Re[2]: Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of P

[LASMG@ccmail.ceco.com]

     Al,
         Sorry about that last sentence, reading it now, I agree it doesn't 
     make a lot of sense, but it did at nothing o'clock in the morning.  
     Please allow me to clarify.  
          Some months ago, on the news, they gave a report on an 
     association of hot dog consumption and increase risk of leukemia in 
     children.  They stated that if a child ate hot dogs more than twice a 
     month, his chances of developing leukemia increased by a factor of 5.  
     These are bogus numbers because I really can't remember the exact, but 
     I hope you get the general idea.  My youngest son loves hot-dogs and 
     has been known to eat 4 or 5 at one sitting.  I was in ab absolute 
     panic for a short time thinking that I was giving my son cancer, until 
     I came to my senses.  I believe the same holds true with radiation.  
     For instance, if you tell a person he can receive "x" amount of dose 
     without any ill effects, he will hold that number as an absolute.  At 
     our station workers are allowed to receive 300 mrem a day minus or 
     admin. limits of course.  There have been times when these workers are 
     in a panic when they approach this number thinking they are going to 
     loose a limb or sight in one eye.  It gets even worse it they are 
     approaching their yearly limit of 3 rem.  We as human beings tend to 
     want to believe everything we hear from the media, because they, after 
     all, are the informed.  I am not a Degree HP, so I jump into this 
     thread with much trepidation, but I do have 5 years experience working 
     with the general public and doing my best to educated to the "real" 
     dangers of radiation.  If I am way off base with this, please set me 
     straight.  Thanks for your time, just trying to learn as I go along.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Linear Hypothesis IS the Cause of P
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
Date:    10/18/96 10:14 AM


LASMG@ccmail.ceco.com wrote:
> 
>      I agree with you.  I never really thought of it in the way that you 
>      have explained it.  The public can't fully understand the difference
>      between accumulating 200mrem or 200rem.  By associating numbers with a 
>      threshold effect, we are causing a panic.
     
Thanks for your kind words.  But I don't understand your last sentence. 
What threshold effect is being associated with what numbers?  Sorry for 
my dumbness.  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov