Re: Business airflights = occupational exposure?

["J.J. Rozental" <rozental@unisys.com.br>]

1 - What you wrote is reasonable, at this moment, taking into account both
ICRP 60 and IAEA Basic Safety Standards, Safety Series 115 recommendations,
that characterize as occupational exposures those exposures which are
incurred at work and principally as a result of work. The Standards apply to
practices, including any sources within the practices, and interventions.
Any exposure whose magnitude or likelihood is essentially unmanageable to
control to Standards is deemed to be excluded from
the Standards (e.g., exposures from K-40 in the body, from cosmic radiation
at the surface of the earth and from unmodified concentrations of
radionuclides in most raw materials).

2 - The dose limits apply to exposures attributable to practices, with
exceptions of medical exposures and exposures from natural sources that
cannot be reasonably be regarded as being under the responsibility of any
principal part of the Standards.

3 - Not all the requirements will apply to every practice or to every
source, and it is up the appropriate Regulatory Authority to specify which
of the requirements are applicable in each case.

4 - The available quantitative recommendations of the ICRP for protection
against exposure to natural sources were confined to radon, which is
normally a chronic exposure situation and should be subject to intervention
(ICRP 65);

5 - There are at this moment ICRP working group discussing the exposure to
other natural sources.

Jose Julio Rozental
rozental@unisys.com.br
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


----- Original Message -----
From: <Kerembaev@cs.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2000 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: Business airflights = occupational exposure?


> Greetings,
>
> I from my point of view it is not an occupational exposure, because an
> "occupational exposure" is a regulatory term. Technically, it is an
exposure
> from any licensed source of radiation.
> But in the reality.
> It is what exposure "radiation" workers are receiving when they are
working
> minus what they would get if they were not a "radiation" workers.
> So if someone flu plane because of the fact that you were a "radiation"
> worker then it would be considered as an occupational. But I can not
imagine
> how could someone argue that in the court. If only a some "researcher"
would
> contaminate the airplane and HP will have to survey it............ in the
> flight
>
> So I am not surprized that licensee do not allowed to take personal
> dosimeters on the flights. Can you imagine how much additional unnessary
> DOCUMENTED work an HP would have to do to explain to a regulator that
> exposure was not from a licensed source of radiation.
> But It doesn't make sense, from the radiological health point of view.
> If there is "evidence" that everything above of 5 rem is definetely
harmful
> than a regulator has to assure that person will not get anything above 5
rem,
> included not just flight exposures but many other exposures.
> So it is the case when "scientists" come up with recomendations, having in
> mind one thing, and a regulatory body, having a different set of mind,
> implementing these recomendations in law.
> Also, It is one of those things: "everybody knows, nobody want to speak
out",
> like if we do not talk about it than it doesn't exist. Something like
little
> kids are doing when they are scary.
>
> It is not that I am criticizing anybody particular. I don't think that
there
> is an easy
> way out.
>
> 1. Practically,
>   If to consider flight exposures as occupational exposures than many of
us
> won't be able to work and to fly in the same time at all, considering
almost
> ALL ALARA limits.
>
> I am not talking about the picture when with every birth, a child is
getting
> with a birth certificate also a personal ..... "TLD".  It would be
probably a
> dream picture of dosimetry
> industry CEOs. ;-)
>
> 2. Seriousely,
>   I see to use this "phenomena" as one of examples which can help public
to
> accept radiation as a part of our life. Because, I think, that a general
> public is trying to control the radiophobia by trying to control "known as
a
> harmful" sources of radiation.
>
> So this is my view and I stick with it.
>
>
> I am agree, Lets talk about that more............
>
>
> Emil.
> kerembaev@cs.com
>
> Why are poeple having three different languages, writting, spoken and
> thinking?
> Why can't they write what they say and speak what they think?
>
> "Unknown Author"
>
>
> In a message dated 1/28/00 5:04:56 Pacific Standard Time,
> bcradsafers@hotmail.com writes:
>
> << 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?
>   >>
> ************************************************************************
> 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