Re: 200 to 230

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV wrote:

> The NCRP notes that the calculation of the 200 mrem has an uncertainty
> of plus or minus 50% just based on the uncertainties of going from WLMs
> to a dose to the bronchial epithelium and going from there to an effective
> dose equivalent. Given the magnitude of this uncertainty alone,  is
> refining the 200 mrem upwards to 230 appropriate?

	--Considering the fact that NCRP-93 adds this to the following
numbers: 27, 1, 28, 39 in their final results given in Table 2.4, I think
it is appropriate.