[ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Tue Mar 22 12:21:31 CDT 2011

Bryan

In doing this we need to remember that we are "protecting" the most 
vulnerable individual in the population, not the average.

John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
idias at interchange.ubc.ca

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lemieux, Bryan P" <blemieux at uthsc.edu>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Maybe the snarky could be off-list?  It seems to me that we have drifted 
away from radiation protection once more.....

Now if one wanted to get back on track and debate the extent to which LNT is 
embraced as scientific fact vs. theoretical projections through zero 
dose/risk with related applicability to environmental and occupational doses 
and risks, that would be, in my opinion, a more worthy discussion for the 
list in general.  One that has been rehashed and repeated many times, and I 
am sure will be again.  But at least it speaks to the practice of Health 
Physics and the potential appropriateness of, for example, controls on 
contaminated foodstuffs and the establishment of evacuations zones (50 miles 
vs 10 miles, etc...)

Bryan Lemieux, M.S., CHP
Radiation Safety Officer
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
3 N Dunlap St. S110 Van Vleet Bldg
Memphis, TN 38163
Phone: 901-448-6114
Fax: 901-448-7774

Please note my new email address: blemieux at uthsc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Haleem, Mahmoud S.
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:08 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Go AHEAD, MAKE MY DAY AND BE SNARKY.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Neil, David M
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:31 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'; 
'Jerry Cohen'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Infidel: (from the Latin in; not and fidelis; faithful) a disbeliever in 
something specified or understood (Webster's New Collegiate 1976)

Makes me wonder why you cavil at the term.

Making a possibly incorrect inference from your name, I could point out that 
Islam did not either originate or copyright the term.

I could go into it further but that would be snarky.

Dave Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Haleem, Mahmoud S.
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 7:17 AM
To: 'Jerry Cohen'; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

It Makes me wonder why you say INFIDELS MR. SCIENTIST!

Mahmoud Haleem
Radiation Safety Officer
The Catholic University
Washington D.C. 20064

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:55 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

We infidels who believe in hormesis think that radiation exposures up to ~10
rem/a are likely to be good for you (ie beneficial in nature). Hurrah for 
Ann
Coultre!
jerry Cohen

________________________________
From: Cary Renquist <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Mon, March 21, 2011 1:28:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Looking at his references,
http://j.mp/ek8QYy

I see the following statement at the MIT site:
The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
effects from radiation
become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
connect radiation
dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
become apparent.

And at the NRC tritium page:
Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
and genetic abnormalities
in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
occurrence of these health
risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
about 10,000 millirem (mrem).

---
Cary Renquist
cary.renquist at ezag.com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
how this link was established?

Regards

Sandra Matzkin
Radiation Transport
INVAP SE
Bariloche
Argentina

At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>
>Rob Yoss
>FMLH/MCW
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
>Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>
>http://j.mp/fklO6J
>
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>Cary
>
>---
>Cary Renquist
>crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>_______________________________________________
>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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list