Re: Federal Guidance Report No 13

[carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>]

At 08:45 PM 3/18/98 -0600, you wrote:
>FGR 13 will allow us to no longer stop with the calculation of doses
>to the public.  Why stop with rems and Severts when we can calculate
>the numbers of cancer deaths we'll cause with our nasty emissions?
>
>For example:  Suppose your facility somehow has an accute release
>of U-238 oxide (it used to be inhalation type Y, but that's gone
>away and it's probably now type S for Slow).  Anyway, assume AMAD of
>1 micro m and assume that 10,000 people somehow received an accute
>intake of 1,000 Bq of this stuff.  FGR 13 provides a mortality risk
>of 6.07E-7 for this type of intake.  Our 10,000 people times
>1,000 Bq times the risk factor equals 6 cancer deaths (99.9 % of
>them, lung cancers).  This sort of calculation will make
>environmental impact statments as much fun as a root canal.
>
>Lets do the Denver calculation:  From NCRP Report No. 93, pages 11
>and 12 the annaul cosmic radiation dose in Denver is 0.50 mSv and
>only 0.26 at sea level.  For terresterial radiation; 0.63 at
>Denver and 0.16 for the Atlantic/Gulf region.  This is an excess
>of 0.71 mSv/yr for Denver residents over say Boston residents.
>
>Lets assume that its all gamma radiation, ignore structural
>shielding and let a Gy = a Sv.  The lifetime mortality risk factor
>for this type of radiation is 5.75E-2 per Gy according to Table
>7.3 of FGR 13.  Assuming a 75.2 year life span, we get a lifetime
>probability of cancer mortality of 0.0031.  This means that if a
>million Denver residents (new borns anyway) would move ASAP to
>Boston, 3,100 fatal cancers could be averted.  This is clearly
>worthwhile.  Therefore, the EPA's numbers indicate that
>DENVER SHOULD BE EVACUATED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>
>Or maybe this application of the LNT theory should be examined.
>
>The EPA is receiving comments on FGR 13 untill June 30, 1998.
>
>No disclamers.
>
>Jesse Coleman
>
>RADSHOALS@AIRNET.NET
>
>