obvious 
> consequences of lawsuits....) 
> 
> So, while we can argue all day on whether or not LNT is valid, reality 
> requires us to apply ALARA/ALARP........ 
> 
> (this of course is a totally different thing from the ridiculous regulations 
> imposed on the construction and running of nuclear power stations by 
> legislators running scared from a vocal band of anti-nucs - but that is a 
> different topic!) 
> 
> Regards 
> Doug 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 
> QHSE Advisor 
> D&M Operations Support 
> Schlumberger Technology Corporation 
> 300 Schlumberger Drive 
> Sugar Land TX 77030 
> 
> Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 
> ______________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf 
> Of Bjorn Cedervall 
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:43 AM 
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radiation for health 
> 
> 
> > Does anyone actually believe in LNT? It certainly makes it easy to produce 
> > an effect regulatory frame work, but I do not think it is true. 
> LNT is an administrative tool - the actual shape in the lower dose region 
> (say less 
> than 10 mGy as an acute dose) will probably never be known. We can only do 
> "educated guesses" based on molecular and other phenomena + clinical 
> information 
> we study in various ways - their potential relevance depending on context 
> etc. 
> 
> Bearing this in mind, it shouldn't be about believing. I am personally 
> convinced that 
> a single ionization may be the first step in a series of events that 
> ultimately may 
> result in an aggressive tumor. This does not make me think that the detailed 
> dose-response has any particular shape - and furthermore it does not make me 
> particularly worried about radiation. High blood pressure for instance 
> should 
> be of much larger concern for most people than getting some extra and 
> trivial 
> dose of ionizing radiation exposure (I did my first radiation experiments 
> (with 
> Co-60 and an X-ray tube) in high school more than 40 years ago. 
> 
> My personal reflections only, 
> 
> Bjorn Cedervall 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________ 
> Need to know now? Get instant answers with Windows Live Messenger. 
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL 
> _Refresh_messenger_062008_______________________________________________ 
> 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/