AW: ICRP Background Dose

[Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Tom, 



I am happy to read your comment, because I have had problems  n o t  to

react on requests to RADSAFE for the "average" dose rate for this and

that state or county. 



Average (arithmetic means? geometric means?) values are simply nonsense

in radiation protection, unless we adhere to the concept of

"personSv's". The public is not interested in personSv's, but in their

personal doses or rather risks. What is for scientists of importance is

the distribution of yearly doses, showing how many people are exposed to

dose-rates higher than xxx and lower than xxx. 



Besides of this meaningless "average" the values cited in the UNSCEAR

2000 report are not realistic - neither with regard to their upper nor

their lower end. You correctly mention that much higher background doses

(from external radiation only!!!) are known. I do not know of any

studies of those people living in South America at elevations of four to

five thousand meters about their cosmic ray exposure, but I guess it

must be manifold, just taking my not at all representative measurements

with a very simple dose-rate meter in an aeroplane into consideration.



I definitely claim that the maximum doses on Mother Earth are higher

than 2.4 mSv, I further claim that radiation protection should not stick

to the highest measured doses as a reference value. 



I believe that I remember correctly that UNSCEAR published a diagram

about distance (km) from the Chernobyl Power Plant and contamination.

Since the contamination depended solely on the prevailing winds and

rainfall and not at all on the direct distance from the power plant this

finding of "UNSCEAR" is so ridiculous that it puts is scientific

reputation at stake. 



Averaging is a good old trick to manipulate results: 1000 people taking

0.001 ng cyanide via certain nuts will survive without ever noticing any

adverse affects and one person taking deliberately 1 g of potassium

cyanide will die immediately - so at the average potassium cyanide is

completely harmless! Nobody has ever claimed a hormetic effect......



Best regards,



Franz



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

--



Franz Schoenhofer

PhD, MR iR

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Vienna

AUSTRIA

phone -43-0699-1168-1319





> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu [mailto:owner-

> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] Im Auftrag von Tom Mohaupt

> Gesendet: Montag, 29. November 2004 21:11

> An: RadSafe

> Cc: Kim Morris; krk@slac.standford.edu

> Betreff: ICRP Background Dose

> 

> The ICRP Recommendations for 2005 contains a statement regarding

> background doses across the world that doesn't make sense to me.

> Paragraph 158. "The world wide average annual effective dose from all

> natural sources, excluding radon, quoted in the UNSCEAR 2000 report is

> 1.2 mSv with a range of 0.8 mSv to 2.4 mSv."

> The upper range value of 2.4 mSv (240 mrem) per year seems too low for

> the places on earth with very high natural background doses. Ramsar,

> Iran has an average terrestrial dose of 10.2 mGy (1 rem) (maximum of

260

> mGy/year (26 rem))

(http://www.taishitsu.or.jp/radiation/index-e.html),

> and this dose value doesn't include cosmic radiation, internal doses,

or

> radiation weighting factors, which would increase the dose further

still.

> It seems the upper part of the range should be the most highly exposed

> people on the planet. Can anyone explain why there's such a big

> difference? Is the highest dose to people in Ramsar, Iran; Guarapari,

> Brazil; Kerala, India; and Yangjiand, China really only 2.4 mSv as

> reported by UNSCEAR (and referenced by the ICRP) or did they omit the

> really high background values to avoid that tricky issue.

> Also, I noticed that the ICRP did not include a discussion of the

> biological effects of persons from these high background areas in

their

> report.

> Tom

> 

> --

> 

> Thomas Mohaupt, M.S., CHP

> Radiation Safety Officer

> Wright State University

> 937-775-2169

> tom.mohaupt@wright.edu

> 

> 

>

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

> 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/