[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: What to do ? ? ?
I believe the present ruling by the NRC is 0.1 REM (1 millisievert) to the
general population from the Licensee. Also, the Licensee may request up to
0.5 REM (5 millisievert) to an individual under certain circumstances.
Reference: NUREG-1736, part 20, 3.20.1301, page 3-67. Also see EPA's
environmental standards 40CFR part 190. Of course these are exclusive of
background, medical, etc.
Ed
Edmond J. Baratta
Radiation Safety Officer
Tel. No. 781-729-5700, ext 728
FAX: 781-729-3593
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV [mailto:Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:54 AM
To: lists@richardhess.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: What to do ? ? ?
<<If I recall correctly 0.5 REM/year is the guideline for the average
population??? What would you consider a guideline for worrying? Getting all
of that in a week? One day? 10x that in a week? Rough ideas would be
helpful.>>
I believe Howard Long (I'm surprised he didn't respond yet but can correct
me if I've misquoted him) has said that hormesis effects diminish after 50
rem acute and 1 rem/day chronic. And I further seem to recall on the
dose-effect hormesis curve that the break-even point for acute exposure is
at 100 rem, which is where some exposed at that level may start feeling
flu-like symptoms. I'm going to have to reach way back into memory here, so
anyone can feel free to jump in with new or more accurate info, but since
the whole-body lethal dose (LD) 50/30 dose is about 450 rem (50 percent of
those exposed without medical treatment will die within 30 days), I guess my
response would have to be, "You don't need to worry at any exposure level."
If you're exposed at that level and don't have access to medical treatment,
it's because none is available anywhere because something equivalent to
nuclear destruction has occurred, whether natural or manmade. Otherwise, at
that level you'll be sick enough to seek medical treatment soon after
exposure, and may be given more radiation to kill additional damaged cells
before a bone marrow transplant. If you're exposed below that level
(recognizing that these are statistical, not absolute, data points), you'll
be sick for a while and then recover. And since a dirty bomb isn't going to
produce those radiation levels (or would incapacitate the bomb-maker/courier
in the process), at what point would worrying come into play? You can be
(rationally) concerned about the conventional explosive, but not the
radiation. It's pretty much in the category of "if it doesn't kill you, it's
good for you." My opinion, of course (for anyone who wants to apply this out
of context).
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard L. Hess [mailto:lists@richardhess.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 8:50 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: What to do ? ? ?
Hi, Ruth,
I appreciate the response from you and others--in fact, I've been kept
quite busy tonight replying to some very generous and kind responses.
I've seen you talk about threshold effects before on this list and it is
interesting--especially in light of the recent studies another responder
referred to about BETTER health among some groups of nuclear workers.
At 11:27 PM 08/11/2002 -0400, RuthWeiner@aol.com wrote:
>The "dirty bomb" would most likely require cleanup, but it is hard to see
how
>it would actually cause any health effects. All of these putative health
>effects are based on the theory that there is no threshold for radiation
>damage, and that the cancer induced is derectly proportional to the
>radiation dose. This theory has never nbeen verified experimentally, but
>the existence of thresholds is being seen more and more. In other words,
>we don't know that there would be any health effects.
If I recall correctly 0.5 REM/year is the guideline for the average
population??? What would you consider a guideline for worrying? Getting all
of that in a week? One day? 10x that in a week? Rough ideas would be
helpful.
I wrote:
> I understand the difference between controlled, scientific testing and
> journalistic sensationalism, but I also believe at least to some degree,
> "where there's smoke there's fire."
>Why?
How long did people suspect smoking was bad for you before the surgeon
general came out advising against smoking? Why isn't smoking outlawed? I
just don't always trust people who tell me "don't worry." This is certainly
not a personal attack--I've been following your posts for several months
and believe you to be a woman of integrity.
>Neither I-5 nor I-90 go anywhere near Hanford or INEEL, if that's what the
>concern is. I have driven that route many times, and I see no basis for
the
>suggestion.
Heck, he was a Montana native--what do I know? There are some reprocessing
plants somewhere in that area, I believe. In fact both up and back there
was one big spike near Idaho Falls, but I won't be able to easily pinpoint
it--I don't think the GPS log and the time log in the HP100 were that well
synced. I may try, but not tonight.
>Not surprising. I would be surprised if you would get above background on
>the public highway that goes right through the Hanford reservation. We
>couldn't get readings 10 meters from a known hot source.
That is good to know.
> I realize the question is asked in good faith, but I will leave further
>responses to others.
I tried to ask in good faith as there are so many conflicting things out
here--and most of my friends are anti-nuke. If anything, I think lurking on
this list for two months has made me far less anti-nuke as I learn what you
and others are doing and some small part of what you all know.
Thanks!
Richard
************************************************************************
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/
************************************************************************
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/