[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Your expert perspective...
To: RADSAFE --INTERNET RADSAFE@ROMULUS.EH
*** Resending note of 09/29/95 09:17
rnross@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
To: BGPHILLI--BCSC02 Brian Phillips
*** Forwarding note from BGPHILLI--BCSC02 09/29/95 08:56 ***
To: RNROSS --BCSC02
Enforcement Branch, B.C. Ministry of Health, Burnaby, B.C.
Wonderful things come down the wire. Good for stimulating the mind! Do you
have an answer to the question? Have Canadians been duped by industry because
we have been using SI for years? Oh how gullible we are, not our American
friends!
Regards, Brian Phillips , B.C. Ministry of Health
210, 4940 Canada Way, Burnaby, B.C., V5G 4K6 Canada
Tel: (604) 660-6630 FAX: (604) 660-6663
E-mail: bgphilli@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
*** Reply to note of 09/29/95 08:46
Good day radsafers
An associate of mine is taking a general biology class at a
local community college. The instructor has an anti nuke
agenda. She has given the class an assignment asking the
class to answer particular questions concerning the nuclear
power industry. One question suggests that the nuclear power
industry started to replace REM with the SI unit Sieverts
for dose equivalent reporting. This instructor is convinced
that this was done because the sv equivalent for rem would
appear to be a smaller number, and would not be such a shock
when reported to the public. Rather than reporting 100 rem,
the industry would fool the world by reporting 1 sv. This
change, as the instructor points out, was done after the
Chernobyl accident.
Would anyone care to shed some light on this assumption? I'm
sure one rational shotgun blast will blow her theory away.
Sorry if it raised your blood pressure. Thanks in advance. I
can't imagine anyone being further off base.
T.Fox
Sr. HP Tech
Office of EH&S
University of California, San Diego
tom_fox@ehs.ucsd.edu