ICRP 2 standard (was Re: LNT)

[peter.thomas@health.gov.au]

For illiterates such as myself, is anyone willing to convert the figure of 0.1

uCi

(presumably Ra-226) to mSv/y?  I threw some numbers together and came up

with a figure of 70 mSv/y, not too dissimilar to the current annual occupational

dose

limits (50 mSv/y USA, 100mSv/5y - 20 mSv/y ICRP) but then I'm just a kid playing

with matches so to speak.  I expected from Bill's tone that the figure would be

higher, though I guess he may have been referring more to the EPA 0.15 mSv/y

and NRC 0.25 mSv/y clean-up standards



Peter Thomas

PRMS

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

peter.thomas@health.gov.au







If I remember correctly, the only radiation protection standard based on

human data was for radium and other bone seekers.  A cohort of dial

painters was followed, and it was found that no individual with a body

burden of less than 1 uCi  suffered any ill effects from the uptake.

Throw in a safety factor of 10, and the ICRP 2 standard was 0.1 uCi.

This was then expanded to other bone seekers, based on energy, QF, and

distribution factors.  This was a sensible standard that held until ICRP

30 and the new 10 CFR20.  Where did we go wrong?



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com









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

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/