[ RadSafe ] > 300 mrems/month = "no significant exposure"?

[William Lipton]

The key words are:  "reasonably achievable."   I realize that cardiac
catheterization incurs high doses, even with the best practices.  These are
reasonable considering the benefits to the patients.

Radiography is different.  If done properly, there should not be any
measurable dose from the radiography source.  The only exposure would be
from other sources at the site.  These should be removed or shielded, if
feasible.

I used to help plan radiography at a power reactor.  This sometimes
required entry into hi rad areas.  Even then, the dose I see, here, would
not be acceptable without strong justification.

Health physics is, allegedly, a profession to protect workers and the
public from unjustified rad exposure.  The good practices for a power
reactor should apply everywhere.  I take this very seriously, and find the
"s..t happens" approach that I see all too often most disturbing.

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
On Sep 9, 2013 1:25 PM, "KARAM, PHILIP" <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org> wrote:

> You can't assume that every radiation facility in the world can - or
> should - comply with power reactor practices (and, for what it's worth, I
> got my start in Naval nuclear power, where we considered commercial power
> plants to be a bit on the sloppy side when it came to radiation safety
> practices).
>
> There are physicians out there who routinely get a few hundred mrem
> monthly while they're doing cardiac catheterizations, placing stents, and
> so forth - are you planning on telling them they're being irresponsible for
> using fluoroscopy to save lives? You cannot shoehorn the entirety of
> radiation safety into the one framework that you are familiar with.
>
> Incidentally, if you read the report you posted, it says that the worker's
> exposure of 328 mrem *for the month of August* was not considered
> significant.  It does NOT say that the worker received 328 mrem every month
> so there's no grounds to claim that this means that it's considered
> acceptable to get a dose of 3-5 rem per year.
>
> You are correct in your concerns about the equipment problems and
> training. But you're off-base in your declaration that a one-time high
> exposure somehow means that the company is willing to expose its workers to
> doses near the annual limit. There's a lot more to radiation safety than
> working at a power plant - you might consider trying to broaden your
> horizons before blasting those who work in other areas.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of William Lipton
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 12:49 PM
> To: radsafe
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] > 300 mrems/month = "no significant exposure"?
>
> I'm concerned about this NRC event report from a radiography provider:
>
> *POTENTIAL OVEREXPOSURE OF RADIOGRAPHER
>
> The RSO for the licensee called to report a potential overexposure of a
> radiographer. This event occurred while the radiographer was checking welds
> at a refinery in Wyoming. While moving the camera to another location, the
> radiographer's dosimeter alarmed. It is suspected that the camera's source
> was not fully retracted into the safe position. The source was subsequently
> retracted back into the fully shielded position.
>
> The RSO calculates an estimated dose to the radiographer of 5 rem. The
> licensee will send the radiographer's dosimetry for expedited reading as
> soon as possible.
>
> The licensee will update this report with additional details as they become
> available.
>
> * * * RETRACTION FROM GAYLE STATON TO HUFFMAN AT 1436 EDT ON 9/04/13 * * *
>
> The RSO has received the radiographer's dosimetry badge readings. The
> radiographer was still wearing his August dosimetry when the event
> occurred. His badge readings was 328 mrem for the entire month of August
> including the exposure from this event.
>
> Since there was no significant exposure from the event, the licensee has
> retracted this event notification. *
> *
> *
> While I'm glad that there was no overexposure, there are 2 important issues
> that need to be addressed:
>
> 1.  Why did the source fail to retract:  mechanical failure?, less than
> adequate training?  under time pressure? ...  This has to be determined and
> fixed.
>
> 2.  328 mrems in one month is considered routine and acceptable.  This
> means that it's acceptable for the company's radiographers  to receive 3 -
> 5 rems/year.  This is NOT "As Low As Reasonably Achievable."  Again, the
> NRC has a double standard.  Power reactors have a de facto limit of 1
> rem/year for a rad worker.  My experience is that this is rarely
> approached, and this is under much more difficult circumstances than found
> in most radiography jobs.
>
> *B*ill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>