Re: Linear Hype

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     Point 1 ...
     
     Not my point at all ...  All I am saying is that as health physicists, 
     we shouldn't reject the processes we have in place which have afforded 
     our workers assurances that we are concerned with their "health and 
     welfare" ... as well as for the general public. I agree with the 
     concept of eliminating costly rules for doses that are in the low mrem 
     range. I only take issue with that value being up around the current 
     regulatory limits. It is therefore not a difference in concept, only 
     at what level do we agree on.
     
     Point 2 ...
     
     The information of the number of workers who are within various dose 
     ranges comes from the NRC annual report, based on the 10CFR20.407 
     report requirements. It therefore only contains information for those 
     required to submit the report to the NRC. 
     
     
     Sandy Perle
     Supervisor Health Physics
     Florida Power and Light Company
     Nuclear Division
     
     (407) 694-4219 Office
     (407) 694-3706 Fax
     
     sandy_perle@email.fpl.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Linear Hype
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet-Mail
Date:    10/18/95 2:34 PM


To: RADSAFE --INTERNET RADSAFE@ROMULUS.EH


Sandy, two things:  what you seem to be saying is if health physicists want
 to keep working we should take that into consideration when we try to decipher
 the "truth" of the linear hypothesis.  Secondly, does the figure of only 2
 radiographers exceeding 5 rem have some other qualifier?  If not then Canada
 could sure use some help, we had 4 industrial radiographers over 5 rem in
 1993 and I think that the US may have more ind.radiographers in total.

Radiation Protection, Ministry of Health, British Columbia
The opinions and material above are solely those of the author.
This is a disclaimer for postings to bulletin boards, newsgroups
etc., on the internet.