DHS radiological cleanup: 10rem/year for general public?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) proposed cleanup standards for radiological incidents, particularly the allowance of long-term radiation exposure limits for the general public. Participants explore the implications of these standards, the context of radiological terrorism, and the adequacy of government responses to such threats.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the proposed exposure limit of 10 rem/year for the general public is excessively high compared to existing standards, questioning the adequacy of the DHS response plan.
  • Others argue that radiological terrorism is not the most significant threat compared to other societal issues, suggesting that media coverage may be overstating the risks associated with such incidents.
  • One participant highlights the potential risks to vulnerable populations, such as infants and children, emphasizing that they should not be exposed to high levels of radiation.
  • Another participant notes that 10 rem/year is relatively small when compared to occupational exposure limits, suggesting that the risk of cancer may be minimal under this standard.
  • There is a question raised about the meaning of "general use" in the context of these exposure limits, indicating uncertainty about the practical implications of the standards.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the appropriateness of the proposed exposure limits, with some expressing concern over the potential health risks while others downplay the significance of the limits in relation to existing occupational standards.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various radiation protection guidelines and standards, but there is no agreement on the interpretation or implications of these standards. The discussion also reflects a broader concern about the effectiveness of the DHS in managing radiological threats.

rachmaninoff
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_he_me/dirty_bomb
WASHINGTON - The government issued cleanup standards Tuesday for a "dirty bomb" terrorist attack that would in some cases be far less rigorous than what is required for Superfund sites, nuclear power plants and nuclear waste dumps.
...
In some cases, the document suggested, long-term radiation exposures of as much as 10,000 millirems per year — a level equivalent to hundreds of chest X-rays a year or 30 times the annual exposure to radiation from natural "background" sources — could be allowed for areas that are returned to general use.
Not that this is an extremely probable scenario or anything - but are these journalists correct in getting excited over this? They're contending that the DHS response plan to a radiological incident is ridiculously lax in exposure limits, specifically for long-term exposure to the general public. I haven't been able to find the actual DHS guidelines (can anyone help?), so I'm not sure what to think of this - is this a total effecive dose (TEDE) or something else? I looked up the NRC's annual exposure limit, which is half of this (5 rem/yr TEDE), but I'm not a physician and I don't know how these things scale (not linearly I assume).

So is this another case of Katrina-like poor planning, or a case of overenthusiastic but confused journalism, or a bit of both? Maybe the wise Astronuc will clarify things?

edit: Also, any links to the methodology of radiation exposure limits?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
I suspect I may need to justify this thread's existence. :frown: Radiological terrorism is far from the biggest threat to society - much smaller than all the chronic problems of poverty, obesity, lack of education, etc., as well as the high-visibility natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes. The reason this subject is in discussion is - directly - because it receives high visibility in the media (correctly or not); and secondly - because it serves as a gauge of the efficiacy of the $36 billion/yr DHS, a relatively young bureaucracy whose capability and management have been strongly called into question over the past few months, and which has tremendous influence in many other, non-terrorist situations (hurricanes).

So I'm not trying to advocate a hype about this particular threat or anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the day the government is able to regulate volcanic eruptions, force people to eat correctly, and pay attention in school... well that's one hell of a government.

I think the people who probably know about this aren't the type to hang around this part of the forum (ie people who don't have time to waste, unlike me!). I suspect Morbius would know however! Might want to drop him a line if he's around much anymore.
 
Here is some information on radiation protection and limits for radiation exposure.

http://www.nsc.org/issues/rad/protect.htm

and responsible agencies -
http://www.nsc.org/issues/rad/protect.htm#agencies

DHS is developing scenarios in the event of a radiological or nuclear (fissile weapon) attack. The radiological attack would be easier to deal with since in theory the radioactive material would be localized and could be cleaned. However, the 'clean-up' is hypothetical at this point.

The radiation limit of 10 rem/yr is rather high, and risk of cancer increases. The threat to infants and children is particularly significant, and basically infants and children should not be exposed to such levels of radiation.

See also - http://www.nsc.org/issues/radisafe.htm

http://www.icrp.org/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
10 rem/year is very small (it's only twice the whole body occupational limit for adults). Although risk of cancer increases (assuming hormesis is not a reality), it's assumed to be such a small number that it makes little difference. Not to mention the fact that this equates to a rate of just over 1 mrem per hour, which is less than the limit for dose rate for a member of the public. I'd be more concerned if this was 10,000 mrem was an absorbed dose in one fell swoop.
 
I wonder what "general use" means.

I also could see this being a realistic scenario if you toss in the economic implications of having a city abandoned...
 

Similar threads

History Science and Public Policy: an Interesting History
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Is Depleted Uranium Weapon Use Justified in U.S. Nuclear Policy?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K