RE: Worker exposed to 1,000 times higher-than-normal radiation

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

a. Haven't seen more than the one posting on emdef, so I'm not acquainted w/

em's hormetic properties. I would rather address ionizing radiation

deficiencies than enforcing ALARA, but that's not what I get paid to do. And

it's still the law, at least for the foreseeable future. It's also tempting

to think that raising the annual limits might solve the HP tech shortages

we've been experiencing recently, but I don't believe the industry is losing

many, if any, to dose burnout.



b. What's so hard about lowering high cholesterol?



Jack Earley

Radiological Engineer





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

From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

[mailto:hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 3:37 PM

To: Franz Schoenhofer

Cc: Sandy Perle; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Worker exposed to 1,000 times higher-than-normal radiation





Agreed, Fritz, that this was close to serious damage and fatality, probably

with

greater risk of cancer and lowered immunity. I have not heard of symptoms

from

under this 100 rem (centigray, cSv, rads - approx equiv here, if I

understand

this HP lingo).



Benefit is stated by Luckey: "[hormetic range] <50cSv acute exposure for

mammals."



What would be the dose, acute exposure, that you could advocate for

treatment of

the

electromagnetic deficiency, "emdef?", afflicting as many Americans as is

high

cholesterol?

It is statistically manifested by lower immunity, higher cancer

susceptibility,

etc, and is more easily treated by you, than is high cholesterol by MDs.



One rad (rem or cSv) is the usual dose from one CT x-ray chest imaging, with

Picker, Phillips or GE equipment at our local hospitals, I am told. This is

in

the 1-10 rem to chest range that I explored for a hormesis experiment.  I

have

dropped it, because the subjects and controls would both be getting one rad

yearly from CT, and an additional dose would lose power to show significant

differences



Would HPs rather be correcting emdef deficiency than enforcing ALARA?

What would be the best dose?



Howard Long



Franz Schoenhofer wrote:



> Private:

> Franz Schoenhofer

> Habicherg. 31/7

> A-1160 Vienna, AUSTRIA

> Phone: -43 699 11681319

> e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@chello.at

>

> Office:

> MR Dr. Franz Schoenhofer

> Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water

Management

> Dep. I/8U, Radiation Protection

> Radetzkystr. 2

> A-1031 Vienna, AUSTRIA

> phone: +43-1-71100-4458

> fax: +43-1-7122331

> e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@bmu.gv.at

>

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>

> An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Datum: Dienstag, 25. Dezember 2001 01:50

> Betreff: Re: Worker exposed to 1,000 times higher-than-normal radiation

>

> > At 09:50 AM 12/24/01 -0800, Sandy Perle wrote:

> > >

> > >Japanese worker exposed to 1,000 times higher-than-normal radiation

> > >

> > >TOKYO, Dec. 21 (Kyodo) - A 34-year-old company employee was exposed

> > >to 1,000 times the maximum annual permissible level of radiation at a

> > >Tokyo

> > hospital Friday while

> > >setting up medical equipment, the science and technology ministry

> > >said.

> > **********************************************************************

> > ****** *********** December 24, 2001

> >

> > Isn't that "permissible" level of 1 millisievert for a member of the

> > public rather than a radiation instrument employee?

> >

>

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

> -------

>

> Yes, it is, but the person was described in Sandy's posting as a person,

who

> normally has not worked with radiation, therefore he has to be regarded as

a

> member of the public.

>

> On the other side, at least in most European Union countries the maximum

> permissible dose is 20 mSv per year for radiation workers. Only in special

> circumstances this dose may be as high as 50 mSv per year, provided that

the

> total dose during five years will not exceed 100 mSv.

>

> 1 Sv within a short time is clearly an exorbitant high dose, which is not

to

> be neglected. Especially alarming are the circumstances: negligance and

> without doubt breaching of rules like checking the presence of people.

>

> Therefore I think that this is really noteworthy and a real accident, not

> comparable with a car accident. To comment, that he has not developed

nausea

> and therefore there is nothing special at all and it should not be

mentioned

> in the news - like one message on RADSAFE read - is not acceptable.

>

> Franz

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/