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

RE: Rads/rems (formerly radiographer "overexposure")





Similarly, re. photographic emulsions (film), ICRU-47 (Sect 3.8.1, p. 13)

states that "Absorbed doses as high as several Gy can be measured; however,

the concept of dose equivalent is no longer applicable at such levels."



Is it not an acknowledged fact that the stochastic risk was de-facto

determined from radiological accidents (i.e., doses in the 10's and 100's of

rads from nuclear bomb survivor data)? If so, why does ICRU claim that the

applicability of the concept to high doses is dubious? Is there not a

contradiction here? 



Grant



-----Original Message-----

From: Fischer, Karl (NIH/OD/ORS) [mailto:fischerk@ors.od.nih.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:16 AM

To: 'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'

Subject: Rads/rems (formerly radiographer "overexposure")





Regarding the usage of rads/rems for high doses, Paul Frame posted an

informative response back in 1998 (courtesy of the RadSafe archives):



**********



ICRP 60 p114



"The quality factor is applicable only for stochastic effects in the dose

range up to tens of mGy."



ICRU 51 p6



"The quantity dose equivalent is defined for routine radiation-protection

applications. It should not be used in numerical assessment of high level

exposures, for example in radiation accidents."



NCRP 91 p 11



regarding the quality factor Q  "it is applicable at low doses for the

biological effects of primary concern i.e. cancer induction and severe

genetic defects. Q is only to be used at low absorbed doses in the range

of the annual radiation protection limits and not for the high doses that

might occur in accident situations."



In other words, there is no clear answer.  



Paul Frame

Professional Training Programs

ORISE

framep@orau.gov



**********



Karl Fischer

kwf@nih.gov



-----Original Message-----

From: NIXON, Grant (Kanata) [mailto:GNIXON@MDS.Nordion.com]

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 10:09 AM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: radiographer "overexposure"



Dear Bill,



I'm not sure why you claim that mrem is an "invalid" unit for acute doses (I

would think that either rems or rads would be appropriate but nothing with

"milli"). 

************************************************************************

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/