[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radiation hormesis
Hi Alex,
As silly as most of these tortured rationales to justify the LNT are
(like we don't know how to manage with the fact of hormesis when we do
it with most toxics, including most of the stuff in our vitamin pills
that have closer limits than IR between essential and toxic levels -
good grief), your parallel here is relevant. But consider that: IR
policy considers 0.01 of the variation in the natural range of exposure
as of regulatory interest/concern/intervention; and any increment of
dose must be justified.
> the message delivered in anti skin cancer campaigns is based on a philosophy which is analogous to the ALARA principle - minimise exposure to sun, use sunscreen, shirt, hat, sunglasses when outside, avoid outdoor activity in the middle of the day if possible.....
In IR, "minimize exposure" is literal, now including radon as natural
that is considered dangerous even though it has never been shown to be
so (unlike high natural levels of selenium for example). Policy would
require that people stay indoors (preferably with shades drawn); get
permission from the solar nazis to go outside at all - only if you
justify a great societal benefit, to the satisfaction of the IR nazis,
from Vienna (who "know best" :-) and promulgate this nonsense.
> So IR is not treated all that differently UV from the sun here, except that there are no regulatory limits for exposure. If we applied the "system of radiological protection" to UV exposure from the sun, the social and economic considerations required by the ALARA principle would probably necessitate essentially the status quo.
This is true if you ignore the fact that we don't evacuate high IR dose
regions, but if you apply reg limits to this parallel, then a) we should
"evacuate Denver" etc., and those limits would lead to requiring solar
permits to go in the sun, (only fully covered, with badges, work plans,
etc.), consider beaches to be "high SR areas"; there could be solar
protectionists calling to put opaque domes over cities, and not only to
stay indoors but to cover windows, etc. (like opening a vial in a fume
hood before giving the whole thing to a person to ingest/inject, with no
evidence that those doses are harmful.
Plant "grow-lights" (remember hormesis? :-) would be outlawed, and
plants would be kept in closets/cellars (to die - remember hormesis and
that any organisms that have less than low natural levels of IR die).
Tanning booths would be treated as shoe fluoroscopy machines, etc etc.
:-)
You've opened an interesting perspective on how to make the comparison,
IF solar rad (SR) were controlled as IR :-) Forget getting enough
vitamin D. :-)
Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
> Cheers
>
> Alex
>
> >>> <tmohaupt@wright.edu> 05/07/99 04:06am >>>
> Radsafers,
>
> Glen presents an interesting point of view. Since ionizing radiation
> is simply a form of energy, it can be readily compared with other
> forms of energy and their effects. Keep in mind that there is no
> type of energy that is safe in high levels. Radiation is the only
> one to which a LNT is applied. The LNT is a political
> position and, most likely, not an accurate description of reality.
> Personally, I'd like to see radiation regulated to prevent real
> damage, much the way we do with other forms of energy, rather than
> treat it like the witchcraft trails of the late 17th century in New
> England.
>
> An example: Sunlight is known to cause cancer, cataracts, and a host
> of other detrimental effects. If, out of precaution for the health and
> well being of the general public, a Solar Regulatory
> Commission decided to apply a linear no-threshold model to solar
> radiation risk, we would probaby have to close beaches and other
> outdoor activities to keep exposure limits within acceptable limits. Even on a
> cloudy day you would be exposed, and that may be unacceptable, unless
> you have a need to be outside that overrode the risk. If a lifeguard
> gets melanoma 20 years later, can he/she sue his employer to a
> hazardous working environment? But wait, sunlight is essential for
> life! Being exposed 60 times in a day for 1 minute each time is
> beneficial (i.e., promotes Vitamin D), where one exposure of 60
> minutes can result in sunburn, which is a significant risk factor for
> skin cancer. How does one assure that recurrent exposures to trace
> levels of sunlight do not cause sun cancer?
> What about potential energy (ie altitude)? If a person falls from
> 100 feet, there's a strong liklihood the person would die. The LNT
> would say that if you hop to a height of 6 inches, one out of
> 200 hops you would die. That's not true. It's called exercise and
> it is promoted as a salubrious effect. Once again the LNT doesn't fit
> and shouldn't be applied.
> Name the energy, electricity, UV radiation, heat, impact, wind, etc.,
> Each has levels where truly harmful effects can be observed. And
> each has lower levels which are either beneficial or inconsequential.
> Ionizing radiation is no different.
> How does this apply to the proposed rules for setting an allowance
> limit for releasing metals for recycling to the public domain? The
> proposed release values will result in exposures that are fractions
> of background or inconsequential compared to the natural variability
> of background. We cannot prove radiation is safe in low levels; however
> we do know that low levels are NOT UNSAFE, which is the same
> criteria we apply to all other forms of energy that we commonly
> experience.
> Tom
> >In a message dated 5/4/99 6:04:57 PM EST, 7pe@ornl.gov writes:
> >
> ><< Why should the public take on any additional risk, no matter how trivial in
> > some people's opinion, to assist the nuclear/defense industry in getting
> > rid of their contaminated scrap? The only measurable cost benefit is to
> > industry, none to the public (unless there IS a hormetic effect). >>
> >
> >Even IF there is a demonstrable hormetic effect, how does one assure that the
> >"beneficial" dose from contaminated scrap metal plus nuclear power plants
> >plus fossil-fuel power plants plus radwaste disposal facilities plus
> >household radon plus doctors' offices plus dentists' offices plus high-flying
> >airliners plus...plus...plus...is still "beneficial"?
> >
> >An exposure which ALONE might have a beneficial effect, might have a
> >detrimental effect when combined with all other exposures. Unless the
> >proponents of radiation hormesis can assure that their proposed contribution
> >to the recipient's total exposure still has a cumulative hormetic effect,
> >hormesis should remain an interesting, but practically useless phenomena.
> >
> >Glenn
> >GACarlson@aol.com
> Tom Mohaupt, MS, CHP
> Wright State University
> Radiation Safety Officer
>
> Voice: (937) 775-2169
> Fax: (937) 775-3301
> E-mail: tom.mohaupt@wright.edu
> Address: 104 Health Sciences Bldg, Wright State University
> Dayton, OH 45435
> ************************************************************************
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html