[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 5 rem (50 mSv)/y as BRC Level
The evidence for a causal relationship between lung
cancer and smoking I think has now been demonstrated, no matter what the
cigarette companies say. The same is not true for low levels of ionizing
radiation and cancer. So what Joel has been saying is not "suspicious."
It is interesting tome that the ICRP, NCRP, BEIR, etc. only focus on
things like chromasome aberations and not much on repair mechanisms. They
focus on effects that may have a causal relationship to radiation and
not at all on studies that show no effect or even a beneficial effect.
It is almost as though those bodies WANT there to be a deleterious
effect from radiation (although why, I can't imagine). One would study
those populations with exposures less than 5 rem per year to see if
there were a beneficial effect just as one would study populations with
exposures above 5 rem per year to see if there were a deleterious
effect. I'm a little tired of always hearing about bad effects when, in
fact, there may be none. I'm almost to the point of saying: "If
radiation is so bad, why did God put it here?" But, I don't want to drag
theology into this string (unless some one else brings it up). However,
I did send a note to Bishop Sano in LA about his exhortation to LA
Methodists to oppose Ward Valley.
We seem to be at the point in this discussion where the argument
devolves into a consideration of whether one is a pessimist or an
optimist, or a conservative or a liberal, or some other pair of
descriptors. Without data it is difficult to carry on a rational dialog.
So, maybe only emotional arguments will out in the end. Have a happy 10
days. Al.
*** Reply to note of 10/24/95 09:54
From: ronald kathren
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE
Subject: Re: 5 rem (50 mSv)/y as BRC Level
Joel --
I hate to say it, but your argument sounds suspiciously like those of the
tobacco companies -- ie there has never been a case of lung cancer 'proven'
to have been caused by cigarette smoking. As for people in high background
areas, the results of studies attempting to link their higher exposure with
morbidity or early mortality have proven, by and large, inconclusive,
because of a number of factors including the small size of the populations
involved. However, in the Kerala State of India, an increased incidence of
Down's syndrome and chromosome aberrations has been reported. Similarly,
increased chromosome aberrations were observed in the Brazilian population
of Guarapari. (Cf. BEIR V, pp. 383-385 for an excellen summary).
Finally, if a priori you conclude that 50 mSv (5 rem) annually is basically
risk free, then why even study populations or people exposed at or below
this level?
Ron
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>