[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: radsafe-digest V1 #789
It is interesting to have read the assumptions made in the calculations of
75 tons of DU in Iraq. Does it mean that the American military is going to
collect DU it used there and disperse it over the whole of the Iraq
territory and in addition bury it to a depth of a few cm. You can see why
the public is very sceptical of radiation experts when they tell them that
DU is safe and there is nothing to worry about it. How many of these
experts would have they children or grandchildren play in the dirty
contaminated with DU. DU has been used in third world countries as a
Radiation and Chemical weapon of Mass Contamination - contamination that
will last in countries like Iraq for billions of years.
G Bibbo
----------
From: owner-radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 21 May 2003 02:52
To: radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: radsafe-digest V1 #789
radsafe-digest Tuesday, May 20 2003 Volume 01 :
Number 789
In this issue:
Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly
Legacy of Yell...
Re: DU in Iraq
Risks and their avoidance
Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL
IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
UD802 and dose from AmBe
Re: DU in Iraq
Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL
INMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
RE: 33P/166Ho Skin Dose Factors
Questions on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109
Consider the following
Re: Risks and their avoidance
Re: DU in Iraq - relevant comparisons
Not being a statistic
Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly
Legacy of Yell...
RE: Risks and their avoidance
Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a Deadly
Legacy of Yell...
Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit
radiography - deja vu all over again
Re: Risks and their avoidance
Re: Radiation sickness
Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit
Harvard Announces Industrial Hygiene Program
RE: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL
IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 20:36:31 -0700
From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a
Deadly Legacy of Yell...
May 19, 2003
Davis, CA
If my memory serves me right, there was a uranium ore processing
mill near
Grants, NM, in the 1960's. Does anyone else remember a uranium mill
in New
Mexico?
Otto
**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
University of California, Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:49:27 -0500
From: "David Whitfill" <djwhitfill@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: DU in Iraq
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C31E58.E7570120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on battlefield legacies that
are =
killing and maiming people right now, such as unexploded ordinance =
(including mines)? It seems almost a crime to divert resources away
from =
these efforts in a hunt for spent depleted uranium rounds.=20
If we are concerned with real lives saved, then how about doing a =
calculation showing the number of US military deaths avoided due to
=
enemy armor being neutralized? 75 tons of depleted uranium peppering
the =
countryside of Iraq is a small price to pay for avoided sorrow and
grief =
of the families of these brave and noble patriots. I most certainly
=
don't want to be the first on my block to see my son come home in a
box =
or have to go to Washington, D.C., to touch his name on a wall
because =
he never came home.
What is our fascination with something that may hypothetically kill
us =
at some distant point in the future rather than the real hazards
that =
will kill you right now? The argument about fear of the unknown and
=
perception of ri$k is certainly getting old.
Of course I feel the same way about the EPA radon program. I feel
our =
resources would be better spent on providing smoke and carbon
monoxide =
detectors for households. The deaths that occur each year from fires
and =
carbon monoxide poisoning is very real. Our family can take you to a
=
family grave site that will attest to that. I would bet that some of
you =
reading this message board can do the same.
DJWHitfill CHP
- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C31E58.E7570120
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=3DMailContainerBody=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; =
COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px;
FONT-STYLE: =
normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; =
BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE:
=
none"=20
leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 acc_role=3D"text"
CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20
name=3D"Compose message area"><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"v" =
/><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"o" />
<DIV>
<P>Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on battlefield legacies that
are =
killing=20
and maiming people right now, such as unexploded ordinance
(including =
mines)? It=20
seems almost a crime to divert resources away from these efforts in
a =
hunt for=20
spent depleted uranium rounds. </P>
<P>If we are concerned with real lives saved, then how about doing a
=
calculation=20
showing the number of US military deaths avoided due to enemy armor
=
being=20
neutralized? 75 tons of depleted uranium peppering the countryside
of =
Iraq is a=20
small price to pay for avoided sorrow and grief of the families of
these =
brave=20
and noble patriots. I most certainly don't want to be the first on
my =
block to=20
see my son come home in a box or have to go to Washington, D.C., to
=
touch his=20
name on a wall because he never came home.</P>
<P>What is our fascination with something that may hypothetically
kill =
us at=20
some distant point in the future rather than the real hazards that
will =
kill you=20
right now? The argument about fear of the unknown and perception of
ri$k =
is=20
certainly getting old.</P>
<P>Of course I feel the same way about the EPA radon program. I feel
our =
resources would be better spent on providing smoke and carbon
monoxide =
detectors=20
for households. The deaths that occur each year from fires and
carbon =
monoxide=20
poisoning is very real. Our family can take you to a family grave
site =
that will=20
attest to that. I would bet that some of you reading this message
board =
can do=20
the same.</P></DIV>
<DIV>DJWHitfill CHP</DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C31E58.E7570120--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:45:39 -0700
From: "Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>
Subject: Risks and their avoidance
There has been a lot of discussion of the relative merits of one
risk over
another on this list.
At the suggestion of one of the members of this list, I'm starting
to read
"Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation" by
Justice
Stephen Breyer.
As I started to read this he shows the percentages of risk of death
per
100,000 (I think) population, and being hit by lightning is very
low.
However, one of the things you learn early on are all of the
procedures to
protect yourself from being hit by lightning. If you're holding a
metal
umbrella on the top of a hill during an electrical storm, your odds
certainly increase.
Of course, dying by an infrequent event is binary for the individual
who
dies. It's 1 or 0. There are no percentages. Percentages apply
across the
entire population. One of my goals in life is NOT to be a statistic
nor to
have my children be statistics.
Yes, we can certainly go too far in spending oodles of money to save
little
risk, but education on risk avoidance, research into risk avoidance,
and
low cost expenditures to "be safe" are all very helpful towards
individuals
who do not want to become one of the "rare" statistics.
Now, I am not sure that being cautious and conservative actually
puts more
of a risk of death by lightning (for example) onto others in the
same way
that having a burglar alarm decreases your chances of being
burglarized at
the expense of your neighbor who doesn't have the alarm.
So we can talk all we want to about overall statistics, but not
becoming
one of the statistics is based in education and common sense.
For example, I have smoke and heat detectors throughout my home. I
have a
carbon monoxide detector in my bedroom. I've spent less than $1000
on this,
and it's that much because it's centrally wired (for the
smoke/heat/intrusion/panic system).
And yes, prudence (who is that lady, anyway?) demanded that I run a
canister radon test when I moved into my home here almost 20 years
ago. I
think it was $30. No appreciable risk. Oh, and I measure 14µR on a
G-M
counter as background. Now that is slightly over-the-top paranoia,
but
obtaining that type of instrumentation was my response to dirty bomb
scares.
