[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Demise of UNSCEAR?

  1. ALARA is not intended to control high dose levels. That's what dose limits are supposed to do
  2. IMO, anything <5.0 rem/yr  is not worth worrying about.
  3. On the contrary, ALARA doesn't really improve safety performance. More likely, it causes the squandering of limited resources toward solving non-problems; resources that could be beneficially applied elsewhere.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>
To: 'RadSafe' <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: Demise of UNSCEAR?

> Jerry,
> I assume you meant "radiation is not harmful at LOW dose levels."  Our
> knowledge is at high dose levels, e.g., therapy, Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
> etc.  The question is at what levels do you not worry about harmful effects?
> At 50 Rem? 5 rem? 0.5 rem?  0.1 rem?  Since our knowledge is limited at low
> dose levels, at what point do you think we should be worried? 
>
> Personally, I do not have any reservations about ALARA.  As someone pointed
> out, it is part of a process of self-improvement.  It make you think about
> doing things differently, and maybe better..
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> 3050 Traymore Lane
> Bowie, MD  20715-2024
>
> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)     
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:52 PM
> To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'RadSafe'
> Subject: Re: Demise of UNSCEAR?
>
>
> Perhaps ICRP did not explicitly state that "all radiation is harmful" , but
> why in the world would they advocate ALARA unless they really believed it?
> How about LNT? How about collective dose? Such policies would be absurd if
> radiation were not harmful at all dose levels.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>
> To: 'Jerry Cohen' <jjcohen@prodigy.net>; 'RadSafe'
> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:06 AM
> Subject: RE: Demise of UNSCEAR?
>
>
> > Jerry,
> > I do not know where you get the idea that the ICRP, et. al., consider all
> > radiation harmful.  Where do you see that statement?  Are you reading
> > something into the literature that is not there, as the "opposition" does?
> >
> > I do agree that hormesis can be shown to exist, but should it be used to
> > establish regulations?
> >
> > -- John
> > John Jacobus, MS
> > Certified Health Physicist
> > 3050 Traymore Lane
> > Bowie, MD  20715-2024
> >
> > E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 7:29 PM
> > To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'RadSafe'
> > Subject: Re: Demise of UNSCEAR?
> >
> >
> > YES! Mainly in their discussions of low-dose effects, and particularly in
> > their acknowledgement of the hormesis concept, as opposed to ICRP's
> > essentially ignoring and generally stonewalling the subject. Granted
> UNSCEAR
> > does not embrace hormesis, but at least it is treated with some credence,
> > and not summarily dismissed. I suppose the UN establishment cannot
> tolerate
> > any exception to the common belief that all radiation is harmful. Clearly
> > the idea is politically incorrect.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>
> > To: 'RadSafe' <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:06 PM
> > Subject: RE: Demise of UNSCEAR?
> >
> >
> > > Have you seen any contradictions between the UNSCEAR reports and the
> ICRP,
> > > NCRP, etc?
> > >
> > > -- John
> > > John Jacobus, MS
> > > Certified Health Physicist
> > > 3050 Traymore Lane
> > > Bowie, MD  20715-2024
> > >
> > > E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:55 PM
> > > To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'RadSafe'
> > > Subject: Re: Demise of UNSCEAR?
> > >
> > >
> > > > UNSCEAR assembles experts who comb through and analyze the literature
> on
> > > > such topics as the health effects of the Chernobyl accident,
> non-cancer
> > > > mortality from ionizing radiation, and the risks associated with
> > > > radiation-based medical procedures. Their work forms the core of the
> > tomes
> > > > the committee puts out every few years. The International Atomic
> Energy
> > > > Agency, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and
> > other
> > > > international and national bodies use data from UNSCEAR in setting
> > safety
> > > > standards and making policies, says the committee's chair, Joyce
> > > Lipsztein,
> > > > a radiation protection scientist at Brazil's National Atomic Energy
> > > > Commission. "UNSCEAR is not biased. It's just scientific, not
> political.
> > > > That's why it's so valuable."
> > >
> > > It may also explain why UNSCEAR is dying while ICRP, NCRP, etc. survive.
> > > ************************************************************************
> > > 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/