Re: doubling dose/"low level"

[Keith Welch <welch@jlab.org>]

Franz,

I think we are not communicating due to terminology differences.  It looks
as though you are associating the use of "low level", with "acceptable level".

Also, I was not thinking in terms of 50 mSv/y.  I was looking at a single
(or protracted) exposure TOTALing 50 mSv.  Certainly, there is a difference
between a chronic dose of 50 mSv/y for 50 years and a single 50 mSv dose.

 And, I get your point, but I don't know that the comparison using nitrates
or cadmium (or most any chemical poison) are applicable.  If I'm not
mistaken, chemical MPL is set based on the actual onset of health effects.
(maybe the chemical stuff bothers me more because of my ignorance in this
area)

So, to me the question is:  Is exposure at the current occupational limit
considered "low level radiation exposure" - in the broader sense.  Maybe I
missed something somewhere, but I thought that this was indeed the case -
even if you extend this out of the context of radworkers, I thought it was
generally accepted as "low level" (although not necessarily "acceptable").

****************************
 >Keith,
>
>My reasoning is the following:
>
>50 mSv/y (suppose that the annual dose is meant) is at the moment the
>maximum permissible exposure of occupationally exposed persons in Austria,
>implying that everything should be done, not to reach this exposure. For
>the population the maximum permissible exposure is 1.7 mSv/y. The new
>European directive, which will be implemented everywhere in the European
>Union during the next two years, gives a maximum permissible exposure of 1
>mSv/y. An annual dose rate exceeding the maximum permissible one by a
>factor of 50 is in my opinion not "low-level". I do not think that any
>authority would tolerate for instance lettuce to be sold, in which the
>nitrate concentration is 50 times higher than the MPL or you would like to
>drink water with a cadmium concentration 50 times higher than MPL?
>
>This is why I made this remark - I did not imply and would not like
>somebody else to interpret this in a way that I would regard 50 mSv as a
>deadly threat. And I sure do not support the "findings" of these
>"scientists". 
>
>Franz


"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer"
	- Bones McCoy

Keith Welch
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Newport News VA
welch@cebaf.gov
Ph: (757)269-7212
FAX:(757)269-5048