RE: LNT and hormesis

[nick.tsurikov@ILUKA.COM]

Hello Brian,

 

The agreement is that 100 mrem/year for member of the public is THE LIMIT.

 

Then funny things start to happen...

Let's assume a person lives in a place where he could be exposed to

radiation from NPP, phosphate plant, nearby hospital, titanium pigment plant

and coal-fired power plant that can theoretically give him/her 100 mrem/year

each.

So, despite the fact that each 'facility' is within the 100 mrem limit, a

person gets 500 mrem...

The idea of "dose constraints" is not new - I believe in The Netherlands it

is 10 mrem and in UK - 30 mrem/year.  It might sound absolutely

unreasonable, but these things are not limits, at least I am yet to find out

somewhere that a 'facility' will be prosecuted in any way if it exceeds, say

10-20 mrem/year.   The intention, as I understand it, is to set up some

thresholds to ensure that a practice that could give a person 10, 40, 80,

whatever... mrem/year is looked at a bit closely, preferable by the State

regulatory authority - to ensure that doses are ALARA.  If they are - no

worries, mate.  If not - make some kind suggestions for the improvement.

That's at least how I see stuff like, say, CRCPD Part N SSR for TENORM and

many legislative acts in countries outside US, and in the international

legislation.

 

Kind regards

Nick Tsurikov

Eneabba, Western Australia

http://www.eneabba.net/ <http://www.eneabba.net/>  

 



-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Keele [mailto:bdkeele@HOTMAIL.COM]

Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2001 08:31

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: LNT and hormesis





NRC dose limits are 5 rem for occupational workers and 100 mrem to the

public. These limits are reasonable and readily achievable dose limits

regardless of LNT or hormesis. Appendix B is based on ICRP 30 and should be

updated regardless of dose response theory.



The EPA has limits of 4 and 10 mrem on the books. Those limits are not

reasonable regardless of the LNT argument. 



OSHA uses 1950's MPC guidelines of ICRP 2.  They should be discarded or

modernized regardless of LNT.



Reduced limits due to hypothetical multiple pathways and/or overly

conservative pathway modeling is very expensive regardless of LNT or

hormesis theory.



Just my personal thoughts,



Brian Keele





   _____  



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

<http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp> 

************************************************************************ You

are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe, send

an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. 



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.