Re: Business airflights = occupational exposure?

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

This is another example of the schizophrenia and irrationality humans exhibit
about radiation exposure.  But, it also is the fault of the ICRP and NCRP.
Those bodies have said, and continue to say natural background isn't counted
when setting standards for radiation protection.  Neither is medical radiation.
And, for purposes of radiation protection, they are probably right.  However,
there are other purposes for measuring, recording and controlling dose: legal,
epidemiological, and regulatory purposes come to mind.  The philosophy applied
to radiation protection has not and should not be applied to radiation exposure
for those other purposes.  Unless, of course, the LNTH really is a true
representation of reality.  Then all exposure must be measured, recorded, and
controlled.  Nothing else makes sense.

20 years ago the AEC recognized the problem and proposed a multi page (12, I
think) form for recording all insults to which their licensee's radiation
workers were exposed.  The form required recording (and, therefore, measuring)
exposures to hazardous chemicals, all radiation, including all medical doses,
all other kinds of radiation, etc.  Of course the licensees killed the idea.
But, without doing all that, there is no way any reasonable epidemiological
study can scientifically and unambiguously provide data to define the ionizing
radiation low dose effect curve!  Now we see the wisdom of the AEC's thinking.
If we had started 20 years ago recording all that data, we might be in a better
position to see what the low dose-effect curve looks like without all the
arguing we currently have.

Maybe we need to clearly define the purpose for whatever model we use for low
dose effects.  For purposes of protecting against high doses, the LNTH is
probably OK.  For protecting occupationally exposed people, it may also be OK
for low doses as long as ALARA and collective dose are not used and the limit of
5 rem per year is not exceeded often.  For protecting the public at low doses it
obviously is not economically reasonable, even if it did represent reality.
However, for legal purposes, the system needs an answer.  Since we supposedly
live in a country where one is innocent until proven guilty, until there is
scientifically acceptable proof that low doses are harmful, we should say that
they are not.  It looks like 10 rem is the number many people are beginning to
use as the numerical value of dose below which there are is demonstrable harm to
humans.  The Airlie conference concluded, in part, "The lowest dose at which a
statistically significant radiation risk has been shown is ~100 mSv (10 rem).
This does not imply the existence of a threshold."  So, let's not call 10 rem a
threshold.  But, let's say, if the dose is below 10 rem, there is no harm. In
other words, put the shoe on the other foot.  Until there is demonstrable harm,
let's act as if 10 rem were a threshold.  We should tell the public that 10 rem
is safe until proven otherwise.  IMHO that will never happen.  Al Tschaeche
antatnsu@pacbell.net

"Ron L. Kathren" wrote:

> I have posed this (and other similar questions) many times over the past two
> decades; even wrote an editorial that was published in Health Physics in
> 1980 (Vol 39, p. 149) entitled "What is Occupational Exposure?"  Never have
> gotten a satisfactory response, Bjorn, so I hope your results are better
> than mine.
>
> Just for the sake of interest, and perhaps to spur a little discussion, I
> note that most of my occupationally incurred dose has been from business
> related air travel and has been completely un measured and unrecorded.  My
> occupationally incurred dose from business related air travel is estimated
> as a few 10's of mSv.  Many labs/companies/facilities have a policy of
> forbidding their employees to take their dosimeters with them on travel;
> some may provide a special travel badge.   Obviously it is important to know
> the dose from air travel (as well as medical and other sources that are
> unrecorded) if one is to do meaningful occupational radioepidemiology
> studies.  Regrettably, the epidemiologists typically ignore such doses, or
> assume that every member of the study cohort gets about the same dose, or
> that the errors cancel out.  Makes one wonder, sometimes!
>
> Good luck, Bjorn -- I for one will be looking for the responses to your
> query.
>
> Ron Kathren
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 5:04 PM
> Subject: Business airflights = occupational exposure?
>
> > Radsafers,
> >
> > I want to hear your points of view: A businessman/woman who does a lot of
> > air travel (due to his/her work) gets more of cosmic radiation than
> others.
> > Should this be classified as occupational exposure or not? Are there any
> > clear analogies?
> >
> > Bjorn Cedervall  bcradsafers@hotmail.com
> > http://www.geocities.com/bjorn_cedervall/
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
begin:vcard 
n:Tschaeche;Al
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
version:2.1
email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Al Tschaeche
end:vcard