[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Midyear talk
Ruth et al
I agree on the lack of a standard. We discussed this at an International
Symposium in Ottawa in the late '90's. A major issue (it least for me) is
that the RBE, while modified from the "physical" value using animal data, is
primarily for cancer induction in individual humans. It should not be used
to insure the a "non human" species will survive.
I have an old (2001) draft copy of a Canadian ACRP WG report "Protection of
Non-Human biota from Ionizing Radiation". It was ACRP-22 but I don't know if
the WG finished it.
John
_________________
John R Johnson, Ph.D.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of
RuthWeiner@AOL.COM
Sent: February 13, 2004 7:42 AM
To: "Stabin, Michael"; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Midyear talk
Mike, I just have to weigh in on Item 4. There is no basis whatsoever for a
standard for protecting non-human species! We have standards for people
because we have evidence for adverse health effect, even though at low doses
this evidence is open to question. But we have NO evidence of adverse
effect of less than acute doses to any non-human species.
Moreover, this opens a gigantic can of worms. Such a standard would
interfere significantly with animal testing of radiation therapies. It
would also interfere with transportation and storage of radioactive
materials (so if there is an accident, is someone going to sue on behalf of
the contaminated plants?) and with cleanup (are you going to have to clean
up the cleanup waste? it might contain seeds, earthworms, etc.) how about
the bacteria in the WIPP and in any waste reporitory? Are we going to apply
a standard to them?
How do we know anything about species vulnerability? Most animals don't
live long enough to get cancer. Is this now going to spawn some huge
research project on the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation on
cabbages or pine seedlings?
This seems to be just another effort to (a) get research money for a project
whose evaluation will be so difficult that anything would be acceptable,
and/or (2) just another anti-nuke ploy.
Ruth
In a message dated 2/12/2004 9:13:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Stabin,
Michael" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu> writes:
>
>There was an excellent talk at the midyear given by Gary Kramer of
>Health Canada. In the context of discussing air monitoring for internal
>dose assessment, he gave an overview of interesting changes probably to
>be proposed by the ICRP by 2005, as gleaned from a number of
>presentations he has seen. Among the interesting highlights (to me,
>anyway):
>
>Item (1) A tiered system of response related to dose:
>Above 500 mSv - intervention required.
>20 -500 mSv - 20 mSv is the recommended occupational dose limit, and
>radon remediation and countermeasures operate in this region.
>0.3 mSv - Planned public dose limit.
>0.01 mSv - below this, protection is considered optimized, and no action
>is needed.
>
>Item (2) New values for wT - perhaps a reduction in the value for
>hereditary effects.
>
>Item (3) wR for protons reduced from 5 to 1, a continuous function
>applied for neutrons (instead of the current step function).
>
>Item (4) Applied radiation protection standards for species other than
>humans.
>
>Now these are my impressions of Gary's slides, please don't yell at him
>if I have any of the details or interpretations a bit wrong, and
>remember as well that these are just his interpretations of what the
>ICRP may propose. The 0.01 mSv "no action" level and the interest in
>active environmental radiation protection (instead of the passive, "if
>we've protected humans, we've protected the environment" approach) were
>particularly interesting to me.
>
>Gary also noted that there is exactly one country now in the world that
>has not adopted ICRP 60 dose limits and methodolgy (as well as SI
>units); we all know who that is. I call on my US colleagues to consider
>turning in their AAA card (Absurd American Arrogance) and ending this
>international embarrassment soon.
>
>Mike
>
>(need I say, my views only, not of my employer, not as list moderator,
>merely list member, etc.?)
>
>
>Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
>Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Vanderbilt University
>1161 21st Avenue South
>Nashville, TN 37232-2675
>Phone (615) 343-0068
>Fax (615) 322-3764
>Pager (615) 835-5153
>e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
>internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
>
>
>************************************************************************
>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/
>
>
--
Ruth F. Weiner
ruthweiner@aol.com
505-856-5011
(o)505-284-8406
************************************************************************
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/