Re: High Altitiude Exposures

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

Al --

There sure would be!!!  And I (and I would hope you too) as a professional
health physicist would agree that this level is far too high (and uses
obsolete units as well).  50 microSv (50 mrem) is closer to my thinking for
occupational exposures, as was put forth in a 1985 paper by me, Leo Munson
and Dave Higby in Radiation Protection Management.

Ron
    
>Ron - well, if you'd accept 5 rem per year as de minimis and get
>everyone else to do too there would be a "real de minimis level." After
>all it's only by agreement that the regulations are made. If enough
>people agreed that 5 rem per year IS de minimis, it would be. :-). Al.
>xat@inel.gov
>
>*** Reply to note of 12/11/95 15:12
>
>From: ronald kathren
>To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE
>
>Subject: Re: High Altitiude Exposures
>Some points to ponder:
>
>Some 15 years ago, in an editorial in Health Physics (39:149, 1980), I
>raised this very point; it is nice to know that it is now being revisited.
>However, a mean exposure level of 1-3 mSv translates to less than 1/4 (or
>even 1/10) the MPE, so theoretically, no monitoring is required.  As for the
>DOE world, many of their (and contractor) employees who are not radiation
>workers(perhaps even including the well travelled Secretary O'Leary herself)
>would likely have to be monitored because of the 100 mrem/y regulations.
>And, what should be done about thew person temporaily assigned to Denver
>where the background component is higher.  Is this occupational exposure
>because his/her employer assigned him/her to a high background area?
>
>Ah, were there only a real de minimis level!!!!!
>
>Ron Kathren
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Chat has been down to a minimum.  Everyone must have taken an early holiday.
>>
>>A while back, a thread ran on exposures to flight attendants and pilots.
>>The mean exposures were between 1-3 mSv/year.  Hmm...this sounds like
>>occupational exposure.  In the world of DOE, these individuals must be
>>monitored for exposure because they exceed 100 mrem/year under typical
>>conditions (10CFR835).
>>
>>Where is the dosimetry?  Where are the exposure records?  Navy Nukes are
>>badged...aren't they?
>>
>>I had the luck of living next to a couple of flight attendants
>>(stewardesses-not politically correct).  No badges...no RAD training...  How
>>do these folks get by the regulators?
>>
>>Flying the Concord surely allows a larger dose.  I understand that it is
>>less time, but the flight is much higher.  Now we're talking high energy
>>physics (>20Mev neutrons and much higher energy cosmic rays-accelerator type
>>stuff).
>>
>>Do I fly or take the train with John Madden and his All Madden Team?
>>(please delete my message on responses and comments)
>>
>>*********************************************************
>>DISCLAIMER!!!DISCLAIMER!!!DISCLAIMER!!!
>>The opinions expressed may not be those of my employer.
>>
>>Matthew Williamson
>>USDOE
>>Environmental Measurements Lab
>>376 Hudson Street
>>New York, NY  10014-3621
>>
>>tel:   212-620-3793
>>fax:  212-620-3600
>>email:  mattw@eml.doe.gov
>>
>>"I believe that many children are born with an inquisitive mind, the mind of
>>a scientist, and I assume that I became a scientist because in some ways I
>>remained a child."
>>- Leo Szilard
>>*********************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>