Re: Radiation hormesis

[Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca]

Actually, the increment of dose becomes detrimental as soon as one passes the
(postulated) minimum in the dose-effect curve.  That's when the rate of the
effect (e.g. cancer) begins to increase with increasing dose.  This perspective
is the one an individual would likely take, even though we couldn't say where
the minimum is for any individual.

Brian R. Gaulke, CHP
Head, Dosimetry Section
Radiation Protection Bureau
Health Canada
Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca





GACarlson@aol.com on 99/05/06 02:32:07 PM

Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu

To:   Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
cc:    (bcc: Brian Gaulke)

Subject:  Re: Radiation hormesis




In a message dated 5/6/99 11:04:29 AM EST, wattsa@oak.cats.ohiou.edu writes:

<< What is critical is being educated on the beneficial/harmful levels. >>

So, let's ASSUME that we KNOW precisely at what level cumulative exposure
changes from a benefit (i.e., negative risk of excess cancer) to a detriment
(i.e., positive risk of excess cancer).  Then, the question remains:  How
does a facility assure that its contribution to that cumulative exposure
doesn't push one over that level?

If a facility cannot assure their contribution does not result in exceeding
that benefit/detriment level (whatever that level is), on what basis should
that contribution be credited as "beneficial," i.e, as reducing the risk of
excess cancer?

Glenn
GACarlson@aol.com
************************************************************************
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