Re: some details on St. Lucie

[BLHamrick@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/2002 8:44:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time, joseroze@netvision.net.il writes:



> What I can't understand is the USA portrait made here in the radsafe


The problems include the very low number of health physicists vs. first response organizations, the extremely low probability of a significant event, and the very high complexity involved in responding to an event of real significance.


That is, we cannot afford to have highly trained physics staff ready to physically respond within 5 minutes anywhere in the state (as we do have police and fire personnel), because these events are so very, very rare.  And, we cannot train police and fire personnel on all the subtleties of determining radiologic hazard, because they will use that knowledge so infrequently, they will not retain it well.


Generally, the compromise is what's been described here.  Police and Fire will often have radiation detectors, and they can make a "go - no go" decision, but generally, then, if they find any radiation at all, they will take the conservative route and shut down the highway or evacuate the building, because they don't have the experience and knowledge to make an informed decision about the actual hazard.  Once the radiological organization is contacted, and arrives at the scene, the informed decision is made, but this may be an hour or so after the initial "event."  Obviously, if sufficient information can be gathered over the phone (such as this was a truck accident involving a moisture-density gauge, and the package is still in tact), then an informed decision can be made more quickly.


I'd be interested in hearing ideas on how to resolve this.


Barbara