Re[2]: Blue Ice & [I-131]

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

It will only be until we get rid of the linear hypothesis as the basis
for radiation protection standards and have everyone understand that
there is no risk from either a few hundred millirem or a few millirem,
that this inconsistency will go away. Dan Strom is right (HPS
Newsletter,October, 1995, pg 6),"Radiation science, radiation
protection, and regulation of uses of radiation have differing, even
conflicting, paradigms ..." But, it is the linear hypothesis that causes
those differing paradigms (HPS Newsletter, November, 1995, LT-N Model
Wrongly Applied, pg 11). Let's be consistent, have a single numerical
value for the annual limit and quit the ALARA nonsence below that limit.
Al Tschaeche

*** Reply to note of 11/29/95 09:46

From: GOLDIN, ERIC
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re[2]: Blue Ice & [I-131]
Isn't this a tangled web we weave?  Here a patient is permitted
(albeit against the guidelines provided by the nuclear medicine
department) to sit for hours in very close proximity to others, and
deliver an external exposure rate around 100 mR/hr (not to mention the
internal exposure that likely occurs as well).  On the other hand, we
have significant portions of the public who are concerned about
radioactive releases from nuclear power plants that deliver less than
1 mR per YEAR to a hypothetical member of the public.  The benefit of
the iodine administration is clear and immediate to an individual,
while the benefits of pollution-free electricity are diffuse, not well
understood, and chronically apply to large populations.  How will we
ever convince the public we understand radiation protection when there
are such dichotomies in our regulatory environment?

Eric Goldin
goldinem@songs.sce.com


Nope.  Release from regulatory control is just that.  There are no
additional restrictions (However, the airlines could impose
restrictions.  Their disclaimers don't appear to apply, though, since
that would also restrict anyone with K-40).

Wes