So, once we can measure the risk and have inexpensive sentinels
watching
out for us, ready to chirp or howl at the slightest provocation, our
likelihood of becoming one of the statistics is reduced. Not
eliminated.
Reduced.
How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal level?
In
California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's Prop
65,
Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to the
state of
California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I mean
this is
on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk to
work
and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!
Education is key--and that's a life-long process.
Cheers,
Richard
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:42:41 +0200
From: Jose Julio Rozental <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY
HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --Boundary_(ID_/CafwZ4GJ94zwZla+GXzvQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
how much control over the patient and family is required before the
NRC =
determines the control is adequate?
Considering International Recommendation as in the IAEA Basic Safety
=
Standards, Safety Series 115, 1996, the
GUIDANCE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY FOR DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL (page 284)
TABLE III-VI. GUIDANCE LEVEL FOR MAXIMUM ACTIVITY FOR
PATIENTS IN THERAPY ON DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL
Iodine-131 1100 MBq - In some countries a level of 400 MBq
is used as an example of good practice.
About Control (page 58)
CONTROL OF VISITORS
III.5. Registrants and licensees, in co-operation with employers
when =
appropriate,
shall:
(a) ensure that visitors be accompanied in any controlled area by a
=
person
knowledgeable about the protection and safety measures for that
area;
(b) provide adequate information and instruction to visitors before
they =
enter a
controlled area so as to ensure appropriate protection of the
visitors =
and of
other individuals who could be affected by their actions; and
(c) ensure that adequate control over entry of visitors to a
supervised =
area be maintained
and that appropriate signs be posted in such areas.
LESSON TO BE LEARNED BY LICENSEE:
Minimize misunderstanding, and as result mismanagement, in case of =
doubt, ask to Regulatory Authority to clarify.=20
Example of a possible misunderstanding - What does (when
appropriate) =
means
Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Knapp, Steven J.=20
To: 'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'=20
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY =
HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
I am not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the right to
terminate =
their medical treatment and go home at any time unless they pose =
imminent danger to the public. If a patient goes home, the
situation is =
not monitored. Where is the consistency in mitigating the radiation
=
risk when the patient is hospitalized versus being at home? This =
appears to be a regulatory problem, not a health risk problem. The
NRC =
consultant stated the radiation health risk to family members was =
insignificant.
The questions still remains, how much control over the patient and
=
family is required before the NRC determines the control is
adequate? =
Would the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO completed the =
procedures listed in the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and
a =
noncompliant and informed family member exceeded the radiation dose
=
limit?
It is obvious the RSO could have done things to lessen the
opportunity =
for the NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would that have been
=
enough?
Steve Knapp, Ph.D.
ge-----
From: John Johnson [mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 3:01 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY =
HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
Radsafers
I think you all should join me in thanking John for this.=20
Hopefully it (the subject) will now decay away:-).
John
__________________
John R Johnson, PhD
idias@interchange.ubc.ca
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: John Jacobus=20
To: Carol Marcus ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu=20
Cc: njd@NRC.GOV ; jmer@NRC.GOV ; exm@NRC.GOV ; gjd@NRC.GOV ; =
siegelja@AOL.COM ; CJP1@NRC.GOV ; rwb@NRC.GOV ; REZ@NRC.GOV=20
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY
=
HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
For clarification, the report can be found at =
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/materia=
ls/ea02248.html
With regard to exposure rate values, these are in the report:0
B. 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2) requires that each licensee =
conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted area from =
external sources, with exceptions not applicable here, does not
exceed 2 =
millirem in any one hour.
Contrary to the above, the licensee conducted operations
so =
that the dose in unrestricted areas exceeded 2 millirem in any one
hour. =
Specifically, licensee operations on July 1, 2002, resulted in a
dose of =
10 millirem in one hour in an emergency exit stairway, and a dose of
=
17millirem in one hour outside the ground floor window of a
patient's =
room. Licensee operations continued through July 7, 2002, when the =
resultant doses were 4 millirem in one hour and 8 millirem in one
hour, =
respectively.=20
=20
It should be noted that these values are outside of the
patents =
room. I assume next to the bed the dose rates would be
significantly =
higher. =20
Also, NCRP 37 provides recommendations. The NRC grants a
license =
under which the licensee agrees to operate. You cannot pick the =
regulations you like to follow.
Carol Marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu> wrote:
. . .
So, where does 3 to 15 rem come from? Nowhere credible. As
I =
see it, the member of the family elected to get a radiation dose
that is =
judged safe for radiation workers, in order to be with a dying
relative. =
Seems reasonable to me.
It may be reasonable to point out that 10 CFR Part 20
includes =
the last sentence of 20.1001: "However, nothing in this part shall
be =
construed as limiting actions that may be necessary to protect
health =
and safety." I would sincerely argue that the mental health of the
=
member of the family comes under this clause, and that the standards
=
need not apply. The care and peace of mind of the dying patient
should =
be considered as well. While I would go to great lengths to prevent
a =
member of the family from receiving a dose that I know to be
harmful, I =
don't see any reason to become hysterical about a dose that is a!
bout =
what a radiation worker may receive in a year, or significantly
less. =
In NCRP no. 37, it is recommended that family members over 45 not =
receive more than 5 rads from the patient. I don't know how old the
=
family member in question was, but clearly there are standards that
=
would support much higher radiation doses than the NRC seems
prepared to =
permit in extreme circumstances.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com=20
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
- -
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --Boundary_(ID_/CafwZ4GJ94zwZla+GXzvQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2><STRONG> <U>how much control
over the
patient and family is required</U> before the NRC determines the
control is
adequate?</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Considering International
Recommendation as in the
IAEA Basic Safety Standards, Safety Series 115, 1996,
the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>GUIDANCE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY
FOR DISCHARGE
FROM HOSPITAL (page 284)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>TABLE III-VI. GUIDANCE LEVEL
FOR MAXIMUM
ACTIVITY FOR</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>PATIENTS IN THERAPY ON
DISCHARGE FROM
HOSPITAL</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>Iodine-131
1100</FONT><FONT
size=2> MBq - In some countries a level of 400
MBq</DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV align=left>is used as an example of good practice.</DIV>
<DIV align=left> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><STRONG>About Control (page
58)</STRONG></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face="Times
New Roman">
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>CONTROL OF
VISITORS</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>III.5. Registrants and
licensees, in
co-operation with employers when appropriate,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial
size=2>shall:</FONT></DIV></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>
<DIV align=left>(a) ensure that visitors be accompanied in any
controlled area
by a person</DIV></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV align=left>knowledgeable about the protection and safety
measures for that
area;</DIV></FONT>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>(b) provide adequate
information and
instruction to visitors before they enter a</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>controlled area so as to
ensure
appropriate protection of the visitors and of</FONT></DIV><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>
<DIV align=left>other individuals who could be affected by their
actions;
and</DIV></FONT>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>(c) ensure that
adequate control
over entry of visitors to a supervised area be main</FONT><FONT
size=2>tained</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>and that appropriate signs
be posted in
such areas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>LESSON TO BE LEARNED
BY
LICENSEE:</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Minimize
misunderstanding, and
as result mismanagement, in case of doubt, ask to Regulatory
Authority to
clarify. </STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=2>Example of a
possible
misunderstanding - What does (when appropriate)
means</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV align=left><STRONG><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jose Julio
Rozental</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="mailto:joseroze@netvision.net.il";>joseroze@netvision.net.il</A></FONT>
</DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Israel</FONT></DIV>
<P align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<P align=left><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV
href="mailto:Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV";>Knapp,
Steven J.</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
href="mailto:'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'">'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'</A
>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 19, 2003
3:30 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: NRC PROPOSES
$6,000 FINE
AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO
A MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>I am
not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the right to terminate
their medical
treatment and go home at any time unless they pose imminent danger
to the
public. If a patient goes home, the situation is not
monitored.
