RE: dose limits for members of the public

["Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>]

 -----Original Message-----

 From: dkosloff1 [mailto:dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM] 



> Michael,

> 

> Applying a 5 rem limit to the public would not be much 

> different than current practices.  



Don, 



It still seems to be 1,250 times the EPA/DOE/NRC limit for radionuclides

in water for Yucca Mountain, etc., including the EPA rules for all

drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act (EPA being sued by

Water, Mining, NEI, and RSH). It could do a hell of a job on the

Hanford, etc. programs (which is why DOE/NRC/AEC/EPA, etc. "research"

suppresses contradictory research/data). Nuclear technology costs to

keep doses ALAUA, <10 mr/yr, could make nuclear technologies more

cost-competitive and expand their application enormouosly, to the

benefit of hp's etc. that would 'lose' the need for extreme sampling

(with sales of some state-of-the-art instrumentation 'lost' - working

against changing current limits to accord with science-based standards).



Regards, Jim

=============



>That is because extensive 

> environmental sampling and hypothetical dose calculations are 

> already required.  Some of the dose calculations are 

> conservatively performed for a hypothetical person who 

> continuosly stays at the site boundary and moves along the 

> site boundary so as to always be at the location required to 

> receive the highest potential

> dose.   In other words this individual would have to be 

> outside on the move

> 24 hours a day, 365 days a year as the wind shifted.  This 

> person, called the "maximum individual", would incur the 

> maximum potential dose from direct exposure (air plus ground 

> plus water), from inhalation, and from ingestion

> of water, milk, vegetation, and fish.   He could only eat and 

> drink the

> things that had the highest concentrations of radionuclides.  

> So he would have to have a team constantly sampling his food 

> and drink to make sure that he was receiving the highest 

> dose.  Goat's milk today from farm A,

> cow's milk from farm B tomorrow.   No food from anywhere 

> distant from the

> plant.   Obviously, nobody ever does anything close to that.  

> But I suppose

> a really dedicated person who wanted to get close to the 5 

> rem limit could make an attempt.  But that would be tough 

> because the plant would probably keep the total calculated 

> exposure at less than 25 percent of the allowed dose and dose 

> drops rapidly with distance from a source.  So a member of 

> the public would really have to hustle to get even 1 rem if a 

> 5 rem limit existed.

> 

> Since plants are already used to meeting the current low 

> limits, reducing emissions after establishment of a 5 rem 

> limit would be easy.

> 

>  Don Kosloff dkosloff1@msn.com

> 2910 Main Street Perry OH

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

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/