Re: Low Level Radiation Conference Nov 8-10

[BobCherry@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/19/99 5:28:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
csmarcus@ucla.edu writes:

<< however, I 
 >presume that the use in the conference title of the term "low-level" 
 >implies whole-body dose equivalents considerably less that 500 rem. >>

I don't speak for the AFRRI contingent.

Within military circles, "low-level radiation" has developed a connotation of 
a short-term TEDE between 5 rem (the annual limit) and 75 rem (or more 
properly considering the magnitude, an absorbed dose of 75 rads) (approximate 
onset of the hematopoietic syndrome). DoD is working on doctrine for 
exposures in this range because we have little written guidance for our field 
commanders.

I am not sure why the term "low-level" has become linked to this range, but 
it apparently came from the military operational side where it has a 
different meaning than what military (and civilian) health physicists are 
used to. We military health physicists are trying to get a different term put 
in place so we can use the term "low-level" radiation exposure as we always 
have without confusion. I hope that my AFRRI colleagues join our campaign and 
doesn't exacerbate the problem.

COL Bob Cherry
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html