[ RadSafe ] LNT What will be the content of a draft radiation protection recommendations
parthasarathy k s
ksparth at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Sep 26 20:11:00 CDT 2011
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.
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:
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.
----- 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
another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about
CT scan doses. Itâ€™s not just the big medical equipment makers
â€œwaiting in the wingsâ€ 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 â€œprinciplesâ€ 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 â€œradiation safety.â€
>Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects!
>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 canâ€™t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation.
while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a
technology right out of Star Wars â€“ allowing doctors to look into the
human body without making a single cut â€“ 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 onâ€¦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 â€“ 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.
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. Itâ€™s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced
Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his
patients donâ€™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. â€œParents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their childâ€
says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. â€œOne family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.â€
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.
More information about the RadSafe