[ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Thu Feb 7 10:36:24 CST 2013

Jerry and Victor,

I too wish there was an accepted alternative to LNT. ALARA is a fine concept; however, the problem with trying to apply this "principle" is FORGETING or ignoring the "R" in the acronym. ALARA should be alaRa. 
Changing the "rules" requires sound data and the acceptance of the results. As you know health physics involves the "s" word - statistics. That topic can work for or against you. My opinion of the topic is: "there are lies, dam* lies, and then there are statistics."
There are also two schools of thought about radiation: the dose based approach and the risk based approach. I feel that the former has the political momentum at present.

I would also like to help in bringing common sense into the fold of radiation protection; but I believe that until there is a change of prevailing attitudes toward radiation and dose, the effort is uphill at best.

Let me know if I can help.

John Dixon

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:34 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Jerry,

Thank you.  Remember what they said in the Army about volunteering...  :) Seriously, thank you.  My hope is to gather at least 8 or 9 of us that can meet electronically and draft a petition for new regulations.  As one of the first ALARA engineers hired way back in 1983, I fell in love with the concept.  The problem was and is that ALARA was and is one of the most misunderstood and misused radiation regulations ever drafted.  Given hormesis, then logically ALARA has to go.  No LNT and ALARA falls apart.

For those who are interested in working on drafting new radiation safety regulations, I suggest that we first identify ourselevs to each other.  In the meantime, we can research and come up with numerical values.  It may well be that the current standard of 5 Sv/y is the way to go.  However, as Terry Goodkind says in Wizards First Rule, "Bah! Nothing is ever easy."
Whatever we do needs to have good references and a very sound, rational basis.  We must also be prepared to be called nasty names and dealt with in a most uncivilized manner.  (or as Simon and Garfunkel once sang, "libeled and called names that arn't in the bible.")  Who else is up for some good old rebellious fun?

Victor

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:39 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

Victor,

    I would be happy to volunteer to help any effort to bring rationality to

radiation control regulation.. The first step, I believe, should be the

elimination of ALARA.

Jerry  C ohen

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Victor Anderson" <victor.anderson at frontier.com>

To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'" 

<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>

Cc: "'Payne, Steven S.'" <Steven.Payne at nnsa.doe.gov>; "'Dobrzynski Ludwik'" 

<Ludwik.Dobrzynski at ncbj.gov.pl>; "'Jerry Cuttler'" 

<jerrycuttler at rogers.com>; "'Miller,Mark L'" <mmiller at sandia.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:59 AM

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

> Good Morning,

>

>

>

> The evidence for hormesis is certainly there.  I too believe that LNT 
> is

> no

> longer a viable basis for radiation safety.  Being an ex-regulator, 
> for me

> the next big question is placing some numerical values on radiation 
> safety

> standards.  Given that X Gy of dose will not cause any harm, should 
> that

> be

> the new radiation safety standard?  This brings as least two questions 
> to

> mind: 1) Given biological variability, what is a safe upper limit? and 
> 2)

> How does the new standard work for different types of radiation, rates

> (gy/y, gy/hr?), mode of delivery?  We also need to look at a new unit 
> as

> the

> Sievert and REM were both pegged to probability of death by cancer.  
> So,

> if

> say 1 cGy of gamma radiation has no risk of cancer, then the risk 
> based

> dose

> is zero (0 cSv).  Suppose there is a region where there is some 
> protective

> benefit mixed with some chance of harm?  A fine kettle of fish. The 
> reason

> I

> ask is that the next step is to petition the NRC for a rule change.  
> The

> bigger question is what kind of rule change?  With this is mind, I 
> would

> propose an an hoc committee to work on this problem.  Any takers?  If 
> so,

> please e-mail me.

>

>

>

> Victor Anderson, CHP

>

>

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu

> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott, Bobby

> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:10 AM

> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> MailingList

> Cc: Miller, Mark L; Jerry Cuttler; Dobrzynski Ludwik; Payne,Steven S.

> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"

>

>

>

> Hi all,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I came across an interesting 7 September 2012 article on the web by

>

> Vincent Giuliano titled "Radiation Hormesis."  The link for the 
> article

>

> follows:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2012/09/07/radiation-hormesis/

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I thought some of you may like to know about the article.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

>

>

> Bobby

>

>

>

> B. R. Scott

>

>

>

> Senior Scientist

>

>

>

> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute

>

>

>

> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE

>

>

>

> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA

>

>

>

> Phone: 001-505-348-9470

>

>

>

> Fax: 001-505-348-8567

>

>

>

> E-mail: bscott at LRRI.org <mailto:bscott at LRRI.org>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>
****************************************************************************

> ***

>

>

>

> This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic 
> Communications

> Privacy

>

> Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only 
> to

> the

> named

>

> addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you 
> are

> not

> the

>

> intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail 
> to

> the

>

> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in 
> error

> and

>

> that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this

> e-mail

> is

>

> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify 
> the

> sender

>

> by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. 
> Nothing in

> this

>

> communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be

> construed

> as a

>

> legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the 
> subject

> matter

>

> herein.

>

> _______________________________________________

>

> 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