Re: In-flight radiation -Reply

[glenn <glenn@u1st.com>]

All good points, Sandy.  I agree that this is a non-issue.  But while it
is be taken to an extreme, what about non-airline employees who are
required to fly frequently?  Do they now become (potential) radiation
workers?  While breaking the 500 mr line is unlikely for frequent
flyers, many flyers I know may easily pass the 100 mr public exposure
limit.  All reasons why not to make this a regulatory night-mare of an
issue.

Another thought for Otto though:  Here is a significantly-sized sample
of the population in the 100 - 1000+ mr/year above background dose range
to study in 3-dimensions.  Could we use this group to provide more
evidence to convince the LNT believers?  Of course, controlling other  
"high-risk" lifestyle features of a significant portion of the sample
might create obstacles.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Glenn




Sandy Perle wrote:
> 
> The issue could be larger than just addressing flight crews. Before I
> proceed, let me say that I don't think there is an issue to contend
> with at all. While there is dose to the crew and passengers, there is
> still no credible data suggesting that there is a problem, or
> consequences. Having said that, let me take this issue one step
> further, to the passengers.
> 
> The dose to flight crews is not extensive. Currently they are not
> deemed to be occupationally exposed workers. There is a move to make
> this definition change. If there is a change, they will exceed the
> 10% rule requiring monitoring. In my opinion, that is a big mistake,
> due to the message it will send the public, for one.
> 
> Now let's address the flying public. If the crew is considered
> occupationally exposed, then it seems to me that the passengers are
> now being exposed due to the airlines activities. Seems that the next
> step is to ensure that no passenger ever exceeds 0.1 rem (1 mSv) from
> those activities. I am not recommending this, but given time, I
> believe that this will become an issue, needlessly as I believe it to
> be.
> 
> The only way to reduce exposure is time, distance and shielding. I
> don't see any viable new techniques that is going to accomplish this.
> Again, why do we really care? The data suggests that this is not an
> issue.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sander C. Perle                                 Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical                             Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division                Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc.                           E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue           E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
> 
> Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/scperle
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.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