[ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Sandra Matzkin matzkin at invap.com.ar
Mon Mar 28 07:59:30 CDT 2011

Thank you Rick,

The 200 mSv chronic exposure threshold is sort of scary. Are nuclear 
industry (or other radiation-related) workers are really more prone 
to cancer than other groups of people? I thought there was no 
evidence of this.


Radiation Transport

At 04:19 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:
>Here are two other relative radiation dose charts.
>Nicole Metting, the Program Manager at the U.S. Department of Energy 
>(DOE) Low Dose Radiation Research Program, has compiled two 
>"Ionizing Radiation Dose Range Charts," intended as a simple, 
>user-friendly, "order-of-magnitude" reference for radiation 
>exposures of interest to scientists, managers, and the general 
>public." The same information is shown in two charts, one in units 
>of rem and one in sieverts.
>In regards to cancer risk and 10 rem [100 mSv] "threshold," these 
>charts state the following:
>"Evidence for small increases in human cancer above 10 rem [100 mSv] 
>acute exposure or 20 rem [200 mSv] chronic exposure."
>For the PDF version of the charts:
>The DOE Low Dose Radiation Research Program funds basic research to 
>determine the responses induced by radiation exposures at doses of 
>10 centigray (cGy) [10 rem and 100 mSv for gamma radiation] and 
>below. Program research will provide a scientific underpinning for 
>future radiation protection standards.
>I encourage anyone who has questions about the cancer risks for 
>"low" doses of radiation to contact the experts at the DOE Low Dose 
>Radiation Research Program. Nicole Metting has been very helpful in 
>the past when I needed some assistance for our training materials.
>Best regards,
>Rick Hansen
>Senior Scientist
>CTOS - Center for Radiological/Nuclear Training at the Nevada 
>National Security Site
>National Security Technologies, LLC
>Contractor to the United States Department of Energy
>Office: 702-295-7813
>Cell:    702-630-1131
>hansenrg at nv.doe.gov<mailto:hansenrg at nv.doe.gov>
>The statements and opinions expressed herein are those of the author 
>and not necessarily those of the United States Government or any 
>agency thereof, or National Security Technologies. Reference herein 
>to any specific commercial product, process or service does not 
>necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 
>favoring, or a commitment to purchase. This email and any 
>attachments may contain privacy act information. If you received 
>this message in error or are not the intended recipient you should 
>destroy this message and any attachments, and you are prohibited 
>from retaining, distributing, disclosing, or using any information 
>contained herein. Please inform us of the erroneous delivery by 
>return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation.
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:51:03 -0300
>From: Sandra Matzkin <matzkin at invap.com.ar<mailto:matzkin at invap.com.ar>>
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd:  Relative Radiation Dose chart
>To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>                 List" 
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
>Thank you for all your comments and references. The HPS paper 
>(Position Statement of the Health Physics Society) is particularly 
>interesting and balanced.
>This question came to me a few days ago when I heard a RP expert 
>explanation addressed to a general (but educated) public. I was 
>surprised to see the 100 mSv (10 rem) threshold stated as a fact. 
>Now I see that it is more widely accepted than I initially thought.
>Best regards,
>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: 
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
>settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list