[ RadSafe ] LNT What will be the content of a draft radiation protection recommendations

[parthasarathy k s]

Dear Mike

Over three years ago, I had the following string of messages on LNT -regulatory related topics. The subject is as alive today as it was then; it will continue to be alive well into the future. I request all those in the list who commented on "LNT" and others to answer the questions I put to Mr Jim Muckerheide. I have not received any response then. I hope to get it now.

Regards
Parthasarathy

Dear Jim,

I enjoy reading your comments; particularly,those 
which reveals the biting wit and sarcasm while referring to the 
omissions and commissions of ICRP, NCRP and others in the regulatory 
community. I may not be able to support the view that companies want to 
retain ALARA principles because of some profit motive

I shall appreciate your comments on the following:

1.
 What is the radiation dose below which you will not have any concern 
about (harmful!) radiation effects(0.5mSv,5 mSv,10 mSv, 50 mSv????)

2. Do you accept the dose limits of ICRP
  (a) with out ALARA "principle"
  (b) With ALARA     "principle"

3. If you
have all the
authority to enforce radiation safety what are the possible recommendations? (Preferably in one page?)

I welcome the responses from other list members as well.

I request the respondents' permission to quote their comments in a feature article I am planning to write.

Regards
K.S.Parthasarathy

----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Jim Muckerheide 
>To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes 
>Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' 
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM
>Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose
>
>Friends,
>
>Here’s
 another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about 
CT scan doses.  It’s not just the big medical equipment makers 
“waiting in the wings†any more.  
>
>Since 1927-28 in the UK, 
ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have 
funded them for this purpose.  They have tenacious commitments to 
retaining the LNT and ALARA “principles†and misdirection.  This is 
despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose 
biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses),
 and to fabricate public fear in the name of “radiation safety.† 
>
>Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects!
>
>Regards, Jim
>=========  
> 
>MiniCAT â„¢ CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose
>
>Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation 
>
>ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can’t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. 
>
>And
 while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a 
technology right out of Star Wars – allowing doctors to look into the 
human body without making a single cut – that ability comes with a 
price: radiation exposure to the patient. 
>
>So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? 
>
>The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on…because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 – 12 times lower than 
conventional CT scanners. 
>
>MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner 
designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly 
becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the
 brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. 
>
>This uniquely 
compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of 
Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have 
noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to
 sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in
 40 seconds or less. It’s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced
 Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his 
patients don’t realize the test has even been performed. 
>
>The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. “Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child†
says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. “One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.†


________________________________
From: "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2011, 3:20
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] LNT

That's where hormesis comes in: You may not be able to prove a negative, but you can prove an anti (assuming it exists).  

Even the people who support LNT generally acknowledge that the closer you get to zero, the less statistical support the theory has.  This is because back in the day it was really, really hard to measure or reconstruct low dose, there weren't a lot of exposed subjects, and keeping track of everything on file cards was hard.  If nothing else, Fukushima will produce a huge amount of data about people with a fair gradient of exposure, who will be tracked and monitored for the foreseeable future.  If I were betting, I would put money down on this showing that LNT falls apart at low dose.  

To continue your analogy, it would be as if you could show that the prayers of the members of one religion were routinely answered, but not the prayers of anyone else.  You might not be able to demonstrate a negative, but you might be able to show where a demonstrated positive stops.

----