A comparison of the concepts used to develop and apply occupational exposure limits for ionizing radiation and hazardous chemical substances.

The rationales used by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (AC-GIH) to recommend exposure limits for 10 chemicals were reviewed. The 10 chemicals chosen were known to produce chronic disease after prolonged overexposure in the workplace. The chemicals were toluene diisocyanate, hydrogen fluoride, n-hexane, carbon disulfide, cadmium, inorganic mercury, cobalt, nitroglycerol, silica, and vinyl chloride. The rationales used by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to recommend limits for workplace exposure to ionizing radiation were reviewed. The rationales used in occupational health by ACGIH were then compared with those used by ICRP in health physics. The comparison revealed a significant divergence in the underlying concepts and philosophies of the two approaches. This divergence cannot be solely attributed to differences in scientific knowledge about toxicological and radiological effects. In areas of scientific uncertainty, exposure limits for ionizing radiation are based on worst case or conservative assumptions. This approach favors human safety. Parallel approaches could not be found for any of the 10 chemicals reviewed. Other factors such as the costs incurred by industry in meeting the proposed standards played a more significant role in establishing limits for workplace chemicals than for ionizing radiation.