[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: what is news and what is not
It sounds like we're in agreement here, with one related caveat--I'm
absolutely opposed to dosimetry when it's unnecessary (<100 mrem per year
expected). It creates a false sense of risk, is a waste of time and money,
and creates a potential for violating regulatory standards.
Jack Earley
Radiological Engineer
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rees [mailto:brees@lanl.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 6:50 AM
To: Jack_Earley@RL.gov; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: what is news and what is not
Jack,
The idea may not be to ensure that there are no overexposures, but to
DOCUMENT that there is not a significant radiation level in adjacent
areas. While I agree that one survey is technically sufficient when there
are no modifications to exposure geometry or the building/room, the
investment of 5-10 minutes to document (and be seen by neighbors, etc.
performing a verification) a <0.1 mr/hr (or whatever) level beats the hell
out of the repercussions if a worker in an adjacent facility sues you when
they get cancer because you we "exposing them to deadly, hazardous (etc.,
etc.) radiation". First the lawsuit, then the media...
I hate paperwork for paperwork's sake, but a stack of good documentation
may save you from a significant amount of stress. A lawyer can accuse you
of all kinds of stuff if you can't prove differently. There's always
something a lawyer can accuse you of, but you can make it less attractive
for them to pursue you. They are probably working for a contingency ("cut"
of the "award"), and kinda like criminals, will tend to go after less well
protected targets when they figure out that you're not a easy mark. Of
course, this changes somewhat proportionally when the potential for a
larger "score" (deeper, larger pockets) exists, but that's also straying
off topic somewhat.
I've also found that no matter how much you work with less technically
inclined people (see, I can act P.C. on occasion!), when they see you
physically "verifying" that they're "safe", you end up doing less reactive
work in the long run. Yeah, it's politics, but if you don't, then you end
up paying more, not just in time, but stress, and stress WILL hurt YOU.
(Obviously) my own personal opinion
Brian Rees
At 03:19 PM 1/3/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>" although every previous radiation
>survey on file recorded "<0.1 mR/h" throughout that room. The irony? They
>also provided radiographer training.
>As I read this incident report, it strikes me that someone isn't performing
>adequate surveys. It's not like buildings go up next door overnight. I
>reference radiography training because I've never seen a radiography
>training course for HPs or radiographers that didn't have people checking
>upstairs, next door, and everywhere else to ensure there would be no
>overexposures. You can't afford to design for every eventuality, but
there's
>no excuse for not performing adequate surveys and posting areas/installing
>barriers accordingly.
>
>Jack Earley
>Radiological Engineer
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: g2v13a@SWBELL.NET [mailto:g2v13a@SWBELL.NET]
>Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 6:46 PM
>To: Sandy Perle
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
>Subject: Re: what is news and what is not
>
>
>Sandy,
>
>May I re-post your response on the MedPhys list ?
>
>I have been quite concerned about this issue on the "medical"
>side for years. I have seen many occurrences of inadequate
>control of High Radiation Area's (typically a roof or outer wall)
>... then when incidents occur, blame assessment is the highest
>priority (rather than addressing the actual problem). Reducing
>the cost of construction (by thinning primary barriers and the
>creative use of occupancy factors) drives many room designs
>in the medical environment (long term - or serious - control of
>the High Radiation Area may be left for the after-first-incident
>review).
>
>Before this sounds too malicious, I would offer the following
>example (and true story) --- Some years ago, I encountered a
>well intentioned physicist that had helped with the design a
>new room for a linac (it produced 6MV & 15MV x-rays with a
>dose rate in the collimated field of 600 rads/minute at 1 meter).
>The strong encouragement was to economize, so the designer
>was careful to include geometric calculations related to the
>two story office building next door and the sidewalk on one
>side of the new room. After thinning the roof (but carefully
>missing the office building) and one of the primary barriers (for
>the sidewalk), the design was approved --- with the addition
>of a nice over-hanging roof). Both regions were assigned the
>most minimal of occupancy factors ... Sometime later (about 6
>months), the hospital decided to put a nice bench for the bus
>stop under the over-hanging roof (a nice thought considering
>the rainy climate). The busses stopped once an hour --- many
>waited at the bus stop for most of the hour, so the bench was
>quite popular ... about 18 months later, the hospital decided to
>increase the height of the office building (from 2 to 4 stories) ...
>(Much cheaper than buying new property in that part of town.)
>
>In short, there is nothing so constant (in the hospital environment)
>as change --- what is today a low occupancy area ... in 3 years can
>be a fully occupied office space. An administrator will not remember
>the restrictions that you set down (or your design criteria) when a
>change in the floor plan is implemented.
>
>Knowing this, can one so easily defend the minimal occupancy
>factors (and the minimal control of these spaces) that appear in
>many barrier designs for environments that are known to change
>on an unknown time frame?
>
>I have heard many say --- "I put that in my report!" --- after the
>first incident occurs.
>
>(Enough rambling ...)
>
>My sympathies are with the worker on the roof,
>not with the designer of the room.
>
>Were the people running the linac told about the
>issues associated with the roof?
>
>News worthy?
>In this forum, yes!
>It was someone like us that designed that room,
>it's roof, and roof control system (or lack thereof).
>
>Doug J.
>
>Douglas D. Jackson
>St. Louis, MO
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Sandy Perle wrote:
>
> > Tim,
> >
> > I do understand your point. Our disagreement centers around what is
news.
>Your
> > opinion is that unless there is something to be gained, or some action
to
>be taken,
> > then the information is not newsworthy. I obviously disagree.
> >
> > In this case, there is much to be learned. This incident is no different
>than similar
> > incidents in medical facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. Loss of
>Control where a High
> > or VERY High Radiation Area can occur. In this instance, what can be
>assessed
> > using root cause analysis:
> >
> > 1. Inadequate communication. Workers unaware that there was an
>installation or
> > maintenance taking place.
> >
> > 2. Victim unaware that medical irradiation activities were taking place.
> >
> > 3. Areas accessible where extremely high doses could be received without
> > knowledge of the facility management.
> >
> > 4. Inadequate procedures. Nothing in place to secure an area prior to
>irradiation.
> >
> > 5. Lack of visual or audible alarms in areas where access was possible.
> >
> > I could go on. Anyway, I've seen your comments, as have others, and,
we'll
>just have
> > to disagree what is news and what is not. In conclusion, the more we are
>aware of
> > what is being told to the public, via written media, TV or radio, the
>better prepared we
> > are to deal with it. The worse thing that can happen is for the public
to
>raise a
> > question or issue, and we professionals can only shrug our shoulders,
>demonstrating
> > lack of knowledge, and more often than not, a perception that anything
>that happens
> > in our field can't be bad, where there are no consequences. This is
>foolhardy at best.
> > We need to be prepared to deal with issue, real, or perceived to be
real.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800)
>548-5100
> > Director, Technical Extension 2306
> > ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service Fax:(714) 668-3149
> > ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> > ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> > Costa Mesa, CA 92626
> >
> > Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com
> > ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe,
> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text
"unsubscribe
> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject
line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/