[ RadSafe ] When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk

[Dan McCarn]

Dear Joseph:

When I worked with hazardous materials as a geologist, I had to annually
pass a health screening exam as well as what I would effectively call a
"stress test" to determine if I could safely wear Level A and Level B
protective equipment. Those individuals susceptible to asthma, respiratory,
or other restricting conditions were strictly excluded. The same is true
for other occupations: "Can you safely lift 60 lbs?"  Work environments are
quite different than the general population.

This afternoon, I'll be hauling and stacking 100 bales of hay, each
weighing 60-80 lbs for my horses. There are quite a few at the stables who
struggle with carrying that sort of weight, not to mention 100 of them and
lift them over one's head. Hiring and allowing someone with a bad back to
attempt this kind of strenuous work is not only foolish, but deserving of a
probable law suit.

So, of course government, industry and individuals may restrict someone's
"right to work" in an environment that would be hazardous to their health,
especially if those conditions can be screened.

As Susan pointed-out, living in Alabama is significantly more hazardous in
reference to cancer than living in Colorado in spite of the increased
background radiation in Colorado. What Susan may not be aware of is that
Alabama is also the much more "hazardous" when it comes to obesity,
diabetes and heart disease than any state in the USA and has the highest
incidence of disability assistance in the USA. Alabama also does not
provide "Obamacare" assistance to it's citizens. Perhaps there is a
correlation.



Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:14 AM, <jjshonka at shonka.com> wrote:

> Andy wrote “I suppose if you really want to get into the weeds then you'd
> also have to consider someone's age, health history, and genetic
> susceptibility to radiation. “
>
>
>
>
> As a parallel to radiation, consider beryllium.  When chronic beryllium
> disease (CBD) was discovered in the 1940’s, exposure limits were
> established.  Roughly, those limits have been substantially reduced each
> decade since then (some times by a factor of 10) as CBD continued to be
> observed in some workers.  I understand that current thinking is that a few
> percent (less than 4%) of workers are highly susceptible to CBD, perhaps
> due to a genetic predisposition.  96% of the population is not.  If
> beryllium caused many different diseases as is the case for radiation (each
> cancer is a different disease), this link would likely not have been found
> as easily.
>
>
>
>
> Andy asked whether we need to consider “age, health history, and genetic
> susceptibility” for radiation and I suggest that same issue occurs for
> other risks such as beryllium.  If we did consider genetic risk for
> beryllium by testing workers for genetic susceptibility, we could avoid
> most controls and costs of measurement of workplace and effluent
> concentration.  Can we deny workers who are susceptible the right to work
> in the beryllium industry?
>
>
>
>
> I think we may, in this century, understand genetic risks for radiation
> and will eventually provide career counselling to workers to avoid
> industries for which their risk might be greater for a variety of subtle
> hazards.  However, I was asking how does one regulate using a non-LNT
> assumption.  I agree with Andy’s suggestion that one might have to get into
> the weeds to do this correctly.  Is there a model for regulating a
> non-linear hazard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joseph J. Shonka, Ph.D.
> Shonka Research Associates, Inc.
> 119 Ridgemore Circle
>
>
> Toccoa, GA 30577
> 770-509-7606
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>