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

*To*: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu*Subject*: Re: rem vs. rad*From*: browndr@nist.gov*Date*: Wed, 01 Apr 98 10:41:45 -0500*In-Reply-To*: <3.0.1.32.19980401093908.00731cb4@popmail.jlab.org>

>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. I think the problem with this may lie in the basis for the determination of the Q values......At what dose rates have the Q values been evaluated for, aren't these somewhat dose rate dependent, especially for higher(??) dose rates. Regards, Dave Brown, chp NIST Reactor Health Physics Gaithersburg, MD 301-975-5810 browndr@nist.gov ****The content of this message has not been reviewed or endorsed by my employer***

**References**:**Re: rem vs. rad***From:*Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org>

- Prev by Date:
**Re[2]: When does "rem" no longer apply?** - Next by Date:
**Re: EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY** - Prev by thread:
**Re: rem vs. rad** - Next by thread:
**Re: rem vs. rad** - Index(es):