[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ICRP 2 standard (was Re: LNT)
Bill,
It's harder with chem limits since there really are sensitive people to
include "the boy in the bubble" that the public could easily understand
would be an "extreme" standard.
The "public" doesn't demand such extremes for rad limits, its just that
after lying to them for 50 years the public doesn't understand the
factors. It's easy for bureaucrats, politicians, and the industry to
play the rad card to get "public support" for extreme costs and votes.
Regards, Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton
Sent: Tue 15-Jan-02 7:10 AM
To: peter.thomas@health.gov.au
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: 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/