dose studies vs regs

[BYRPV@ccmail.ceco.com]

     Dave, and all radsafers
     
     Thanks for the advice on retrieval of old radsafe info.  I won't be 
     able to take advantage of it for now since I only have ccmail and no 
     access to a web browser.  You see, I'm internet illiterate.
     
     I really didn't want to rehash the topics already discussed. I was 
     trying to start a philosophical discussion about the ramifications of 
     the research which shows a net beneficial effect of exposure to 
     ionizing radiation but didn't feel I had all the info.  I have some 
     thoughts on what I have read so far.
     
     I work at a power plant.  In my industry there are those who routinely 
     receive in excess of 3 rem per year.  By today's standards, this is 
     considered high.  We spend much time trying to keep people's doses to 
     below 1 rem per year or much less.  If regulations are changed to 
     reflect data I've read about on this server, most health physicists 
     will be out of a job.  After all, it won't take much sophistication to 
     develop and implement a program to ensure that all rad workers receive 
     their 5 rem per year.  University and research health physics staff, 
     though already small will be cut as well.  If exposure is desirable, 
     why bother monitoring releases, controlling isotopes, decomissioning 
     old sites, etc.  
     
     I don't say these things because I fear for my job, I'd be delighted 
     if everyone understood the true risks of exposure to radiation.  Then 
     perhaps nuclear power could return to being the affordable, 
     environmentally friendly industry it was supposed to be.
     
     Please comment. I'd like to hear your views on the subject.
     
     The above opinions are mine alone (truly, I think) and would not 
     likely be approved by my employer.
     
     Paul Vitalis
     byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com