Re: " New ICRP guidelines to 'clarify' collective dose, Dicus says"

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 3/26/2004 10:08:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU> writes:



>At 05:32 AM 3/26/2004, Kai Kaletsch wrote:

>Does anyone have a working definition for quot;potential probabilityquot;? 

>*********************************************************************

>March 26, 2004

>

>This phrase is not redundant. In this case the word quot;potentialquot; means more than just quot;possiblequot;. It implies an existing mechanism and real capability of significant injury. It's like quot;potential energyquot;; it really exists although it might not always be manifested or unleased.

>

>Otto

>

>nbsp;

>

>

Are you saying that "potential probability" = "real probability"?  And what is "real probability."?  Is that the same as "non-zero probability"?  And is ICRP therefore saying "a probability [exists] of a health effect [at exposures] ...even as low as 0.01 mSv..." without specifying either the probability or the health effect?  I agree with barbara --- we are in real trouble with this.



Ruth



-- 

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/