RE: A radiation unit for the public

["Jim F. Herrold" <Herrold@UWyo.Edu>]

John:

Before I get started, let me tell you I am NOT shooting down your
concept, I am just trying to understand it better before I formulate an
opinion. I LIKE the idea of giving the public comparisons they can
understand when explaining radiation doses. I don't like comparing
apples and oranges (like comparing radiation to cigarette smoking), so
comparing radiation to radiation is a good idea. However, I have a
problem with trying to compare fixed and measurable (or at least
calculable) equivalent doses with ones that are estimated and variable.
When using BERT units of background radiation, I assume we would have to
make them sight-specific. Natural background here in Wyoming can be two-
to three-times that in Texas. What background levels does the Surgeon
General use? Also, our total background exposure includes both external
sources and those taken internally (hence the big factor thrown in for
radon). Even more variables have to be thrown in when you take radon
into account (type of housing, lifestyles, etc). Our BERT numbers cannot
be more than over-simplified estimates and averages. I am not
comfortable with using these types of numbers as national standards.

Comparisons also have to make sense to the public. In this I mean they
have to be able to touch, hear, taste, smell them. They can't do this
with background radiation. Also, it is difficult to make comparisons
between things, on one hand, which are natural and uncontrollable and
things, on the other hand, which are "man-made". A woman might be able
to accept the fact that she gets 100 mrem in 4 months from natural
radiation, because she can't do anything about it. She might choose
against getting the mammogram, however, even though it is "only equal to
FOUR MONTHS of natural radiation". Four months sounds like a lot of
time, hence it sounds like a lot of radiation (even though it's not). 

Actually, for use as comparison units, I think the general public has a
better grasp on the risks and benefits of medical x-rays and nuclear
medicine than they do with their natural background. When explaining
occupational doses in training, I refer to medical x-rays because people
are more acceptable when they feel they have control. The public has no
control over natural radiation, and it is not universally accepted as
being beneficial. The EPA has been spilling it all over billboards that
natural radiation KILLS.

Just some thoughts....

Jim F. Herrold
Radiation Safety Officer
University of Wyoming
Environmental Health & Safety
312 Merica Hall
Laramie, WY 82071

herrold@uwyo.edu
(307) 766-3277


 


>----------
>From: 	JOHN CAMERON[SMTP:jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu]
>Sent: 	Thursday, September 25, 1997 9:34 AM
>To: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	A radiation unit for the public
>
>Dear Colleagues: Below is the latest "edition" of what I originally (1989)
>called  BERT - Background Equivalent Radiation Dose  for explaining
>radiation to the public. I plan to propose that the Health Physics Society
>consider the following motion for transmission to the Surgeon General:
>"Resolved that all explanations of radiation to the public be given in
>terms of time to acquire the same effective dose from background
>radiation." Some HPS chapters may wish to consider this motion at their
>next meeting.  The NCRP  approved this idea in NCRP Report No. 117 1993
>(page 51). I plan to ask all radiation related societies to pass similar
>resolutions. Your comments and suggestions are requested to
>jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
>
>A RADIATION UNIT FOR THE PUBLIC  (NOT COPYRIGHTED)
>	A radiation unit for the public has been proposed by Professor
>Emeritus John
>Cameron of the University of Wisconsin-Madison based on natural radiation.
>The unit  is easily understood by the general public and news reporters.
>Radiation is measured in time - how many  hours, days, weeks, months or
>years of natural or background radiation will give you the same effective
>dose as the medical exposure. Compare  "Your mammogram gave you about 100
>mrems of effective dose.: OR "Your mammogram gave you radiation equal to
>about four months of natural radiation."
>	A dental bitewing is equal to about one week of natural radiation;
>a chest x-ray  to about ten days; and a barium enema x-ray study, to about
>one year. Each medical center should measure their own x-ray equipment
>since the dose varies from one x-ray unit to another. The average amount of
>radiation to the public from diagnostic x-rays each year is equal to about
>seven weeks of background.
>	There is no evidence that natural radiation causes cancer. There is
>some evidence that natural radiation might actually reduce cancer. The 7
>western states with the most natural radiation have a cancer death rate
>about 15% lower than the average for the country. (1) A study of radon
>levels in homes Vs. the lung cancer death rate in 1700 counties shows that
>the counties with the most radon have the lowest lung cancer death rates.
>Counties with more than 5 pCi/l have 40% lower lung cancer death rates than
>the counties with radon levels below 0.5 pCi/l.(2) It looks like radon in
>the home actually prevents some lung cancers caused by smoking! Smokers may
>wish to consider how to increase their home radon level if it is below 5
>pCi/l.
>
>(1) JH Fremlin - Power Production - What are the risks? 2nd ed. Adam Hilger
>1989 p. 58
>(2) Health Physics 1995 68:157-174
>
>Check out ELECTRONIC MEDICAL PHYSICS WORLD - EMPW - which links to AAPM,
>IOMP etc.at  http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~empw and the Bibliography of
>books and journals in Medical Physics and related fields at
>http://www.medphysics.wisc.edu/~cameron.
>
>John R. Cameron, 2571 Porter Rd., P.O. Box 405, Lone Rock, WI 53556-0405
>Phones: 608/583-2160;  Fax: 608/583-2269
>At the end of September we return to our home at 2678 SW 14th Dr.,
>Gainesville, FL 32608   phones : 352/371-9865; Fax 352/371-9866
>
>my  e-mail all year is: jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu
>
>
>