Re: High Altitude Exposures

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

Bob --

Excellent point, and good for discussion.  Were it not for ALARA, which has
no floor is also part of the regulatory guidance, I would agree that these
are practical de minimis levels.

Now to brace for the flood (pun unintended) of comments.

Ron Kathren
rkathren@beta.tricity.WSU.edu


>Sidenote on military high altitude data - there are dosimeters made
>exclusively for the very high altitude missions (U-2, SR-71, Aurora) but the
>dosimeters and dose data are classified. Knowledge of such doses and high
>altitude dose rate distributions about the planet (altitude, pole vs
>equator, etc.) and over time (solar activity and such) could allow a
>potential enemy to estimate flight levels, flight paths, and past flight
>schedules. This would endanger the flights, and the military will not
>release the data for this reason.
>
>Question for discussion: both regulatory systems (DOE, NRC) have monitoring
>thresholds. The NRC's is 500 mrem/y, the DOE's 100 mrem/y. Doses below these
>levels have no regulatory standing, i.e., they do not have to be measured or
>recorded. Are these values not operational de minimus levels? As a
>dosimetrist in a DOE program, I am not compelled by law to pay any attention
>to doses under 100 mrem/y other than to be confident that the doses are
>below the threshold. Doesn't this mean that any dose total below 100 mrem/y
>is "reasonable," i.e., so small that it doesn't even have to be measured? Is
>such a dose ALARA?
>
>Should help keep the conversation lively.
>Bob Flood
>Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
>(415) 926-3793
>bflood@slac.stanford.edu
>
>
>