[ RadSafe ] A Little Help Please

[Victor Anderson]

Good Afternoon,

Now I have a new hobby.  In any case, I have been doing some research and
reading some articles by TD Luckey.  What I have been looking for are
numerical values that can be used to start a conversation about new
radiation safety standards.  Dr. Luckey talks about a zero effects
population (ZEP) level of 10 cGy/y.  However, in an article "Radiation
Hormesis Overview" in RSO Magazine (vol 8 number 4) he goes on to make a
recommendation of 30 times the background level of 2 mGy/y with a lifetime
limit of 5 cGy for the nuclear industry.  This would imply a limit of 60
mGy/y with a lifetime cap of 5 cGy.  Now background varies and so "30 times
background" could result in a range of values.  Not good when crafting a
radiation safety standard.

So, some more questions (there may be more):

1) If 10 cGy/y is adopted, how does this translate for all radiations.
2) I haven't reviewed Otto Rabbe's work yet, however, what about dose from
internally deposited radioactive materials?
3) Is ZEP tissue/organ sensitive?  For example, is the lens of the eye
more/less sensitive than the whole body?
4) It appears that below 10 cGy/y, there is no reason to be concerned about
mixed effects.  That is some areas, where is there a deleterious dose effect
while still having an overall hormesis?
5) Is 10 cGy/y really the appropriate standard?  Would 5 cGy/y be more
prudent? (Note:  60 mGy/y = 6 cGy/y)

I'll go back to occupying my time with more reading.  All ideas and comments
are welcome.

Victor

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Alston
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:40 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Convincing the EPA

Patricia

It's possible that you are right.  But bear in mind that there are
likely people at the EPA who believe in the LNT hypothesis, or have
anyway adopted it as the basis of their thinking, and that they are
concerned with constraining risks at the level of 1/1,000,000.  There
is not a lot of wiggle-room down there.

Cheers
cja


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: patricia lewis <lewis at radonmine.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:47 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Convincing the EPA
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu


Otto, I think the EPA already knows that (15 mrem is no hazard), but won't
admit publicly....?

--
Patricia Lewis
Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine / Mine Motel
PO Box 67 - Boulder MT 59632
406 225-3383 (NOV 1-MAR 31 - office message only)
888 890-5860 (anytime toll free)
Opt In Newsletter:   http://tinyletter.com/RadonMine
Website:   http ://www.radonmine.com <http://www.radonmine.com/>
WordPress Blog:   http://www.radonmine.com/blog/
*"like" us on Facebook !*
_______________________________________________
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