[ RadSafe ] Hypothetical post-LNT Rad Limits and Regs

Mark Sonter sontermj at tpg.com.au
Sat Sep 26 16:14:44 CDT 2015

Otto is right.

Just apply the limit (with safety margin).

This is what is done with the thousands of (chronic) chemical hazards in 
workplaces, about the vast majority of which we have less knowledge of 
dose response relationship than we have for radiation.

Except that we know that in general the dose response relationship is 
NOT linear but generally sigmoidal...

For all these chemical chronic hazards, and for noise (where we *know* 
the relationship is sigmoidal) and for respirable free silica (where we 
*know* the relationship is sigmoidal)) we aren't fussed that we don't 
have a linear relationship: we simply 'use the limit'.

FWIW, I don't think that walking away from LNT would call for any 
*workplace* limit change, but I do think it would allow or facilitate 
what we really need which is a return to a formally stated 'de minimus' 
annual dose, which should probably be about 1 or 2 mSv, based on the 
observation that that is what Mother Nature gives us, and anything lower 
is 'down in the noise'.

The real 'problem' has never been the idea of ALARA (which I think is 
sensible) or the reduction from 50 mSv to 20 mSv (which is OK altho 
probably a bit on the cautious side), but the reduction of Member of 
Public dose limit from 5 mSv to 1 mSv. THAT is and has been and always 
will be The Problem...

Mark J Sonter

Director & Principal Consultant, Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, 
abn 31 891 761 435

Co-Founder & Director: Mining & Processing, Deep Space Industries Inc.

116 Pennine Drive, South Maclean, Queensland 4280, Australia

Phone/fax:  07 3297 7653; Mobile: 0447 755598

(delete '0' & replace with '61' country code if calling from overseas)

“Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler”  - A. Einstein

On 27/09/2015 3:00 AM, radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu wrote:
> 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. Radiation Safety Without LNT (Otto G. Raabe)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:56:09 -0700
> From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
> 	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Safety Without LNT
> Message-ID: <201509252156.t8PLuIBN006327 at msa3.ucdavis.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>> September 25, 2015
> When I started  radiation safety works in 1958, radiation standards
> were based on  limiting exposures based on the International
> Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 2.
> The methods were straight-forward and sound based on
> limiting exposures.
> For example, ICRP 2 page 82 states sound limits for
> internal exposure to plutonium isotopes. For example.
> no plutonium worker was allowed to exceed  a
> lung burden of 16 nCi of Pu-239.
> In the early days thousands of workers were exposed including me
> to inhaled plutonium at Los Alamos, Rocky Flats, Handford, Kerr-Magee,
> the Nevada Test Site and elsewhere, but there has been no known
> lung cancer case that were associated with inhaled plutonium-239
> at those facilities..
> ICRP 2 is a good example of how to end the
> Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) fallacy.
> Otto
> Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D. CHP
> Center for Health and the Environment
> University of California
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
> Office: 530-752-7754
> FAX :   530-758-6140
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1918, Issue 1
> ****************************************

More information about the RadSafe mailing list