Re: Criteria for Population Exposures to Radiation

[John Goldsmith <gjohn@bgumail.bgu.ac.il>]

Dear Ron and Joel (and interested radsafers)
	This discussion has been an interesting one, and I hope
useful as well.  However, attractive as it seems to bring the 
discussion on to the individual level, (how do you feel about being exposed
regularly to 5 rem/yr?) this is a poor basis for policy decisions.
The first reason is that we all know cancer to be a rare disease
and with a little effort can learn that most of the persons exposed
to many carcinogens don't get cancer; if we are to reduce the burden
of excess cancer, we advise cigarette smokers to stop, populations not to 
be exposed to unnecessary radiation, avoid use or take special 
precautions with certain chemicals, etc.  And we are making some 
progress.  Individual experiences and preferences are only of marginal 
relevance to population experience, and  estimating population 
experience often requires delay and expenditure, so it usually is 
under-reported
	The second issue is the one of different future values in 
different populations.  Cancer risk was of little concern to a population
like that in 17th century London, or many impoverished locations today.
Day-to-day survival was far more important than any event which may take 
place in 30 years, if survival allowed this.  With present life expectation
in most countries and the feelings of impotence against cancer, prevention
of cancer by reducing risky unnecessary exposures has a positive value.
	We have made mistakes in the past, and and these emphasize the need 
to be sure that radiation used is justifiable.  While trying to put in 
perspective, possible risks from cellular phones, I reviewed the follow-up 
of the 20,000 or so children given X-Ray epilation for ringworm of the scalp 
in Israel between 1948 and 1960.  Of about 10,000 followed to 1982, 273 deaths
had occurred in exposed children compared to 207 in the referent group of the 
same age, etc.  11 excess deaths were due to all neoplasms out of 49
in the exposed group.  Five of the excess deaths were due to leukemia, which
based on exposure estimates leads to an estimate of 0.9 excess leukemia 
per million per year per rad.  That sounds tiny, but there are less risky 
treatments for ringworm ! (Ron et al., Am. J. Epidemiol. vol 127, 
713-725, 1988)      John Goldsmith, Ben Gurion U. of the Negev, POB 653
                        Beer Sheva, Israel 84 120

On Thu, 19 Oct 1995, Joel T. 
Baumbaugh wrote:

>      Ron,
> 
>      As  you are well aware, there are many places on this planet
> where  every man, women and child are exposed to total  effective
> dose  equivalents in excess of 5 rem/yr (Poco de Caldas in Brazil
> is  one).  These populations have been studied pretty extensively
> with  no  ill effects noted (no higher rates of leukemia etc.)  I
> myself  have  a bathroom with 202 uranium oxide tiles (the  house
> was  built in 1926) and let me tell you, it is a "warm and toasty
> bathroom".  Yet I let my 4 1/2 year old take her bath there every
> night.   Yes,  I've weighed the risks and yes, I've come  to  the
> conclusion   that   the   risks   are   so   small   as   to   be
> negligible/unmeasurable - God only knows there are enough "other"
> things  that  all  of  us ingest through  our  food,  respiratory
> systems etc., that have an equal or greater potential to cause us
> harm.
> 
>      Yet,  I  must admit, I am a true believer in "prudence"  for
> prudence  sake.   I  handle  large  sealed  sources  with  remote
> handling tools, I don't spend more time than necessary in bunkers
> with high radon levels, etc.
> 
>      I  guess what I'm trying to say is that as H.P.'s we have (I
> believe)  knowledge  of  the  risks, and each  of  us  puts  that
> knowledge  into his or her own perspective of what or how great a
> risk  is.   All  of us know a LOT of "people  who  have  attained
> years"  (i.e.  old)  health  physicists who  have,  in  the  past
> received "big time" doses with no ill effects.  Is this a case of
> "familiarity  breeds  contempt"??   Maybe, but in most  cases,  I
> don't  think so.  Five rem/yr sounds like a big number, but is it
> really?   Can  you  tell me that 5 rem/year is going to  give  me
> cancer  or  otherwise  shorten my life-span?   Would  it  really?
> Prove  it!  Don't give me a bunch of clever (you better watch out
> for the bogey man) rhetoric, Prove it!
> 
> 
>      Joel Baumbaugh  (baumbaug@nosc.mil
>      NRaD
>      San Diego CA
> 
>      Std.  disclaimer:  These are my and only my opinions and  do
> not  necessary reflect those of my boss', the Navy or the Federal
> Govt.
> 
>                     --- message separator ---
> 
> __________________________________________________________________
> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 00:08:26 -0500
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From: "Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: 5 rem (50 mSv)/y as BRC Level
> 
> Just  out  of curiosity, I wonder how many on RADSAFE  would  be
> willing  to  be exposed a 5 rem (50 mSv) annually each and  every
> year?   Or have their children, pregnant wives or selves  exposed
> to this level?
> 
> Just asking.  Let the flak fly -- I'll be away from e-mail for 10
> days  or  so but would be interested in hearing opinions.  In  my
> own case, I would not be willing to incur such an exposure.  And,
> when  my  wife  was  pregnant with twins many years  ago,  at  my
> recommendation  she declined an x-ray that the obstetrician  when
> asked admitted was likely of no use but was something he had been
> taught  in  medical school.  ALARA anyone?  Don't forget,  the  R
> stands for reasonable.
> 
> Ron Kathren
> 
> PS  to Melissa and fellow Radsafers -- These discussions are,  in
> my  view,  highly  informative  and educational.   My  thanks  in
> advance to those who help me to shape my own views.
> 
> 
> 
>