[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu*Subject*: Re: rem vs. rad*From*: Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org>*Date*: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:39:08 -0500*In-Reply-To*: <199803312209.QAA04124@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>

I think we're asking the wrong question. Instead of basing the cutoff on dose, base it on effect. Use rem for ANY dose when estimating stochastic risks. Even if the dose is high, if I want a stochastic risk estimate, I have to use rem (would you try to estimate cancer risk using rads?). As Bob Flood pointed out, the whole stochastic risk model - complete with radiation weighting factors (ie.Q) was "founded" on high doses, and if I'm estimating risk for a stochastic effect, by definition I have to use rem. For non-stochastic effects, one should use rad to determine, for instance if the dose is above the threshold for some particular effect. Example: I rapidly get 400 rem uniform whole body dose (just to make it interesting, it's from neutrons with Q=2, so absorbed dose is 200 rad). To estimate my cancer risk, I use rem. To evaluate the potential for and severity of a non-stochastic effect, I use rad. Keith Welch Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Newport News VA welch@cebaf.gov Ph: (757)269-7212 FAX:(757)269-5048

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: rem vs. rad***From:*browndr@nist.gov

**Re: rem vs. rad***From:*"Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY** - Next by Date:
**RE VA Benefits** - Prev by thread:
**Re: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY** - Next by thread:
**Re: rem vs. rad** - Index(es):