Re: 5 rem (50 mSv)/y as BRC Level

[rkathren@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (ronald kathren)]

Joel --

Very hard to reply to your message.  I can't 'prove' anything (especially
the null hypothesis).  For all I know, the universe and all of us were
created a microsecond ago, with full and complete memories.  You have made a
conscientious decision based on your knowledge and interpretation of same
with respect to risk.  What you decide is no different than what we all do,
largely without conscious thought in our day to day living.  I have no
quarrel with you deciding what is or is not acceptable for you and your
family; implicit in that assumption is that you will obey the law, not
impose your will on others, etc.

However, you miss the basic point, I think.  Safety standards should be set,
as Robley Evans said when establishing the permissible level for internal
radium more than a half century ago, so we will be comfortable that our
wives (now spouses for political correctness) and children can be exposed at
that level without concern.  Based on my knowledge and interpretationa, in
my view, 5 rem/y, each and every year, is too great an exposure to subject
my young children to.  I daresay that many, if not most practicing HP's
would concur.

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>