Where is the consistency in mitigating the radiation risk when the
patient is
hospitalized versus being at home? This appears to be a
regulatory
problem, not a health risk problem. The NRC consultant
stated the
radiation health risk to family members was
insignificant.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>The
questions still remains, <U>how much control over the patient and
family is
required</U> before the NRC determines the control is
adequate? Would
the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO completed the
procedures listed in
the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and a noncompliant and
informed
family member exceeded the radiation dose
limit?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>It
is obvious the RSO could have done things to lessen the
opportunity for the
NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would that have been
enough?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>Steve Knapp, Ph.D.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT><BR></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT
size=2>ge-----<BR><B>From:</B>
John Johnson [mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca]<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Friday, May 16,
2003 3:01 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN
MICHIGAN FOR
OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Radsafers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think you all should join me in
thanking John
for this. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hopefully it (the subject) will now
decay
away:-).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>__________________<BR>John R
Johnson, PhD<BR><A
href="mailto:idias@interchange.ubc.ca";>idias@interchange.ubc.ca</A><BR> 
;</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM
href="mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM";>John
Jacobus</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=csmarcus@ucla.edu
href="mailto:csmarcus@ucla.edu";>Carol Marcus</A> ; <A
title=radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
href="mailto:radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu";>radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=njd@NRC.GOV
href="mailto:njd@NRC.GOV";>njd@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A
title=jmer@NRC.GOV
href="mailto:jmer@NRC.GOV";>jmer@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A
title=exm@NRC.GOV
href="mailto:exm@NRC.GOV";>exm@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A
title=gjd@NRC.GOV
href="mailto:gjd@NRC.GOV";>gjd@NRC.GOV</A> ; <A
title=siegelja@AOL.COM
href="mailto:siegelja@AOL.COM";>siegelja@AOL.COM</A> ; <A
title=CJP1@NRC.GOV href="mailto:CJP1@NRC.GOV";>CJP1@NRC.GOV</A>
; <A
title=rwb@NRC.GOV href="mailto:rwb@NRC.GOV";>rwb@NRC.GOV</A> ;
<A
title=REZ@NRC.GOV href="mailto:REZ@NRC.GOV";>REZ@NRC.GOV</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 16,
2003 10:06
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: NRC PROPOSES
$6,000 FINE
AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE
TO A MEMBER
OF THE PUBLIC</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For clarification, the report can be found at <A
href="http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/mate
rials/ea02248.html">http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcemen
t/actions/materials/ea02248.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With regard to exposure rate values, these are in the
report:0</DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD><FONT size=2>B. </FONT></TD>
<TD><FONT size=2>10 CFR 20.1301(a)(2) requires that each
licensee
conduct operations so that the dose in any unrestricted
area from
external sources, with exceptions not applicable here,
does not
exceed 2 millirem in any one hour.<BR><BR>Contrary to
the above, the
licensee conducted operations so that the dose in
unrestricted areas
exceeded 2 millirem in any one hour. Specifically,
licensee
operations on July 1, 2002, resulted in a dose of 10
millirem in one
hour in an emergency exit stairway, and a dose of
17millirem in one
hour outside the ground floor window of a patient's
room. Licensee
operations continued through July 7, 2002, when the
resultant doses
were 4 millirem in one hour and 8 millirem in one hour,
respectively.
<BR><BR></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<P>It should be noted that these values are outside of the
patents
room. I assume next to the bed the dose rates would be
significantly
higher. </P>
<P>Also, NCRP 37 provides recommendations. The NRC
grants a license
under which the licensee agrees to operate. You
cannot pick
the regulations you like to follow.</P>
<P><BR><B><I>Carol Marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu></I></B>
wrote:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
#1010ff 2px solid">.
. .<BR><BR>So, where does 3 to 15 rem come from? Nowhere
credible.
As I see it, the member of the family elected to get a
radiation dose
that is judged safe for radiation workers, in order to be
with a dying
relative. Seems reasonable to me.<BR><BR>It may be
reasonable to
point out that 10 CFR Part 20 includes the last sentence of
20.1001: "However, nothing in this part shall be
construed as
limiting actions that may be necessary to protect health and
safety." I would sincerely argue that the mental
health of the
member of the family comes under this clause, and that the
standards
need not apply. The care and peace of mind of the
dying patient
should be considered as well. While I would go to
great lengths to
prevent a member of the family from receiving a dose that I
know to be
harmful, I don't see any reason to become hysterical about a
dose that
is a! bout what a radiation worker may receive in a year, or
significantly less. In NCRP no. 37, it is recommended
that family
members over 45 not receive more than 5 rads from the
patient. I
don't know how old the family member in question was, but
clearly there
are standards that would support much higher radiation doses
than the
NRC seems prepared to permit in extreme
circumstances.<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>--
John<BR>John
Jacobus, MS<BR>Certified Health Physicist<BR>e-mail:
crispy_bird@yahoo.com
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The
New Yahoo! Search</A> - Faster. Easier.
Bingo.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- --Boundary_(ID_/CafwZ4GJ94zwZla+GXzvQ)--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:31:56 +0200
From: "Frikkie Beeslaar" <beeslar@sabs.co.za>
Subject: UD802 and dose from AmBe
Dear radsafers
We have some radiation workers that work with gauges that contain
either just an AmBe source or AmBe/Cs sources. They can thus be
exposed to either the gammas from the Cs or to the gamma/neutrons
from
the AmBe.
