RE: Low Doses and LNT

["Lantz, Michael W(Z59078)" <MLANTZ@apsc.com>]

I don't agree that the airline crews are "exempt from control" for the
reason suggested:i.e., that they are exposed to "natural background".
That would be an interesting argument to suggest to a flight attendant
that the exposure rates at 30,000 feet are "natural background", and not
occupational dose. 

In my opinion, I believe that studies were done previously by the NRC to
conclude that the crews incurred less than 500 mrem per year and,
therefore, do not require monitoring (< 10% of limit).  In fact, one of
the other comments would lead you to that conclusion, 0.3 to 0.4 mrem/hr
for usually less than 1000 hrs per year of high altitude air time.  I
believe that the NRC found doses to be actually much less than 500 mrem
per year for flight crews.  Therefore, they are exempt from monitoring. 

It may be interesting to also note, I think that there are studies to
suggest that some people in the transport of radiopharmaceuticals may
incur annual doses greater than 500 mrem; e.g., those who handle
significant TI in centralized facilities in large cities.  

Mike Lantz
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
602 393 5200     mlantz@apsc.com
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.

>----------
>From: 	Al Tschaeche[SMTP:antatnsu@pacbell.net]
>Sent: 	Monday, August 18, 1997 12:18 PM
>To: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	Re: Low Doses and LNT
>
>Tsurikov Nick wrote:
>
>> 1. How come that radiation exposure of employees in nuclear industry is
>> monitored and the airline industry is exempt?
>
>Because the perception is that the airline crews get exposed to "natural
>background" and natural background is exempt from control.
>> 
>> Maybe I am mistaken, but I think that any person inside the plane at, say
>> 25,000 feet, is exposed to external 'cosmic' radiation at a level of
>> about 0.3 - 0.4 mrem/hour.  Am I right?
>
>Approximately.
>
>> I wonder what the reaction of John and Jane Doe will be if they will
>> decide to go to Hawaii for holidays and half of the passengers in the
>> front section of the plane will wear personal radiation monitors.  In
>> addition to it, drinks will be served by the flight assistant with the
>> TLD badge on the chain around her neck...
>
>Visible dosimeters probably will never happen.
>
>> 2. Another quite funny situation can occur if John Doe happens to be a
>> building contractor, who is putting soil through the mesh to obtain a
>> certain grade (say 5 mm) of material for cement mixing.  If traces of
>> uranium and thorium (and, therefore, daughter product - radium) are
>> present in this particular soil component (which is usually the case),
>> then it is a "PRODUCT" (see Regulation and Licensing of Technologically
>> Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) - draft at
>> http://www.webpub.com/~crcpd/).  The draft suggest the exempt limit of 5
>> pCi per gram of Ra-226 or Ra-228.  Since John produces a "MATERIAL WHOSE
>> RADIOACTIVITY IS TECHNOLOGICALLY ENHANCED BY CONTROLLABLE PRACTICES" it
>> is a TENORM and, therefore, subject to different regulations.  Am I
>> right?  
>
>Could be.  Ask the CRCPD if that is their intent.
>
>
>> Let's try to educate anti-nuclear special interest groups first.  Let's
>> have a Joint Conference of, say, Radiation Protection or Health Physics
>> Society and guys like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth.  Let's
>> broadcast it like presidential candidates' debates, let's invite all the
>> media.  Some sort of open forum.  Any questions asked and answered.  For
>> example, what we are going to do when coal,oil and gas will run out?  And
>> let's see what happens....
>
>Would you be willing to set such a meeting up?  If so, where and when? 
>I'd love to attend.
>
>Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
>