[ RadSafe ] Florida Explosion involving Kr-85: HPs to the rescue

Thu Feb 2 23:17:50 CST 2006

Bob -

I have no problem with that assessment, but I don't believe my comments
discounted anyone other than the media, which has a poor track record on
providing scientifically grounded information when it comes to radiation.  I
have no doubt that there were people there who had some radiation-induced
anxiety as a result of the accident.  Fear of the unknown is a natural
response.  The employer and the public heath officials share in the
responsibility to educate them, their families and the public about the
health hazard.  Unfortunately, the media often fans the flames of fear, and
makes matters worse.

During my years with the Bureau, I was a strong advocate for increasing the
agency's role in providing accurate information about radiation science,
radiation safety and the role of ionizing radiation in our society.  I have
also dedicated many volunteer hours to developing and conducting science
teacher workshops in association with the Fla. Chapter of the Health Physics
Society, and will continue to do so, even if it may be a losing battle.

- Walt Cofer

-----Original Message-----
From: The Wilsons [mailto:pnwnatives at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 1:14 PM
To: Walter Cofer
Cc: 'Bradt, Clayton (LABOR)'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Florida Explosion involving Kr-85: HPs to the
rescue

I find the conclusion that because the Kr 85 radiation emissions did not 
physically affect the personnel, there was no radiation induced 
effects.  That seems to discount the fear factor such as reported by Mr. 
Parker in the law suit.  It seems somewhat a narrow view to discount the 
very real affects radioactivity may have regarding the fear of it or the 
perceived affects.  Seems all of the reactions a person has to radiation 
exposure or exposure to radioactivity should be of equal concern as the 
impact on the individual and how the individual reacts both mentally and 
physically are equally significant.

Bob Wilson

Walter Cofer wrote:

>My source told me the FL Bureau of Radiation Control was contacted
promptly,
>and responded quickly.  Unison has a Jacksonville-based HP consultant on
>contract who is a friend and colleague, so when I got word of the accident,
>I called him on his cell and caught him just as he was leaving the site.
He
>said the BRC inspection supervisor from Jax was on scene taking
>measurements.
>
>The head of the BRC emergency response section is quoted in one article:
"We
>do not know what the concentration was of what was in the cylinder that
>exploded," said John Williamson, administrator of the environmental
>radiation section of the state Department of Health. "We believe it was in
>the millicurie range. If that is correct, that would present a very low
>risk. The risk to the general public would be almost immeasurable, it would
>be so low."
>
>Also quoted was Kevin Nelson, RSO for the Mayo Clinic in Jax.  Kevin, a CHP
>and active in the national HPS and FL chapter, advised the authorities on
>the Kr-85 gas; here is what one article said:
>
>"Nelson said a person who was standing next to the explosion could have
>absorbed, at most, two times the amount of radiation a person receives
>yearly from background sources like the sun. But anyone even a little
>distance away, like in another room, wouldn't be affected at all, he said.
>He said the maximum exposure would be even lower if it turned out the
>exploded canister that was not full. Nelson said the gas released Monday
>dissipated so fast that there would be no health or safety risk for Unison
>workers reporting to work there today."
>
>I know all these guys, so I'm not surprised that having them available to
>provide guidance (and good quotes) went a long way toward ensuring the
>accident didn't get too blown out of proportion.  I still felt the media
>reports were somewhat misleading, but I've seen a lot worse.  The opening
>statements in one article said that there was no health risk for workers
>returning to the plant, and that the exposures were to "trace amounts of
>radiation."  However, I suspect some readers might think that the people
>taken to the hospital complaining of being lightheaded, nauseous, having
>high-blood pressure, etc. were suffering from radiation-induced effects,
>which is patently impossible based on my understanding of events.
>
>What wasn't reported (and just as well) is that, according to my consultant
>colleague, the OSHA inspectors who came to investigate refused to enter the
>explosion zone until they were provided with dosimetry.  If that's true, I
>guess no one could get it across to them that in this case, personnel
>monitoring badges weren't worth the bother (or delay).  Sounds like the
OSHA
>folks might need some radiation fundamentals refresher training.
>
>As for the decon efforts, according to one article, 73 people were tested
>with Geiger counters and were told to remove their clothing at a decon
tent;
>no one had to take showers.  I suspect they felt removing Kr-85 saturated
>clothes would reduce the exposures.  Nothing wrong with that approach,
>though I hope they got their clothes back; the gas should have dissipated
>fairly quickly.  
>
>On the bright side: no fatalities, and the emergency responders got some
>real world practice.
>
>
>Walt Cofer
>Radiation Control, Inc.
>Tallahassee, FL
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf
>Of Bradt, Clayton (LABOR)
>Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:59 PM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Florida Blast Releases Low Level 
>
>
>
>If only they had called the State radiation control program!
>
>Clayton J. Bradt, CHP
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
>  
>