Re: High Altitiude Exposures

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

Wes, if you believe Dr. Luckey, 100 REM per year is the appropriate
hormetic value. Even I find that number to be somewhat beyond the pale.
But, my calculations based on his data come up with 70 rem per lifetime
as the hormetic value.

I hope we all realize that, even if the limit were 5 rem per year, not
many members of the public would get that much year after year. We can't
allow radioactive material all over the place. So there will have to be
limits for contamination that are based on hazard to THINGS, not people.
For example, no photographic film manufacturer would want his factory
and supplies contaminated with radioactive material. Neither would
computer chip makers, etc. So, the standards for release of contaminated
things probably will remain very close to what it is now. But - think of
the benefit if all the waste repository dose limits were 5 rem per year.
I can't believe the design of those repositories would be much different
than they are now. Anyone have any data on this?

The dose to airline personnel and passengers is so low that we shouldn't
even be talking about it on RADSAFE. For sure, we shouldn't be spending
any resources to measure or mitigate it. Has the radiation reading on
the Concorde ever caused one of those planes to do anything it wouldn't
otherwise have done?

The whole point of all of this is to have us focus on the doses that
really matter. Control of radioactive sources is vital, witness Juarez,
Goiania, etc. The radiograpy buisness, although apparently getting
better, is still where most of the accidental radiation exposure occurs.
And, dare I say it, medical exposure is creeping up. My wife, a couple
of years ago, got about 30 rem EDE from a 6 mev linac during breast
cancer therapy. She has had more medical exposure, unmeasured and
unrecorded (except by me), than I have occupationally. There is
something wrong with this picture. Any thoughts? Al. xat@inel.gov

*** Reply to note of 12/12/95 06:43

From: Wesley M. Dunn
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Re: High Altitiude Exposures
Alden,

One needs to throw in the caveat: if enough of the "right" people
agree....

P.S., I think you would find better agreement at a number somewhat
less than 5 rem, which would allow nearly 100 rem cumulative dose to
an 18 year old (sorry Ron, I won't reflexively use SI until the
regulations get there).

Wes

> Date:          Mon, 11 Dec 95 16:40:16 -0600
> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:          "ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>
> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:       Re: High Altitiude Exposures

>
> 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

*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, C.H.P.                     512-834-6688
Deputy Director, Licensing                 512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control        wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************