I have noticed some readings that did not coincide with the typical
UD802 fingerprint readings for an AmBe source. As expected,
element 1
and 2 (LiBo) registered high readings, but Element 3 and 4 (CaSO)
was
almost zero. From this it looks like just neutrons that were
measured
since there was no reading from E3 and E4 (which is insensitive to
neutrons).
How can it be possible to only see the neutron and not the gamma
from
the Am?
Could it be the design of the gauge that filters out all the gammas?
Thanks for the help
Frik Beeslaar
Medical Physicist
Radiation Protection Service (SABS)
e-mail: BEESLAR@SABS.CO.ZA
Tel: 027-12-428 6882
Fax:: 027-12-428 6685
Cell: 082 829 9613
Private bag X191
Pretoria
0001
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for virusses by SOPHOS Anti-virus
scanner.
________________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER
________________________________________________________________________
The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) hereby distances itself
from and accepts no liability in respect of the unauthorised use of
its e-mail facility or the sending of e-mail communications for
other
than strictly business purposes.
SABS furthermore disclaims liability for any unauthorised
instruction
for which permission was not granted and any opinions or
recommendations
expressed herein are those solely of the author.
Any recipient of an unacceptable communication, a chain letter or
offensive material of any nature is requested to report it to
helpdesk@sabs.co.za
"DISCLAIMER"
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:25:10 +0000
From: "Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: DU in Iraq
>75 tons of depleted uranium peppering the countryside of Iraq is a
small
>price to pay for avoided sorrow and grief of the families of these
brave
>and noble patriots. I most certainly don't want to be the first on
my block
>to see my son come home in a box or have to go to Washington, D.C.,
to
>touch his name on a wall because he never came home.
>What is our fascination with something that may hypothetically kill
us at
>some distant point in the future rather than the real hazards that
will
>kill you right now?
- ------------
I basically agree about the perspective above. The main point about
calculating the 75 tons/600,000 tons is to have a clear number for
those who
choose that"amount-line-of-argument" (about the distant future etc)
- to
simply have a number to give them. The risk communication is very
different
depending on who is communicating with whom. Take the following
parts of a
stake holder situation:
Engineer, scientist, journalist, worried general public, lawyers,
administrator/regulator, politician, anti-everything activist. Now
combine
(I get 20 basic combinations):
Engineer-scientist
Engineer-journalist
Journalist-politician and so on.
Then add that we communicate in two directions and with logic vs.
emotions.
This gives us 80 combinations. We hopefully expect that the
engineer-scientist use logic/fact based reasoning in both
directions. The
scientist (S) talking with a journalist (J) may result in 1:
S(logic)->J,
2:J(emotional)->S
and so on.
Depending on the character of the risk communication we need to see
arguments, numbers and so on from many different sides. Being aware
of the
complexity we may be able to choose a good strategy for risk
communication.
If someone has seen a scary (totally unrealistic) movie about
radioactivity
and is worried about it and one responds with some numbers there may
be no
real communication. Some people may buy the 75/600,000 argument (I
would
question relevance in terms of exposure), others may just want to
hear an
answer to "would you be afraid of visiting Iraq because of the 75
tons of
(extra) uranium there?".
The risk communication challenge (about radiation) is always there
regardless of what we think about it.
My personal ideas only,
Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers@hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 07:22:08 -0400
From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
Subject: Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY
HOSPITAL INMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
I suggest that you read the full inspection report (Inspection
Report No. 030-1997/2002001(DNMS)), that is referenced in the NOV.
It is available on ADAMS. The hospital did appeal the violation.
The letter of appeal is attached to the inspection report. In
that letter, the hospital places virtually all of the blame on the
RSO. Here are some quotes: "The former RSO's failure to
promptly investigate and take corrective action was quickly
corrected by management..." "It is also significant that the former
RSO's failure to immediately investigate and take corrective action
did not result in any harm to the pubic or the the NRC..."
Two things to note: (1) It's the former RSO. Any hospital RSO out
there who is thinking about being "compassionate" by violating
regulations should keep in mind that your employer may choose not to
support your decision, especially if they receive a NOV. (2)
I'm not sure what the hospital means by "...harm ... to the NRC..."
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Sandy Perle wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 at 6:30, Knapp, Steven J. wrote:
>
> > The questions still remains, how much control over the patient
and family is required before the NRC determines the control is
> > adequate?
>
> Steve,
>
> Your question can't be answered, even by the NRC, in that there is
> subjectivity even amongst inspectors (can this really be)!
>
> Ever licensee must remember that they can always appeal any NOV
and
> fine, to the Region, and, ultimately, can raise the issue all the
way
> up to HQ, and even beyond that, by going to the General Counsel.
They
> should only do this where they firmly believe that they were
treated
> unfairly. However, if I recall, the facility did take full
> responsibility for this, and, the only areas for complaint have
come
> from this and the MedPhysics listservers. The hospital didn't
appear
> to take issue.
>
> The discussion is good, since it involves regulations, personal
> issues, risk issues and health issues.
>
> But there is no answer to your question directly.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle
> Director, Technical
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
> Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100 Extension 2306
> Fax:(714) 668-3149
>
> E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
>
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:00:31 -0400
From: "Falo, Gerald A Dr HMJF" <Gerald.Falo@APG.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: RE: 33P/166Ho Skin Dose Factors
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not
understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31EC7.695D6740
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Ted,
According to "The Radionuclide and Radiation Protection Data
Handbook 1998"
the skin doses from P-33 are 8.6E-1 mSv/h per 1 kBq/cm2 for a
uniform
deposit and 1.4E-1 mSv/h for a 0.05 ml droplet (1 kBq). Ho-166 isn't
in the
text; however, I believe there is a second edition of the book that
may
have it. The handbook was released as Radiation Protection Dosimetry
V76,
Nos. 1 and 2.
Sorry that I don't have the Ho-166 numbers for you.
Jerry
How beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterwards. -
Spanish
proverb
The statements herein are entirely the fault of the author and in no
way
should be interpreted as official statements of any person or
organization
unless otherwise noted.
Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
Henry M Jackson Foundation Professional Associate
United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive
Medicine
Health Physics Program
gerald.falo@apg.amedd.army.mil
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31EC7.695D6740
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Ted,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>According to "The Radionuclide and Radiation Protection Data
Handbook
1998" the skin doses from P-33 are 8.6E-1 mSv/h per 1 kBq/cm2 for a
uniform
deposit and 1.4E-1 mSv/h for a 0.05 ml droplet (1 kBq). Ho-166 isn't
in the
text; however, I believe there is a second edition of the book
that may
have it. The handbook was released as Radiation Protection
Dosimetry V76,
Nos. 1 and 2.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Sorry
that I don't have the Ho-166 numbers for you.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Jerry</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><B><I><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2></FONT></I></B></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=489005811-20052003><B><I><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"
size=2>How
beautiful it is to do nothing, and then rest afterwards. - Spanish
proverb</FONT></I></B> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P><B><I><FONT face=Arial size=2>The statements herein are entirely
the fault of
the author and in no way should be interpreted as official
statements of any
person or organization unless otherwise noted.</FONT></I></B></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D.,
CHP</FONT>
<BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>Henry M Jackson Foundation
Professional
Associate</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>United
States Army
Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine</FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2>Health Physics Program</FONT>
<BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=2>gerald.falo@apg.amedd.army.mil</FONT>
</SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31EC7.695D6740--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:56:51 -0400
From: "Claude Laney" <cflaney@BELLSOUTH.NET>
Subject: Questions on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C31EAD.C0F89D40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Doses to Man From Routine
=
Releases of Reactor Effluents For the Purpose of Evaluating
Compliance =
with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, indicates in the introduction that =
Regulatory Guide 1.109 contains methods that may be used for =
demonstrating compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix
I.
Question: Are the methods contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109
still in =
use by commercial nuclear power facilities for the purpose of =
demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I?
=20
Comment: Regulatory Guide 1.109, Appendix E, item (3.) indicates
that =
the dose factors for the total body contained in Table E-6 are for
the =
dose rate in air at 1 meter above the ground for a tissue depth of 5
cm. =
The 5 cm tissue depth may be converted to a density thickness of
5000 =
mg per square cm, assuming a tissue density of 1000 mg per cubic cm.
10 =
CFR 50.2, Definitions, contains the definitions of the committed
dose =
equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, and the deep dose =
equivalent (DDE) with the DDE defined at a tissue depth of 1000 mg
per =
square cm. 10 CFR 20 references the same tissue depth (1000 mg per
=
square cm) in the definition of the DDE.
Question: How do the dose factors for the total body contained in
=
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Appendix E, Table E-6 demonstrate compliance
=
with the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I limits, and the dose limits for
members of =
the public contained in 10 CFR 20.1301, if the tissue depths differ
by a =
factor of 5 (i.e., 1000 mg per square cm compared to 5000 mg per
square =
cm)?
=20
Thanks for any comments.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C31EAD.C0F89D40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt">NRC Regulatory
=
Guide 1.109,=20
<I>Calculation of Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor =
Effluents For=20
the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix I</I>,
=
indicates=20
in the introduction that Regulatory Guide 1.109 contains methods
that =
may be=20
used for demonstrating compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50,
=
Appendix=20
I.<?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"=20
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
10.0pt"><STRONG> </STRONG></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
10.0pt"><STRONG>Question:</STRONG><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Are the methods contained
in =
Regulatory=20
Guide 1.109 still in use by commercial nuclear power facilities for
the =
purpose=20
of demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix =
I?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
10.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
10.0pt"><STRONG>Comment:</STRONG><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Regulatory Guide 1.109, =
Appendix E, item=20
(3.) indicates that the dose factors for the total body contained in
=
Table E-6=20
are for the dose rate in air at 1 meter above the ground for a
tissue =
depth of 5=20
cm.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The 5 cm tissue
depth =
may be=20
converted to a density thickness of 5000 mg per square cm, assuming
a =
tissue=20
density of 1000 mg per cubic cm.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun:
yes"> =
</SPAN>10=20
CFR 50.2, <I>Definitions</I>, contains the definitions of the
committed =
dose=20
equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent, and the deep dose =
equivalent=20
(DDE) with the DDE defined at a tissue depth of 1000 mg per square =
cm.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>10 CFR 20 references the
same =
tissue=20
depth (1000 mg per square cm) in the definition of the=20
DDE.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size:
10.0pt"> </SPAN><SPAN =
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
10.0pt"><STRONG>Question:</STRONG><SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How do the dose factors
for =
the total=20
body contained in Regulatory Guide 1.109, Appendix E, Table E-6 =
demonstrate=20
compliance with the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I limits, and the dose limits
for =
members=20
of the public contained in 10 CFR 20.1301, if the tissue depths
differ =
by a=20
factor of 5 (i.e., 1000 mg per square cm compared to 5000 mg per
square=20
cm)?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: =
10.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt">Thanks for
any=20
comments.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C31EAD.C0F89D40--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:36:28 -0400
From: "Hart, Tim P GS (RASO)" <harttp@RASO.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Consider the following
A stranger was seated next to Little Tommy on the
plane when the stranger turned to the boy and said, "Let's talk.
I've heard that flights will go quicker if you strike up a
conversation with your fellow passenger."
Little Tommy, who had just opened his book, closed it slowly, and
said to the stranger, "What would you like to discuss?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the stranger. "How about nuclear power?"
"OK," said Little Tommy. "That could be an interesting topic. But
let me ask you a question first. "A horse, a cow, and a deer all
eat grass. The same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while
a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried
grass. Why do you suppose that is?"
"Jeez," said the stranger. "I have no idea."
"Well, then," said Little Tommy, "How is it that you feel qualified
to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit?"
Tim Hart
Radiation Protection Manager
NAVSEADET RASO
NWS P.O. Drawer 260
Yorktown, VA 23691-0260
Commercial: (757) 887-4692
DSN: 953-4692
Fax: (757) 887-3235
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him
absolutely no good." - Samuel Johnson
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:46:30 EDT
From: BLHamrick@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Risks and their avoidance
- --part1_195.1a828902.2bfb8bb6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/19/2003 10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lists@richardhess.com writes:
> How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal level?
In
> California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's Prop
65,
> Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to the
state of
>
> California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I mean
this is
> on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk
to work
> and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!
>
Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the big problems we have, as
a
society, in addressing risks. We had all these businesses put up
these
signs, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE, they mean nothing.
People
don't even see them anymore, because you literally can't go anywhere
that
there's not one. They're even on our hotels for cryin' out loud.
While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we first
must all
realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty become
a
"statistic." Once we really grasp that, we can better balance
quality of
life issues against the fact that we know the quantity is surely
limited.
Barbara
- --part1_195.1a828902.2bfb8bb6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 5/19/2003 10:51:39 PM
Pacific Stand=
ard Time, lists@richardhess.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">How can we get society
to take=20=
responsibility on a personal level? In <BR>
California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's Prop
65, <BR>
Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to the
state of=20=
<BR>
California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I mean
this is <=
BR>
on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk to
work <BR=
>
and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the big problems we have, as
a socie=
ty, in addressing risks. We had all these businesses put up
these sign=
s, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE, they mean nothing.
