RE: defining LDR

["Dr Christoph Hofmeyr" <chofmeyr@nnr.co.za>]

Dear Franz,

You seem to have overlooked our (less civilised?) medical colleagues, who are not subject to the same civilised limits, either for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes.

Chris Hofmeyr

chofmeyr@nnr.co.za



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

From: Franz Schoenhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT]

Sent: 29 August 2003 10:00

To: Jerry Cohen; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: AW: defining LDR[Scanned]





 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von Jerry Cohen

Gesendet: Freitag, 29. August 2003 01:06

An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Betreff: defining LDR





    It occurs to me from recent postings that we may not all share the same concept of what constitutes LDR "low-dose radiation". Considering the continuum of dose levels (from zero to infinity), it seems (IMHO) that there should be three distinct dose ranges: LDR, IDR (intermediate), and HDR. 

    LDR would be defined as any dose below ~1.0 rem/a. This could be considered the "hormesis" range wherein as doses decrease, the recipient becomes worse off from effects of radiation deficiency. 

    In HDR, the "stochastic" range  (>100 rem/a), the recipient becomes worse off as doses increase, up to and including short-term death.

    In IDR (1.0 to 100. rem/a) , there is a "wash" between harmful and beneficial effects and the net effect to the recipient would be subject to individual differences in susceptibility, and overall state of health.

   Does anyone have thoughts on this? 

 

     --------------------------------------------------

 

Yes, I have. 

 

Most of us RADSAFErs, if not all, live in civilized countries, where radiation protection legislation is in force. This legislation has in all cases I personally know, distinct  limits for radiation exposure. The 1 mSv/a concept for members of the public is very widespread and for instance in the European Union, but in most other civilized countries it is the standard. There are standards for radiation workers, which are limited in any way to values far below your mentioned 100 rem/a. 

 

In the same civilized countries no hormesis effect is accepted and no beneficial effects are considered. 

 

Nobody (at least not me) denies you of your right to campaign for a different regulation world-wide. You should be aware of your chances, which are absolutely zero. In the meantime you as well as all people working with radiation have to comply with their specific national radiation legislation and any overexposure will and should be punished. 

 

When you drive 90 miles/hour on a straight double-file road in the USA, where 60 is the maximum allowed speed, even with no car for miles and you are caught by a highway patrol you will be fined. Why should the same principle not be applied to overexposure? 

 

Regards,

 

Franz