Re: What to do ? ? ?

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 08/11/2002 8:55:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:





> 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.






The current NRC regulation, which is a matter of compatibility for all Agreement States (meaning it is basically a national standard for commercial uses of Atomic Energy Act material) is 100 millirem per year to any member of the public from licensed operations, with a few exceptions here and there.  As has previously been pointed out, a fetus borne by an occupational worker is allowed up to 500 millirem over the gestation period (if the woman elects to declare her pregnancy).  Family members, roommates, co-workers, etc. of certain nuclear medicine patients (most likely iodine-131 therapy patients treated for hyperthyroidism or thyroid cancer) are allowed to receive up to 500 millirem per year as well.  Occupational wokers may routinely receive up to 5,000 millirem per year and up to 10,000 millirem per year under certain pre-planned circumstances.


The June 2001 GAO report, on the continued disagreement between the NRC and EPA, states that below 5,000 to 10,000 millirem there is no evidence of health effects - harmful or beneficial.  I know members of this list may refute that, because there actually is some legitimate evidence of beneficial effects, but it's still not "mainstream" science in the common sense of the phrase.


The natural variation in background radiation in the U.S. covers about an order of magnitude - i.e., from about 100 millirem per year to 1,000 millirem per year (in the higher elevations of the Rockies).  The Denver area has some of the highest background levels in the country, yet Denver County has the third lowest cancer rate in the country.


There are a number of things to keep in mind when considering radiation:


1.  It is probably one of the most well-studied and understood of all the carcinogens.  (Try running a google search on "risk" and "fatal cancer" and see how many sites come up on radiation versus the myriad of other known carcinogens).


2.  Compared to other known carcinogens, we have an amazing capability to detect its presence.  The development of instrumentation devoted to finding every last radioactive atom in this world is far beyond the development of equipment designed to detect most other hazardous substances, making it an easier target for regulation (and, subsequently public fear) than other substances.


3.  It has the unique status of being associated with the dreaded atomic bomb.  Most lay-persons in my generation will, in the back of their minds, always connect radioactivity to some extent with the nightmare of the atomic bomb, as it was presented to us in our formative years.  There is a psychological component to the fear of radiation (as discussed here at length) that may take a formidable amount of education to overcome.


Those are my thoughts on the matter - my personal thoughts, and not the thoughts of anyone I work for, or have worked for, or have ever written a critical editorial about.  


Barbara