People=20=
don't even see them anymore, because you literally can't go anywhere
that th=
ere's not one. They're even on our hotels for cryin' out
loud.<BR>
<BR>
While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we first
must al=
l realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty
become a "sta=
tistic." Once we really grasp that, we can better balance
quality of l=
ife issues against the fact that we know the quantity is surely
limited.<BR>
<BR>
Barbara</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_195.1a828902.2bfb8bb6_boundary--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:52:57 -0400
From: "Ansari, Armin" <asa4@cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: DU in Iraq - relevant comparisons
Dear colleagues:
Calculating the mass of natural uranium in the top one meter layer
of soil
in Iraq or any where else (even our own backyard) is interesting and
very
useful for communicating the presence of radioactive materials in
our
natural world. However, this is not a useful approach in
communicating the
low risk associated with the presence of however many tons of DU
ammunition
in the environment. This could be relevant only if all DU were
homogeneously distributed over the entire country to a depth of one
meter.
Let's consider this analogy: the top 1 centimeter layer of soil in
this
beautiful country contains approximately 15,000 Ci of Cs-137
(someone please
check my math). If one Ci of Cs-137 is spilled or scattered, we
would not
discount it just because it is only 0.00007 fraction of what is
already
present in the top 1 cm of soil. Relevant comparisons would be
concentrations and exposure rates.
Best regards,
Armin
___________________________________
Armin Ansari, Ph.D., CHP
Radiation Studies Branch, EHHE, NCEH
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd, NE (MS-E39)
Atlanta, GA 30333
Ph: 404.498.1837 Fax: 404.498.1811
AAnsari@cdc.gov
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Zack Clayton <zclayton@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Not being a statistic
I would just like to correct a common mental slip that most of us
make.
We are all "statstics" I am fortunately in the 99.44% group that
hasn't had anything go wrong with me. I want to stay out of that
0.56%
group that has more cavities than theirs - which is the group
called
in our verbal shorthand "the statistics".
(99.44% was a common advertising slogan for a face soap. The cavity
reference is to ads for a brand of toothpaste, and your results may
vary. Professional driver on a closed course. Do not attempt this
at
home.)
Zack Clayton
Health Physicist
Columbus, Ohio.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:25:49 -0600
From: "Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@LANL.GOV>
Subject: Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a
Deadly Legacy of Yell...
From http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/hu2002/techprogram/paper_46652.htm
New Mexico ranks 2nd in uranium reserves in the U. S., which amounts
to 15 million tons ore at 0.277% U 3O8(84 million lbs U 3O8) at
$30/lb (Energy Information Administration, 2000). The most important
uranium deposit in the state is sandstone within the Morrison
Formation (Jurassic) in the Grants and Shiprock uranium districts,
San Juan Basin. More than 340 million lbs of U 3O8have been produced
from these uranium deposits from 1948 through 2000, accounting for
97% of the total uranium production in New Mexico and more than 30%
of the total uranium production in the United States. Only one
company in New Mexico, Quivira Mining Co. owned by Rio Algom Ltd.
(successor to Kerr McGee Corporation), produced uranium in 1984-2000
from waters recovered from inactive underground operations at
Ambrosia Lake, Grants (mine-water recovery). Hydro Resources Inc.
has
put its plans on hold to mine uranium by in-situ leaching at
Churchrock until the uranium price increases. Reserves at Churchrock
are estimated as 15 million pounds of U 3O8. NZU Inc. also is
planning to mine at Crownpoint by in-situ leaching. Rio Grande
Resources Co. is maintaining the closed facilities at the flooded
Mt.
Taylor underground mine, in Cibola County. In late 1997, Anaconda
Uranium acquired the La Jara Mesa uranium deposit in Cibola County
from Homestake Mining Co. The sandstone uranium deposit was
discovered in the late 1980s in the Morrison Formation and contains
approximately 8 million pounds of 0.25% U 3O8. Future development of
these reserves and resources will depend upon an increase in price
for uranium and the lowering of production costs, perhaps by in-situ
leaching techniques.
For information on uranium mining in New Mexico.
http://www.grants.org/mining/mining.htm
Mike
>May 19, 2003
>Davis, CA
>
>If my memory serves me right, there was a uranium ore processing
mill near
>Grants, NM, in the 1960's. Does anyone else remember a uranium mill
in New
>Mexico?
>
>Otto
>
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:36:32 -0400
From: "Richard F. Orthen" <rorthen@EARTHSCIENCES.NET>
Subject: RE: Risks and their avoidance
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C31EBB.ADFD92A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
But while measures like Proposition 65 have little to do with
effectively
safeguarding human welfare (except in those cases where a legal
monetary
award is provided due to lack of signage), I am convinced they have
everything to do with isolating corporations from product
use/exposure
liability. We shouldn't be so naive so as to believe that "life as
we know
it" has been produced in a legal vacuum. I rarely, if ever,
interpret such
signage as being a statement of human health risk, and apparently
I'm in
considerable company.
Rick Orthen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of
BLHamrick@AOL.COM
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:47 AM
To: lists@richardhess.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Risks and their avoidance
In a message dated 5/19/2003 10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lists@richardhess.com writes:
How can we get society to take responsibility on a personal
level? In
California we have a warning almost every where (I think it's
Prop 65,
Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that is known to
the state
of
California as a carcinogen" or something equally scary. So, I
mean this
is
on my parking garage at the office. What do I do? Not park? Walk
to work
and inhale the same stuff on the street? Puleeze!
Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is one of the big problems we have,
as a
society, in addressing risks. We had all these businesses put up
these
signs, but since they are literally EVERYWHERE, they mean nothing.
People
don't even see them anymore, because you literally can't go anywhere
that
there's not one. They're even on our hotels for cryin' out loud.
While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we
first must
all realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty
become a
"statistic." Once we really grasp that, we can better balance
quality of
life issues against the fact that we know the quantity is surely
limited.
