[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re[2]: Contaminated Residential Waste from I-131 Patients
At 11:17 AM 2/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
>And what is your opinion of the EPA??
>I'm sure there are many very conscientious employees there also.
>I don't percieve the issue as the employees, but rather the bureacracy.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM [SMTP:steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM]
>> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 11:59 AM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: Re[2]: Contaminated Residential Waste from I-131 Patients
>>
>>
>> Geez Carol,
>>
>> Lighten up!!! I, for one, am getting a bit tired of your nasty
>> diatribes
>> against the NRC. By now, we all know how you feel about that
>> particular
>> agency. (No, I've never worked for them or for any other branch the
>> government, except for my Naval service long ago.) Over my 25+ year
>> career,
>> I've met some very conscientious NRC employees, along with some bad
>> ones.
>>
>> Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't believe that the NRC can dictate
>> landfill
>> limits to states. Many states have standards such as Indiana's, where
>> there
>> are detectors at landfills that try to "filter out" all radioactive
>> material. Even if the NRC tried to come up with a scientifically
>> acceptable
>> method for allowing medical isotopes in, states are still legally
>> allowed
>> to have more conservative regulations. If this is not the case, could
>>
>> someone correct me?
>>
>> I'm definitely NOT defending such practices at landfills, but I don't
>>
>> believe we can lay blame for that problem on the NRC.
>>
>> Many RADSAFERS get upset with flames against individuals via RADSAFE.
>> Let's
>> not have a double standard where it's okay to flame government
>> agencies
>> repeatedly.
>>
>> My opinion only,
>>
>> Please direct any flames to my personal email address below
>>
>> Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
>> Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
>> MACTEC-ERS, LLC
>> steve.rima@doegjpo.com
>>
>> ______________________________ Reply Separator
>> _________________________________
>> Subject: Re: Contaminated Residential Waste from I-131 Patients
>> Author: carol marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu> at Internet
>> Date: 2/11/00 9:50 AM
>>
>>
>> At 08:21 AM 2/11/00 -0600, you wrote:
>> Dear Richard and Radsafers:
>>
>> Hasn't the State of Indiana heard of a really neat invention called a
>> portable MCA? You can actually identify radionuclides with it, instead of
>>
>> trying to do it by halflife.
>>
>> The real problem, of course, is not the medical people, or the patients
>> who
>> contaminate everything they touch, but with INSIGNIFICANT LEVELS of
>> contamination. NRC took that into consideration when, after 7 years of
>> farce, finally passed the "500 mrem rule". The problem is permitting a
>> state to make a scientifically dumb standard for trash of "zero
>> radioactivity". That's where the problem is, and that's where it should
>> be
>> fixed. Low levels of radioactive contamination (from patient body fluids)
>>
>> which are unregulated and not required to be buried in LLRW sites or
>> decayed
>> out should be allowed in garbage dumps or incinerators, just as it is
>> allowed in hospitals and homes. It merely requires the ability to
>> identify
>> and estimate the activity level of medically relevant radionuclides. This
>>
>> is not at all difficult.
>>
>> I really must reject the idea that because some naive and uninformed
>> bureaucrats make a scientifically nonsensical standard, that the only
>> choice
>> is for the health physics, medical physics, and medical community to kill
>> themselves complying with it. The answer is to CHANGE THE STANDARD. It
>> would be nice if NRC did this for us, informing states of unacceptable and
>>
>> unreasonable standards for low levels of contaminants unassociated with
>> any
>> risk. Alas, for years, the NRC has not had the balls or the brains to do
>> this. Not after the Commissioners and their staffs screwed up BRC big
>> time.
>> There are even those at NRC who would use irrational state garbage dump
>> standards as an excuse to take away the 500 mrem rule, rather than defend
>> good science and cost-effective medicine against irrational hysteria.
>> Hopefully, the NRC Commissioners will not be so foolish, but I don't see
>> them
>> making any effort to inform the nation of the basis for safe levels of
>> medical contaminants, either.
>>
>> The logical end of this hysteria is to keep all radioactive patients in
>> isolated hospital rooms with dedicated plumbing until total decay of all
>> the
>> radionuclides. This is patently impossible, especially when one considers
>>
>> trace contaminants that are present, such as Tc-99 with a halflife of
>> about
>> 200,000 years! The cost of even doing this for most of the radioactivity
>> is
>> enormous. I costed it out once for currently used radionuclides in
>> nuclear
>> medicine without even considering the contaminants. It went well into the
>>
>> multibillions of dollars, and would effectively end nuclear medicine.
>> Considering that the average American has three nuclear medicine
>> procedures
>> during his lifetime, this is going to affect a lot of people.
>>
>> So, if NRC continues to play the coward, get your state rad health group
>> to
>> work with the garbage folks to fix this. Get your professional
>> organizations to help them do so. EDUCATE people on the safety of harmless
>>
>> levels of generally short or rather short-lived medical radionuclides.
>> Explain that with a "no radioactivity" policy, it is illegal to dispose of
>> a
>> banana or a piece of hamburger because of K-40, for example.
>>
>> Maybe the National Academy of Sciences could get a contract to make
>> standards for garbage dumps and incinerators, as waiting for the NRC
>> appears
>> to be a lost cause. Maybe there are even better ways. However, keeping
>> every atom out of the dump or incinerator isn't one of them.
>>
>> Ciao, Carol
>>
>> Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
>> <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
>>
>> ************************************************************************
>> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>> ************************************************************************
>> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
Dear Radsafers:
Let me say that my opinion of the EPA's radiation program is exactly the
same as that of that marvelous agency of hardworking and dedicated geniuses,
NRC. Carl Paperiello and I are in complete agreement on this one!
Ciao, Carol
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html