[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: What is Safe
If I am not mistaken, LNT was also put forth at the tripartite conference
held at Chalk River (1949) to draft the first version of what was to
eventually become ICRP #1.
Emelie Lamothe
lamothee@aecl.ca
> ----------
> From: David W Lee[SMTP:lee_david_w@lanl.gov]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 5:38 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: What is Safe
>
> --=====================_27088593==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Much thanks is due to Ron Kathern who clarified in his post of today (16
> Feb
> 99) that use of the LNT by the ICRP in 1959 (ICRP #1) was predated by the
> NCRP
> in 1954 (NCRP 17). Since my post to RADSAFE on 11 Feb 99 appears to be
> the one
> which CLEARLY frustrated Harry, having now read his post below, I see very
> little difference between the "ICRP buying into LNT as fact" and the ICRP
> adopting the use of LNT as the philosophy under which it chose to lower
> the
> primary dose limits as set forth in ICRP 1. I think most of us can agree
> that
> the LNT is not FACT and never has been; but it is a fact that the ICRP has
> chosen to use it at least since its very first official report in 1959.
> Best
> regards David
>
>
>
>
> At 01:58 PM 2/16/1999 -0600, you wrote:
> >I agree completely with Al Tschaeche's post on ICRP. What I don't agree
> >with is other posts (which I somehow lost) stating that ICRP had CLEARLY
> >bought into LNT by 1959. When they use statements such as
> "conservative",
> >" effects of low doses are not known" and "for the purposes of radiation
> >protection", I take that to mean that they were saying (to paraphrase)
> that
> >in the absence of evidence either way we should use the most conservative
> >assumption (LNT) for the purpose of protecting the workers, the public
> and
> >the environment. To my thinking, that does not indicate CLEARLY buying
> into
> >LNT as a fact. If they had had the information we have now, I wonder if
> >they would have taken a different tact? I wonder what the authors of
> that
> >original position think about the extremes to which it has been taken.
> Is
> >my logic flawed -am I using selective reading to come to an
> interpretation
> >that agrees with me just as the proponents of LNT use the reverse
> reading?
> >Are we all just seeing what we want to see?
> >
> >Harry
> >Harold.Reynolds@RFETS.gov
> >303.966.2708
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
> DAVID W. LEE
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Radiation Protection Services, ESH-12
> X-Ray/Source Control Team Leader
> PO Box 1663, MS K483
> Los Alamos, NM 87545
> PH: (505) 667-8085
> FAX: (505) 667-9726
> lee_david_w@lanl.gov
>
> --=====================_27088593==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
> <html>
> <font size=3>Much thanks is due to Ron Kathern who clarified in his post
> of today (16 Feb 99) that use of the LNT by the ICRP in 1959 (ICRP #1)
> was predated by the NCRP in 1954 (NCRP 17). Since my post to
> RADSAFE on 11 Feb 99 appears to be the one which CLEARLY frustrated
> Harry, having now read his post below, I see very little difference
> between the "ICRP buying into LNT as fact" and the ICRP
> adopting the use of LNT as the philosophy under which it chose to lower
> the primary dose limits as set forth in ICRP 1. I think most of us
> can agree that the LNT is not FACT and never has been; but it is a fact
> that the ICRP has chosen to use it at least since its very first official
> report in 1959. Best regards David<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> At 01:58 PM 2/16/1999 -0600, you wrote:<br>
> >I agree completely with Al Tschaeche's post on ICRP. What I
> don't agree<br>
> >with is other posts (which I somehow lost) stating that ICRP had
> CLEARLY<br>
> >bought into LNT by 1959. When they use statements such as
> "conservative",<br>
> >" effects of low doses are not known" and "for the
> purposes of radiation<br>
> >protection", I take that to mean that they were saying (to
> paraphrase) that<br>
> >in the absence of evidence either way we should use the most
> conservative<br>
> >assumption (LNT) for the purpose of protecting the workers, the
> public and<br>
> >the environment. To my thinking, that does not indicate CLEARLY
> buying into<br>
> >LNT as a fact. If they had had the information we have now, I
> wonder if<br>
> >they would have taken a different tact? I wonder what the
> authors of that<br>
> >original position think about the extremes to which it has been
> taken. Is<br>
> >my logic flawed -am I using selective reading to come to an
> interpretation<br>
> >that agrees with me just as the proponents of LNT use the reverse
> reading?<br>
> >Are we all just seeing what we want to see?<br>
> ><br>
> >Harry<br>
> >Harold.Reynolds@RFETS.gov<br>
> >303.966.2708<br>
> >**********************************************************************
> **<br>
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription<br>
> >information can be accessed at
> <a href="http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/%7Erad/radsafe.html";
> eudora="autourl">http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html</a><br>
> </font><br>
>
> <br>
> <font size=3>DAVID W. LEE<br>
> Los Alamos National Laboratory<br>
> Radiation Protection Services, ESH-12<br>
> X-Ray/Source Control Team Leader<br>
> PO Box 1663, MS K483<br>
> Los Alamos, NM 87545<br>
> PH: (505) 667-8085<br>
> FAX: (505) 667-9726<br>
> lee_david_w@lanl.gov<br>
> </font></html>
>
> --=====================_27088593==_.ALT--
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html