Barbara
- ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C31EBB.ADFD92A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DEuroRoman color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D620542114-20052003>But while=20
measures like Proposition 65 have little to do with effectively =
safeguarding=20
human welfare (except in those cases where a legal monetary award is
=
provided=20
due to lack of signage), I am convinced they have everything to do
with=20
isolating corporations from product
use/exposure liability. =
We=20
shouldn't be so naive so as to believe that "life as we know =
it" has been=20
produced in a legal vacuum. I rarely, if ever, interpret such
=
signage as=20
being a statement of human health risk, and apparently I'm in =
considerable=20
company.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DEuroRoman color=3D#0000ff><SPAN=20
class=3D620542114-20052003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DEuroRoman color=3D#0000ff><SPAN =
class=3D620542114-20052003>Rick=20
Orthen</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New
Roman"=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu=20
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]<B>On Behalf Of</B>=20
BLHamrick@AOL.COM<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:47 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
lists@richardhess.com;
radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> =
Re:=20
Risks and their avoidance<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT =
face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT=20
lang=3D0 face=3DArial size=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">In a message
dated =
5/19/2003=20
10:51:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, lists@richardhess.com =
writes:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
TYPE=3D"CITE">How can we get society to take responsibility on a =
personal=20
level? In <BR>California we have a warning almost every where (I
=
think it's=20
Prop 65, <BR>Barbara?) that says "this business uses stuff that
is =
known to=20
the state of <BR>California as a carcinogen" or something
equally =
scary. So,=20
I mean this is <BR>on my parking garage at the office. What do I
do? =
Not=20
park? Walk to work <BR>and inhale the same stuff on the
street?=20
Puleeze!<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yes, it is Prop. 65, and this is
one =
of the=20
big problems we have, as a society, in addressing risks. We
had =
all=20
these businesses put up these signs, but since they are literally
=
EVERYWHERE,=20
they mean nothing. People don't even see them anymore,
because =
you=20
literally can't go anywhere that there's not one. They're
even =
on our=20
hotels for cryin' out loud.<BR><BR>While I think we can reduce our
=
risks of an=20
untoward death, we first must all realize that one day, like it or
=
not, we=20
will with certainty become a "statistic." Once we really
grasp =
that, we=20
can better balance quality of life issues against the fact that we
=
know the=20
quantity is surely limited.<BR><BR>Barbara</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C31EBB.ADFD92A0--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: BERNARD L COHEN <blc+@PITT.EDU>
Subject: Re: AW: [Fwd: [Know_Nukes] (NYT) Navajo Miners Battle a
Deadly Legacy of Yell...
On Mon, 19 May 2003, Otto G. Raabe wrote:
>
> If my memory serves me right, there was a uranium ore processing
mill near
> Grants, NM, in the 1960's. Does anyone else remember a uranium
mill in New
> Mexico?
k
--I visited an ore processing mill near Grants, NM in the
1980s.
It is my understanding that it is normal to have an ore processing
mill
near mines because the vast majority of the material mined is not
uranium
(in NM, much less than 1%), so transportation is minimized if the
uranium
is separated out nearby. The mills produce yellow cake. U3 O8, which
costs
about $10 per pound, so it is economical to send it to plants far
away for
conversion to U F6 which is used in isotope separation.
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit
- --0-1542481523-1053444612=:49320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I am always fascinated when you have a cancer cluster of one person.
Where are the others to do an epidemiological study? I bet the highway
death rates linked to Sr-90 is much higher.
"Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU> wrote:At 09:48 AM 5/17/03
-0600, Doty, Patrick wrote:
Below is a link to a story posted today on the TCPalm Web site,
"Suit
>alleges cancer link to nuclear plant".
HERE IS THE WHOLE ARTICLE FROM THE "Fort Pierce Tribune" newspaper
WITH THE
AUTHOR'S E-MAIL ADDRESS!
Suit alleges cancer link to nuclear plant
Boy, 13, died of the disease in 2001 and the family blames Florida
Power &
Light (FPL)
By Mark Pollio staff writer
May 16, 2003
ST. LUCIE COUNTY -- The family of a 13-year-old cancer victim filed
a
federal lawsuit last week against Florida Power & Light Co.,
claiming
nuclear power plant emissions contributed to their child's cancer.
. . .
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
- ---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --0-1542481523-1053444612=:49320
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>I am always fascinated when you have a cancer cluster of one
person. Where are the others to do an epidemiological study? I
bet the highway death rates linked to Sr-90 is much
higher.<BR><BR><B><I>"Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@UCDAVIS.EDU></I></B>
wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px">At 09:48 AM 5/17/03 -0600, Doty, Patrick wrote:<BR>Below
is a link to a story posted today on the TCPalm Web site,
"Suit<BR>>alleges cancer link to nuclear plant". <BR>HERE IS THE WHOLE
ARTICLE FROM THE "Fort Pierce Tribune" newspaper WITH THE<BR>AUTHOR'S E-MAIL
ADDRESS!<BR><BR>Suit alleges cancer link to nuclear plant<BR><BR>Boy, 13,
died of the disease in 2001 and the family blames Florida Power
&<BR>Light (FPL)<BR><BR>By Mark Pollio staff writer<BR>May 16,
2003<BR><BR>ST. LUCIE COUNTY -- The family of a 13-year-old cancer victim
filed a<BR>federal lawsuit last week against Florida Power & Light Co.,
claiming<BR>nuclear power plant emissions contributed to their child's
cancer.<BR>. . .</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>-- John<br>John Jacobus,
MS<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com<p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The
New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --0-1542481523-1053444612=:49320--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:48:26 -0400
From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
Subject: radiography - deja vu all over again
Please see the attached item from the March 20, 2003, NRC Daily
Event
Report. Here's another preventable radiography incident.
my usual question: When is the NRC going to start taking
radiography
seriously?
Also, some key information seems to be missing from the report. The
sequence of events seems to be: (1) source exposed for shot, (2)
radiographer leaves work area prior to cranking back source, (3)
radiographer returns, changes film,and moves guide tube with source
still exposed. The report then states, "At this point, he realized
that
his survey meter had pegged high, and remembered that he had not
cranked
the source back in prior to moving it..."
Assuming that TX regulations are similar to NRC regulations,
consider 10
CFR 34.47(a): "The licensee may not permit any individual to act as
a
radiographer or a radiographer's assistant unless, at all times
during
radiographic operations, each individual wears, on the trunk of the
body, ... an operating alarm ratemeter..."
I think it's just this scenario that the regulators had in mind when
they required an alarm ratemeter. Where was it?
BTW, they were very lucky that the source had decayed down to 26 Ci.
If
I remember correctly, a fresh source is 80 - 100 Ci, which probably
would have caused an overexposure.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
AGREEMENT STATE
REPORT |
|
|
| The licensee reported a potential overexposure to a radiographer
who
was |
| x-raying some pipes at a worksite. After completing a section of
piping, |
| the radiographer should have cranked his source back in, but was
interrupted |
| by another technician and left his work area. When he returned,
the |
| radiographer changed out his film, and moved the guide tube to
another |
| section of piping to begin more x-rays. At this point, he
realized
that his |
| survey meter had pegged high, and remembered that he had not
cranked
the |
| source back in prior to moving it. He proceeded to immediately
crank
the |
| source back to its fully shielded position. The exact time and
distance |
| from the source for the radiographer's exposure is unknown, and
the
licensee |
| is attempting to re-create the
scenario. |
|
|
| The source was 26 Curies of Iridium 192, model number INC-32. The
serial |
| number is unknown at this time. A preliminary investigation by
the
licensee |
| estimates the radiographer's exposure to 800-900 millirem whole
body.
