[ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart

Mon Mar 28 18:54:13 CDT 2011

Sandra,

On the contrary, studies have demonstrated that nuclear workers have a
lower incidence of cancer. Those who are opposed to nuclear attempt to say
this is a "healthy worker" affect. However, lower incidence is lower
incidence, no matter what you want to call it.

Regards,

Sandy

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/

On 3/28/11 5:59 AM, "Sandra Matzkin" <matzkin at invap.com.ar> wrote:

>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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Sandra
>Radiation Transport
>INVAP SE
>Bariloche
>Argentina
>
>
>At 04:19 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:
>>Sandra,
>>
>>
>>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:
>>http://www.lowdose.energy.gov/pdf/DoseRanges.pdf
>>
>>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.
>>http://www.lowdose.energy.gov/
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Rick
>>
>>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>
>>www.ctosnnsa.org
>>
>>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,
>>
>>Sandra
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE:   This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made.  Thank you.