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

Fri Feb 15 18:57:47 CST 2013

Recall the NRC is in the process of evaluating lowering the dose limits to be consistent with the majority of world regulatory limits.

The HPS Standards Committee Had been requested to evaluate establishing a standard that would define what is considered to be safe radiation. That was rejected, not one of the missions of the standards committee.

The DeMinis philosophy was rejected, Even though there are many items with in the regulations that essentially are a DeMinimis value.

Regards,

Sandy Perle
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, "Jeremy Nicoll" <jeremy.nicoll at otago.ac.nz> wrote:

> The published literature would strongly suggest that limit did not protect radiologists. A key reference would be Warren in JAMA in, I think, 1954. As someone who works with & is married to a radiologist, I find the character assassination quite entertaining. A great deal of harmless entertainment can be found in following the substantial literature on radiologist longevity, especially the repartee in the ensuing correspondence.
> 
> Cheers
> Jeremy
> ________________________________
> From: JERRY CUTTLER
> Sent: 16/02/2013 3:13 a.m.
> To: Victor Anderson; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
> Cc: 'Payne, Steven S.'; 'Dobrzynski Ludwik'; Jerry Cuttler; 'Miller, Mark L'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Article by Vincent Giuliano on "Radiation Hormesis"
> 
> Victor et al.
> 
> For "the new radiation safety standard," I recommend reverting to the ICRP standard that was accepted in the early 1930s; i.e. use the concept of a safe tolerance dose of 0.2 Roentgen/day, which is equivalent to about 680 mGy/year.  It provided adequate protection to the radiologists for at least two decades and would still be satisfactory today for radiation workers.  The total-body acute dose limit for radiologists (radiation workers) should be 150 mGy.
> 
> There was no scientific justification to change the radiation protection concept in the mid-1950s.  That was done for the political purpose of stopping the development and testing of nuclear weapons.
> 
> I volunteer to help solve this problem.
> 
> Jerry Cuttler
> jerrycuttler at rogers.com
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Victor Anderson <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList' <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Cc: "'Miller, Mark L'" <mmiller at sandia.gov>; 'Jerry Cuttler' <jerrycuttler at rogers.com>; 'Dobrzynski Ludwik' <Ludwik.Dobrzynski at ncbj.gov.pl>; "'Payne,Steven S.'" <Steven.Payne at nnsa.doe.gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:59:29 PM
> 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