Re: Ra, 25 mrem/y

[Jim Tocci <jtocci@uhs.umass.edu>]

Steven Rima wrote:
> 
>      These types of arguments from health physicists always amaze me. We're
>      talking about a *theoretical maximum* annual increase in a person's
>      dose of 25 mrem here. With the average U.S. background of about 400
>      mrem/y, plus the variability in background, this is essentially zero.
>      However, there are always health physicists that espouse the view that
>      this "extra" 25 mrem/y is somehow harmful and should either be reduced
>      by spending incredible amounts of money or not be allowed at all
>      without consent. Give me a break!!!
> 
>      I would expect that any HP who truly believe this to never fly on an
>      airplane, live at sea level in a wood house, never travel to a higher
>      altitude, and especially to never receive any occupational exposure,
>      since that's the worst kind. :-) When we have HPs spreading this kind
>      of misinformation, we don't need the anti-nukes, we're our own worst
>      enemy.
> 
>      As for educating the public to let them make an informed decision
>      about radiation risk, it's pretty hopeless from my experience. I live
>      in Colorado, which probably has the highest average annual background
>      dose in the U.S., and it also happens to be one of the fastest growing
>      states in the U.S. A large number of people moving here are attuned to
>      environmental issues, including radiation. Try telling them that their
>      conscious decision to move here increased their annual radiation dose
>      far more than the few mrem they may theoretically receive from a
>      cleaned up Rocky Flats site (after we spend billions of $ to clean
>      it). It's irrelevant to them. They don't want to hear about natural
>      background, no matter what the number is, but it's okay to spend
>      billions to reduce a few mrem to a few less mrem.
> 
>      When we have HPs who seem to believe that there is "good radiation"
>      and "bad radiation" how in the world can we hope to get anywhere with
>      the general public???
> 
>      Obviously my opinion only...
> 
>      If anyone wishes to flame me, let's keep it via private email so as
>      not to waste the time of the 3000+ RADSAFE subscribers.
> 
>      Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
>      Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
>      MACTEC-ERS, LLC
>      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Ra, 25 mrem/y
> Author:  Dan Burnstein <npro1@ziplink.net> at Internet
> Date:    12/11/99 1:46 PM
> 
> 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
>      <snip>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

In response to Mr. Rima I can only say "AMEN".
-- 
Jim Tocci, Radiation Safety Program Manager
University of Massachusetts - Environmental Health and Safety
(413) 545-2682
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~safety/prog_radiation.html
*****************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html