RE: Ed Calabrese and Linda Baldwin again

To: "'RadSafe'" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Subject: RE: Ed Calabrese and Linda Baldwin again

From: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:45:51 -0400

Reply-To: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>

Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Title: RE: Ed Calabrese and Linda Baldwin again

Ben,

Thanks for your comments. The TLVs I would associate with the ALIs, so I don't think there is a philosophical difference. I generally throw my comments out not to convert anyone, but to start people thinking about what we are, or should, be thinking about. There is no question that a hormetic effect can be demonstrated, but what part should it play in our safety programs?

Also consider like cancer, the induction or initiation of a hormetic response may not lead to a benefit to the organism.

-- John

John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024

E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

-----Original Message-----
From: Morgan, Ben [mailto:ben.morgan@pgnmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 4:35 PM
To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Ed Calabrese and Linda Baldwin again

John,

Regarding your statement: "My belief is that protection standards should be set to protect
all exposed, not just those with the least sensitive to the toxin."

The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists establishes its Threshold Limit Values for airborne contaminants based on the airborne concentrations of substances that represent conditions under which nearly all workers may be exposed day after day without adverse effect. Why should radiation be treated any differently?

While using hormesis to set limits may be going too far, it certainly seems reasonable to base occupational limits on the effects expected for nearly all workers.

For the public, we should certainly try to protect everyone but, in a world of finite resources and a multitude of problems, we need to draw the line somewhere. The real problem is, of course, how to make sure the money that isn't spent on reducing soil contamination by another order of magnitude gets spent on immunizing children.

Regards,

Ben

ben.morgan@pgnmail.com