[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dose Limits to the public
Keep in mind that with the potential release of scrap metal and other
materials into commerce, the ever-growing recognition of NORM in our
lives, and"second-hand" radiation from released medical patients as
examples, the potential amount of sources one person can encounter in a
year goes up significantly, such that a constraint of 1 mrem/y per
source is being debated (which I think is what started this thread).
That is also part of what the NAS committee is looking at for NRC.
This may also be a market question. Imagine Ricardo Montelbon with his
pancake detector selling his "background" Chrysler Cordoba, and then
putting the pancake down on the "elevated" competitor's car. Which car
would the soccer mom buy?
Less numerous is the contention that the steel industry is predicting
loss of market share if release of scrap metal goes forward, that would
cost billions, in effect shifting costs from the parties responsible for
the D&D to the steel industry. News of radioactive scrap metal around
the world hardly even gets attention any more since it has become almost
commonplace.
Basing the public dose limits on science alone is not going to happen.
It will be based on a variety of inputs (you can choose the scenarios
yourselves).
What we can do is weigh in on what the individual constraint should
be.
Phil Egidi
phil.egidi@state.co.us
>>> "John Morgan" <rpconserv@HOTMAIL.COM> 02/15/02 12:27PM >>>
That may be the case. So, how do you ensure that an individual member
of
the public is not exposed from some other non-medical source? I don't
see
how this can be effectively done, so it seems that you are left with a
de
facto limit of 0.25 mSv.
I am sincerely looking for an answer on how to handle this.
>From: Brian_Gaulke@HC-SC.GC.CA
>Reply-To: Brian_Gaulke@HC-SC.GC.CA
>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re:
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:14:54 -0500
>
>
>
>No, this is not a de facto limit of 0.25 mSv. You are confusing
limits on
>sources with limits on individual doses.
>
>Brian R. Gaulke, CHP
>brian_gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>"John Morgan" <rpconserv@HOTMAIL.COM> on 2002/02/15 12:25:33
>
>Please respond to "John Morgan" <rpconserv@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>cc: (bcc: Brian Gaulke/HC-SC/GC/CA)
>
>Subject:
>
>
>
>
>For design of new facilities we are guided by the recommendations in
NCRP
>116 for exposure to members of the public. It states the design
protection
>goal is such that "no member of the public would exceed the 1 mSv
annual
>effective dose limit from all man-made sources" (not including
medical
>care). However, the confusion comes on p47:
>
>"whenever the potential exists for exposure of an individual member of
the
>public to exceed 25% of the annual effective dose limit as a result
of
>irradiation attributable to a single site, the site operator should
ensure
>that the annual exposure of the maximally exposed individual, from
all
>man-made exposures, does not exceed 1mSv on a continuous basis.
>Alternatively, if such an assessment is not conducted, no single
source or
>set of sources under one control should result in an individual being
>exposed to more than 0.25 mSv annually."
>
>Isn't this a de facto limit of 0.25 mSv? How often are we going to be
able
>to garrantee that Joe Public isn't touring reactor sites as a
prefered
>vacation activity? So the real question is for RPPs and facility
>shielding,
>should the goal be 0.25 mSv or 1 mSv effective dose for an
individual?
>
>
>
>..........................................
>"People demand freedom of speech to make
>up for the freedom of thought which they
>avoid. "
> - Soren Kierkegaard
>..........................................
>
>John Morgan
>rpconserv@hotmail.com
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>************************************************************************
>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/
>
..........................................
"People demand freedom of speech to make
up for the freedom of thought which they
avoid. "
- Soren Kierkegaard
..........................................
John Morgan
rpconserv@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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/