Re: textbook correct?

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

Alden Tschaeche stated:

> If I truly believed that the risk were real, maybe not.  But, in the
> case of low doses of ionizing radiation, there are no data that convince
> me that there is any risk at all at chronic doses of 5 rem per year or
> single acute doses of 20 rem.

It is a fact that prior to the implementation of the current 10CFR20, 
and, implementation of lower dose administrative limits, per INPO 
(Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) whereby a recommended limit 
of no greater than 2.5 rem/yr be used, that many in the power reactor 
world were receiving upto the full 3 rem/quarter ( with completed NRC 
Form 4). Many had lifelime doses approaching 100 rem, and, the 
cancer incidence was not significantly different that the non-nuclear 
reactor world. Of course, if you subscribe to the Alice Stewart and 
Goffman studies, then you'd come away with a different conclusion. 
However, I don't buy their statistics.

------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
mailto:sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
mailto:sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Homepages:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205 (primary)
http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html (secondary)

"The object of opening the mind as of opening 
the mouth is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -