Re: Threshold

[Ruth Sponsler <jk5554@YAHOO.COM>]

If you had read my post more closely, you will see

that it is an attempt to clarify a comment that was

extremely broad.  My comment _limited_ the validity of

that comment.  Without the clarification of '_below a

certain threshold level,_ the original statment might

have merited your 'Dream On' comment.  



However, I don't think that my clarification deserves

this remark.



Qualifying a very broad statement from another and, in

fact, limiting it to a certain specific category of

events (those below a threshold) is not 'dreamy,' in

my book.  



In particular, I mentioned that, even if LNT were

dropped and limits were raised somewhat, people would

still have jobs and funding because risks still exist,

above whatever the scientifically determined threshold

might be.  I believe that all on this list, no matter

their ideas about LNT, would agree that the Houston

radiographer is a perfect example, as 70R (received

instantaneously) is a large enough quantity to cause

adverse changes in blood cell composition.



~Ruth 2

(wide awake)



















--- William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> wrote:

> Dream on.

 





> 

> Bill Lipton

> liptonw@dteenergy.com

> 

> Ruth Sponsler wrote:



> > The phrase "_below a certain threshold level_"

> should

> > be added to this statement:

> >

> > "Why would we reduce unecessary radiation

> > exposure _below a certain threshold level_, unless

> we

> > assume LNT?"





> > Example: Getting zapped with an almost

> instantaneous

> > 70R while trying to inspect welds is a serious

> > _oopsie_, and would be regarded as so, even if LNT

> > were dropped.

> >

> > On the other hand, if LNT were dropped, an

> > end-of-month reading for a worker repairing pumps

> or

> > whatever of 650 mR (external) would be 'so what,'

> even

> > if 10R/y were the max, because 0.65R(12mos/y) =

> 7.8

> > R/y.

> >

> > ~Ruth 2



> > >

> > > Thanks for saying that.  I was wondering how

> many

> > > would notice that

> > > break in rational thought.  Why would we reduce

> > > unecessary radiation

> > > exposure, unless we assume LNT?

> > >





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

http://taxes.yahoo.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/