Re: Business airflights = occupational exposure?

[Kerembaev@cs.com]

>>
In a message dated 1/29/00 12:49:26 Pacific Standard Time, 
bcradsafers@hotmail.com writes:
 "occupational exposure". (I am not saying that it should be regulated - it 
 was more a question of the logic - and that the general public probably 
 don't know much about it - I agree with your next comment below). Radon in 
 mines is not a licensed source I suppose? (or?)
>>

I think, if person is working in the Radon mine than it will follow under the 
second/below) definition for the "occupational" exposure.

>
>But in the reality.
>It is what exposure "radiation" workers are receiving while they are working 
>minus what they would get if they were not a "radiation" workers.
>

So, I would consider it as an "occupational exposure"
As it would be the same for uranium mines. It is very "hair splitting" 
subject from the liability point of view. For example, if someone working in 
the health club with radon baths. 
Because the radon baths are not regulated, I do not think, that anybody is 
insuring that annual "occupational" exposure there is below of 10% of the 
regulatory occupational limit.
So than employee have to a personal dosimetry but Radon is not regulated. So?
Or employer HAS to insure and to DOCUMENT that it is below of 10% of a 
"harmful" limit. If not, than someone can accuse the employer in negligent, 
if ANY evidence, of a possibly related to the radiation, an illness will 
occur. LNT is very self explainable.
I am not a lawyer but
I can imagine, that a some old article could be presented as an evidence that 
Radon and its progeny are in fact radioactive and it is a common knowledge 
and an employer with this type of business had to know this fact.
The same story could be applied to the airlines.....
I am wondering, are out there real lawyers who are already sharpen their pans?
May be we all are in the wrong business.

How many of our definitions are based on a "occupational" common sense. Or on 
"it always was like that". "Lets not to talk about that", "it is very 
sensitive subject", " I will tell you but off the records" , etc.
Well, it looks to me like a "living in the bobble case" 
Or may be it is me, who is just being naive? Is it sort of a corporate or a 
national secret? I do not think so. I know what is a corporate and other 
secrets. This is a bobble. I had lived in one and I know what it is. Usually 
"they" used to say: "You have to many questions!!!!". Well, living in the 
bobble is easier, less thinking, but when it exploded it is....sucks!
Believe me.... 
Now I understand more, why public do not trust to the "experts"?
I wouldn't trust to someone who is using the same words but talking in the 
different language. Would you?
I rather trust to someone who is using different words but talking in the 
same language........
The recent examples with the recommends for mammogram exams....
Poor women....don't they have enough of the stress? What will be next?
Prostrate screening recommends?..........poor men?
Lets, say to the public, we do not know everything but here is what, we 
think, we know.
Mammogram exams is a good subject to start, there is clear pluses and unclear 
minuses.

I guess, a little bit of self criticism would not hurt to HP community's 
health? ;-)

Peace and Safe weekend.

Emil
kerembaev@cs.com 
"Why are people having three different languages, writing, spoken and 
thinking?"
"Why can't they all write what they say and speak what they think?"

"Unknown Author"
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html