Re:

[Gary Isenhower <garyi@BCM.TMC.EDU>]

Yes, I was confused.  I've thought about this a bit, and I see now (I

think) the logic behind that NCRP 116 recommendation for 25%

constraints.  It covers the reactor scenario and it covers the medical

professional blding scenario, where office B is exposed by offices A, C,

and E, each one a seperate registrant/licensee.  See my diagram?  The

registrants in A must consider that the next door office, Suite B, may

be exposed (at some future date) by a new registrant in any of the

adjacent suites.

 _____

|D E F|

|A B C|





I might have written it the same way on a really good day.  I retract my

objections to the 25% thing, but I still think 100 mrem / 25 mrem is too

low.  It should have been left at a 500 mrem limit, so we could have a

constraint of 100 or 125 mrem.



"J. J. Rozental" wrote:

> 

> Dear colleagues,

> 

> Seem to me that some colleagues are making confusion between dose limit and

> dose constraint.

> If there is not a good understand on dose constraint surely it is necessary

> refreshment, because dose constraint is fundamental objective of the

> optimization.



    _______________________________________________



	Gary Isenhower

	713-798-8353

	garyi@bcm.tmc.edu

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

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/