Re: Low doses (was Re: HPS objectives)

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

David Lee said, AND, very well ...

> As a point of further discussion, I think it might be interesting to
> discuss the WHY of why do we in the ionizing radiation safety field NEED to
> have a separate dose limit for the public at all?  

The answer lies in the fact that an occupational worker accepts the 
risk for doing the work, the risk compared to the benefit. The rub is 
.. WHAT risk???  Perceived risk, yes ... Regulator assumed risk, yes 
...  Individuals and entities who prosper when they can continue the 
idea that there IS risk, yes ...    Someone is profiting, someone 
continues to receive grants to conduct research, someone gets to sell 
more newspapers and TV time .. all based on this "risk" ... In 
reality, there is NO risk ... If there really were a risk, then it 
would make no sense to exclude some radiation and include others. 
Radiation exposure is exposure, no matter where it originates from. 
What we see is which groups in society wield the power ... medical is 
excluded ... should it? Isn't that where the majority of the GSD is 
derived? If there really is a risk, then it should be accounted for. 
But, there is no risk, and LNT needs to be abandoned, and rational 
regulations need to be implemented and the ungodly amount of $$$ 
being spent need to be funnelled to making improvements where they are 
really needed. That isn't in dose reduction!

------------------
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

ICN Dosimetry Website:
http://www.dosimetry.com (~ July 27)

Personal Homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205 
http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html

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