[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ICRP 2 standard (was Re: LNT)



Please don't draw conclusions from my "tone," whatever that is.  I guess that what I omitted was that my concern is not over the resulting dose limit,

which has not changed much, as over the rationale.  I believe that if we'd stayed with the classic industrial hygiene approach - determine a level

where no test subjects are impacted and throw in a safety factor - we'd have more reasonable standards.



BTW, the ACGIH, TLV's are NOT designed to protect everyone.  It's recognized that there may be a sensitive population which is impacted by a hazardous

material at its TLV.  Why do radiation protection standards seem to be based on the rationale that life has to be risk free for everyone?



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

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

Let's look at the real problems, for a change.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



peter.thomas@health.gov.au wrote:



> 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/



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

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/