RE: Occupational vs. Medical Exposures

[Kevin Goldsmith <kevin.goldsmith@wepco.com>]

The physician's job is not to estimate the population risk from a given
dose, so why would you expect him to know the answer.  If you asked a
physicist to diagnose a cancer and prescribe the proper radiotherapy,
I'll bet that you would not get an accurate, quantitative
response.        

Though there is not a lot of information included about the U.K., if
U.S. uses twice the radiography and has similar health statistics, then
maybe the heath effects from the extra radiography are negligible.

I think the great interest in reducing occupational dose may be due, in
part, to job security.  If the public were more educated on effects of
radiation, there were probably be less fear, fewer overly restrictive
regulations and fewer physicists employed in the area of radiation
protection.  I am not saying that those in rad. protection are trying to
scare the public, but the area of rad. protection would likely be
greatly reduced in size if regulations were based on risk informed
decisions and actual radiation studies (hormesis, etc...).

This is my personal opinion and not that of the company for which I
work.

kevin.goldsmith@wepco.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html