[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: dose limits for members of the public
I
believe the shipyard study addressed that rather clearly--those w/ the highest
exposures were healthiest. And it wasn't that long ago that the limit was 5
rem/y not to exceed 5(n-18). The only people who approached the limits were
those that needed to. Some did, most didn't. I used to volunteer for the higher
dose jobs early in the quarter so I could approach my quarterly admin limit on
jobs I chose, rather than waiting around to be assigned to jobs I didn't want
later on. Never approached 5 rem for the year. As I've said before, my primary
concern now is radiation detriment.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
In a
message dated 2/12/2002 12:50:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
I also don't agree that we can say that there is no harm to a
worker when they have received 5 rem for each year of their
employment. There is no evidence to support that.
The fallacy of this kind of
argument is that if we set the limit at 5, then everybody will get 5. This is
not the case in real life. If we set the limit at 5, then maybe 10
people will get 5 and 1 or two may get more, but most will get below .2 (off
the top of my head with no data to back it up) and many will get none.
If this is true or close to true, then why not set the limit at a much
higher value, let the system work to keep everybody below that level as we now
do and save the extra money to do real safety where lives are saved.
On the other hand, I don't have an argument for the litigation issue.
John Andrews
Knoxville, Tennessee