Re: Ra, 25 mrem/y

[Dan Burnstein <npro1@ziplink.net>]

If I were to walk down a country road or through a city I would not like to
receive 25mr or 250uSv, roughly the equivalent of a chest xray, without (1)
knowing it was happening, and (2) accepting that risk and exposure for some
benefit.

It maybe that I would be willing to undertake this burden for a benefit, but I
would rather do it as an informed consumer than otherwise.

Dan B.
npro1@ziplink.net


Jerry Cohen wrote:

>     I found your comment to be  interesting and thought provoking. Assuming
> the dose recipient is "nonconsensual" (which is almost always the case),
> should that dose be limited to zero, de minimis, or what? How can a
> regulator responsible for protecting public health determine how much of any
> hazardous agent is too much for a nonconsensual recipient?
>     To cite an extreme example-- in each breath you take, you convert some
> vital oxygen to potentially harmful carbon dioxide thereby depleting the
> oxygen supply and increasing CO2 levels for all other (nonconsensual)
> recipients on the planet. I'm sure that you would agree that the effect ,
> although not zero, is so trivial as to be of no rational concern. Could
> anyone explain why a  radiation dose of 25mrem/yr., or the EPA's 15mrem/yr,
> or the 1.0 mrem/yr (which the NRC rejected for BRC purposes)  all small
> fractions  of the variation in  natural background dose, should not be
> similarly regarded.                jjcohen@prodigy.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: KDA2921@aol.com <KDA2921@aol.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Ra, 25 mrem/y
>
> >I would agree with Professor Raabe's assertions related to the exposure and
> >residual Ra-226 contamination. However, with all due respect to Professor
> >Raabe, my only question is:  what is a reasonable dose to which a future,
> >nonconsensual, inhabitant may be subjected?  Although the limit set by EPA
> >may not be scientifically based, the proposed limit appears to attempt to
> >significantly reduce the nonconsensual exposure to the general public and
> >future inhabitants.  Many of the arguments against the proposed limits seem
> >to infer that there is an inherent right to subject future inhabitants to a
> >contributing dose.  Where does the power to subject future inhabitants to
> >such a dose originate?
> >
> >Keith D. Anderson, CHP
> >ECC
> >kda2921@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

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