[ RadSafe ] Radiation scare tactics

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, John.  

I concur.  I am not in favor of providing first responders with
radiation detection instruments unless their management is willing to
commit to an ongoing training program that will teach them how to
properly interpret what they might see (and then I'd want to see them
commit money for several years in advance).  

I have talked to firemen who told me that if the "radiation meter"
alarms they will sit back and wait until the State radiation people get
there, no matter what is going on.  I can see a nursing home burn down
with fire trucks fleeing the scene, because someone who had received
I-131 the day before had left a handprint on the door (I exaggerate.
Maybe.)  I was dismayed and amused at the level of fear demonstrated by
people who have "enter burning building" on their job description.  

As for hospitals; it is almost embarrassing the way some of the policy
makers react to the possibility of contamination.  The was one that
spent several hundred thousand dollars for a tent and decon suite, with
the idea that in the case of something that MIGHT be an RDD all patients
would be deconned before being allowed into the ER.  They were
unconvinced when it was pointed out that measures to control pathogens
are quite effective in stopping the spread of radioactive contamination.
The finally gave up the preemptive decon when it was pointed out that
people would die from delayed treatment, and that the hospital would be
sued and loose. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
JOHN.RICH at sargentlundy.com
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:51 AM
To: 'radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation scare tactics

Radsafers

with all the discussion on the new "reveal all" book about Chernobyl,
it's 
worth considering an unintended consequence of the radiation "scare 
messages" that was discussed at a meeting of the Midwest HP chapter. 
(Something that hadn't occurred to me, but thankfully others are aware
of 
it and are trying to come up with working strategies.)

 As a result of the MSM continually shouting about how lethal, deadly, 
etc, ANY radiation is - -  first responders, hospitals, and even some 
doctors will not commit to being available to treat people in the event
of 
an improvised radiological dispersion device.   I don't have any 
specifics, but it turns out that at least a few hospitals are thinking 
about refusing to let contaminated individuals into their emergency
rooms, 
and what's even more discouraging is that first responders are equally 
hesitant about dealing with radiation contamination.  (The discussions 
indicated that they'd enter a burning building, but not if it had 
radiation contamination.)

It sounds like the NCRP and ICRP need to get a document out from a 
"trusted source" that puts contamination into perspective.  In the 
meantime, is there something that the HPS can do officially, again as a 
"trusted source?"

I've started talking to friends, neighbors, etc to get a message out 
there, but haven't started sending letters to the editor yet.  If the
HPS 
could come up with some good words, I'd be more than happy to spread
them 
around.

Disclaimer, - -these are not the thoughts, positions, or opinions of my 
company or management.  I guess that's why they're so clear and well 
reasoned.  ;-)
 ___________
enough  - -jmr



John Rich
312-269-3768
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu