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

AW: ICRP Background Dose



Peter,



About 10 or 15 years ago the European Union published an "atlas" among

others about the radon concentrations in indoor houses. When I saw it, I

was really upset, because the distribution in Austria (I am an Austrian)

was simply nonsense. I met the author of this atlas at the NRE

conference in Salzburg, asked him about these wrong tables and he

excused himself that he had received the "data" from MT, a person who is

not entitled to speak officially for Austria in the context of the

European Union and who otherwise has no scientific reputation on this

topic within Austria and Europe. 



If already the European Union adopts information which is totally wrong

I would not be surprised if world over information was not correct and

misleading. It is common practice to exaggerate results, to produce

maximum values as if they were average (arithmetic? Geometric?) ones. I

know this very well from my activities as a reviewer for a well

reputated international journal. 



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 Peter Thomas

> Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. November 2004 00:35

> An: Tom Mohaupt; RadSafe

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

> Betreff: RE: ICRP Background Dose

> 

> The numbers come from simply adding up the high and low ends of the

> "typical range" from Table 31 of Annex B of the UNSCEAR 2000 report.

> (The pdf is 74k and can be downloaded from www.unscear.org)  However

> there's not a lot of discussion in the UNSCEAR report of how those

> numbers were picked as representing a "typical range".

> 

> Paragraph 192 reads "The normal ranges of exposures to the various

> components of natural radiation are indicated in Table 31.  This

> accounts for common variations in exposures [begin emphasis] but

> excludes those individuals at the extreme ends of the distributions

[end

> emphasis].  On this basis, worldwide annual exposures to natural

> radiation sources would generally be expected to be in the range 1-10

> mSv, with 2.4 mSv being the present estimate of the central value."

> 

> I added the emphasis, which does not appear in the original.  In the

> present context I should point out that the 2.4 mSv central value

> includes 1.2 mSv from radon which has been explicitly excluded in the

> ICRP reference.

> 

> UNSCEAR 2000 (Annex B) goes on to say in paragraph 197 "... It is

> estimated that about 65% of individuals have exposures between 1 and 3

> mSv, about 25% of the population have exposures less than 1 mSv, and

10%

> have exposures greater than 3 mSv."

> 

> High background areas receive a mention in Paragraphs 54 - 56 and

Table

> 11 gives some numbers and references.  These imply that annual doses

> above 10 mSv are possible (the numbers are actually quoted as absorbed

> dose rates in air in nGy per hour).

> 

> Peter Thomas

> Medical Physics Section

> ARPANSA

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Mohaupt

> Sent: Tuesday, 30 November 2004 7:11 AM

> To: RadSafe

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

> Subject: 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/

> 

> 

> 

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

> Important: This email (including any attachments) is intended only for

the

> use of the

> addressee and may contain confidential and / or privileged

information.

> If you are not the intended addressee, you are prohibited from

relaying

> on, distributing, disclosing, copying or

> in any other way using any information in this email. If you have

received

> this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase

all

> copies.

> Any opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily held or

> authorised by Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety

Agency

> (ARPANSA).

> Whilst ARPANSA has taken all reasonable steps to ensure this is email

is

> virus free,

> it accepts no responsibility and makes no warranty. The recipient

should

> take its own steps to ensure

> there is no virus and bears full responsibility for any use.

> 

> Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency

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

> 

>

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

> 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/