[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1187, Issue 2

Thu Jan 17 05:04:17 CST 2013

Seems to me we will better understand the impact of the UNSCEAR report when 
the funding for the DOE Low Dose Research Program is restored.  We can 
speculate all we want, but until such time as money is made available to 
researchers to identify those mechanisms that may be responsible for the 
different radiobiological effects of high and low dose radiation, UNSCEAR 
will continue hemming and hawing.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu>
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:35 PM
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 1187, Issue 2

> Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."
>
>
> Important!
>
> To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the 
> following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
>
> 1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
> 2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the 
> germane sentences to which you're responding.
>
> Thanks!_______________________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Will Unscear really divorce the LNT (Theo Richel)
>   2. Fwd: Forbes Article RadSafe (Jeff Terry)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:28:24 +0100
> From: "Theo Richel" <theo at richel.org>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Will Unscear really divorce the LNT
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <684D45F504C7B645995837575EEC3DCC3E709C at superserver6.richel2.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I hate to spoil the fun, but my initial enthusiasm for the Conca/Forbes
> article
> (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying
> -radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/ ) on the supposed divorce from the LNT by
> Unscear is cooling down. In the first phrase there is mention of a 'very
> big report'. Now English is not my native language, so 'big' may also
> mean 'important', but the only thing I have found so far is a piece of
> 13 pages
> (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V12/553/85/PDF/V1255385.pdf?
> OpenElement ) and nothing there comes close to what Conca claims 'It
> concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades -
> radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal.'
> Another quote  'UNSCEAR "does not recommend multiplying low doses by
> large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced
> health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at
> levels equivalent to or below natural background levels" is indeed
> there, but I find  this denouncement of the collective dose less
> impressive than what he originally suggests.
> The author himself does not link to the original report , strangely, but
> to a confusing piece  on Fukushima and the possible threshold of 100
> mSv. So where is this report where Unscear says goodbye to the LNT?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:34:11 -0600
> From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Forbes Article RadSafe
> To: Health Physics <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <A97026D3-38AD-479F-A1BA-DAFC724C514C at iit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi All,
>
> Comment on the question below from Jim Conca.
>
> Jeff
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>>
>>
>> It was supposed to be ratified by the General Assembly this month, but 
>> hasn't yet.  I will post the link when it does. UNSCEAR staff such as 
>> Weiss have presented parts of it and that is where the information is 
>> coming from.  Attached are two source documents, which we were provided 
>> by a contact closely connected to the matter. I don't know how to attach 
>> them to a blog.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Jeff Terry wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Someone posted to the RadSafe mailing list a question about your Forbes 
>> article on LNT and Unscear.
>>
>> Would you be willing to comment on it?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/mailman/listinfo/radsafe/
>>
>> I hate to spoil the fun, but my initial enthusiasm for the Conca/Forbes
>> article
>> (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying
>> -radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/ ) on the supposed divorce from the LNT by
>> Unscear is cooling down. In the first phrase there is mention of a 'very
>> big report'. Now English is not my native language, so 'big' may also
>> mean 'important', but the only thing I have found so far is a piece of
>> 13 pages
>> (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/V12/553/85/PDF/V1255385.pdf?
>> OpenElement ) and nothing there comes close to what Conca claims 'It
>> concluded what we in nuclear science have been saying for decades -
>> radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal.'
>> Another quote  'UNSCEAR "does not recommend multiplying low doses by
>> large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced
>> health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at
>> levels equivalent to or below natural background levels" is indeed
>> there, but I find  this denouncement of the collective dose less
>> impressive than what he originally suggests.
>> The author himself does not link to the original report , strangely, but
>> to a confusing piece  on Fukushima and the possible threshold of 100
>> mSv. So where is this report where Unscear says goodbye to the LNT?
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail message, together with any 
>> attachments thereto, is intended only for the personal and confidential 
>> use of the addressee[s] named above. The message and the attachments are 
>> or may be an attorney-client or other privileged or protected 
>> communication. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or 
>> authorized to receive it for the intended recipient, you have received 
>> this message in error. You are not to review, use, disseminate, 
>> distribute or copy this message, any attachments thereto, or their 
>> contents. If you have received this message in error, please immediately 
>> notify us by return e-mail message, and delete the original message. 
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: Fourth Committee Approval.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 2099657 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: 
> <http://health.phys.iit.edu/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20130116/0f96f70b/attachment.pdf>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: A-C.4-67-L.8.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 39223 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: 
> <http://health.phys.iit.edu/pipermail/radsafe/attachments/20130116/0f96f70b/attachment-0001.pdf>
> -------------- next part --------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1187, Issue 2
> ****************************************
> 