There |
| is currently no exposure estimate for his
hands/extremities. |
|
|
| The radiographer's badge was sent off for processing. Results
will
be |
| reported on 5/16/03 to the NRC. The Texas Department of Health is
sending |
| an additional inspector to the site to
investigate. |
|
|
|
|
| * * * UPDATE ON 5/16/03 @ 1120 BY WATKINS TO GOULD * *
* |
|
|
| Blazer Industrial Radiography brought in a consultant to perform
preliminary |
| dose calculations for the whole body and the right hand of the
radiographer. |
| The results were 1.3R for the whole body and 37.1R for the right
hand, |
| neither of which exceeds the annual regulatory
limit. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---+
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:50:22 EDT
From: BobCherry@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Risks and their avoidance
- --part1_bf.31dbf9b2.2bfba8be_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 5/20/2003 8:48:25 AM Central Daylight Time,
BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:
> While I think we can reduce our risks of an untoward death, we
first must
> all realize that one day, like it or not, we will with certainty
become a
> "statistic."
While teaching physics at West Point in the eighties, I provided a
course-wide lecture on the biological effects of radiation. In
leading to the discussion
of LNT, I mentioned that we all have about a one in six chance of
dying of
cancer. However, that shouldn't be alarming because we also have a
five in six
chance of dying of something else. The cadets seemed surprised at
facing
mortality in such cold terms, but it helped put radiation risks in
perspective.
Bob
- --part1_bf.31dbf9b2.2bfba8be_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 5/20/2003 8:48:25 AM
Central Daylig=
ht Time, BLHamrick@AOL.COM writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">While I think we can
reduce our=
risks of an untoward death, we first must all realize that one day,
like it=
or not, we will with certainty become a "statistic."
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><F=
ONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D3
FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
SIZE=3D2=
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
While teaching physics at West Point in the eighties, I provided a
course-wi=
de lecture on the biological effects of radiation. In leading to the
discuss=
ion of LNT, I mentioned that we all have about a one in six chance
of dying=20=
of cancer. However, that shouldn't be alarming because we also have
a five i=
n six chance of dying of something else. The cadets seemed surprised
at faci=
ng mortality in such cold terms, but it helped put radiation risks
in perspe=
ctive.<BR>
<BR>
Bob</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_bf.31dbf9b2.2bfba8be_boundary--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Radiation sickness
- --0-904321844-1053446380=:65626
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Without a medical workup this is all speculation. My first guess is
malnutrition. Also, lack of intelligence drinking from a barrel that may
have contained chemical wastes. By the way, how is the father doing since he
drank from the same barrel?
Jim Hoerner <jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
Radiation sickness
5/16/2003 10:18 AM
By: Capital News 9 web staff
[There is also a video available at the cited link. The people
supposedly
suffering from acute radiation sickness look pretty healthy to me.
Not what
I would expect if it were true. - JH]
Amar doesn't go out much these days. He said he's been sick ever
since he
drank water from a plastic barrel looted from nearby Al-Tuwaitha,
Saddam's
biggest nuclear research complex.
. . .
He said he only drank water from the barrel once, just after he and
his father bought it from a man in the street. . . .
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
- ---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --0-904321844-1053446380=:65626
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Without a medical workup this is all speculation. My
first guess is malnutrition. Also, lack of intelligence drinking from
a barrel that may have contained chemical wastes. By the way, how is the
father doing since he drank from the same barrel?<BR><BR><B><I>Jim Hoerner
<jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM></I></B> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<P>Radiation sickness<BR>5/16/2003 10:18 AM<BR>By: Capital News 9
web staff<BR><BR>[There is also a video available at the cited link. The
people supposedly <BR>suffering from acute radiation sickness look pretty
healthy to me. Not what <BR>I would expect if it were true. -
JH]<BR><BR>Amar doesn't go out much these days. He said he's been sick ever
since he <BR>drank water from a plastic barrel looted from nearby
Al-Tuwaitha, Saddam's <BR>biggest nuclear research complex.<BR>. . .</P>
<P>He said he only drank water from the barrel once, just after he
and his father bought it from a man in the street. . . .</P>
<P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR>-- John<br>John Jacobus,
MS<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com<p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The
New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --0-904321844-1053446380=:65626--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:28:18 -0500
From: "Michael G. Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: Re: Tooth fairy inspired law suit
"John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>I bet the highway death rates linked to Sr-90 is much higher.
John, I think you are right. I refer you to a finding I published
some years
back. The dose models and even background dose equivalent rates need
to be
updated, but the conclusions are the same, and support your
reasonable
suggestion.
Traffic Fatality Dose/Response Model.
Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP.
In 1985, Voelz et al. (Voelz et al. 1985) published results of their
37 year
followup of Manhattan Project plutonium workers. While some comfort
is
afforded by the results regarding the incidence of neoplasms and
other
diseases in this small population, I find it somewhat disturbing to
note the
increased incidence of fatalities due to auto/pedestrian accidents
(1
observed vs. 0.96 expected). From the data, it appears that the
increased
risk of such fatalaties is about 4% in the observed population. The
authors
neglected to derive a dose-response model for these data, believing,
quite
naively, that "None of the positive findings...can be attributed to
the Pu
depositions." In this enlightened age in which all reasonable
people
recognize the clearly defined link between small amounts of
radiation and
effects such as stillbirths, cancer, etc., it is difficult to
understand why
the authors overlooked this obvious effect.
To derive a dose-response model, I will limit my discussion to dose
the
bone, liver, and lungs, because these organs account for almost 100%
of the
total transformations of Pu-239 in a class Y material (ICRP 1979).
From
Table 4 of Voelz et al., and from tables in ICRP 30, I estimate
roughly a
collective committed dose of 37 person-Sv to the red marrow, 460
person-Sv
to the bone, 100 person-Sv to the liver, and 150 person-Sv to the
lungs in
the exposed population. This would result in a collective effective
dose
equivalent of 43.4 Person-Sv. Therefore, the excess increased risk
of
radiation-induced traffic fatalities of this type should be on the
order of
9.2E-4 per person-Sv. Assuming a linear, non-threshold model, this
would
indicate that 420 auto/pedestrian fatalities in the US each year may
be
attributed to background radiation, based on a population of 230
million
people receiving an average of 2 mGy per year. In addition, based
on the
projections for power consumption in UNSCEAR 1982, we may expect 9.2
additional auto/pedestrian fatalities each year attributable to
nuclear
power production in the year 2000. I think that it is a clear and
present
danger that we face here, and I feel that we should make every
effort to
immediately halt nuclear power production, coal power production
(because
the lung dose from this pathway is comparable to or higher than that
from
nuclear power production), natural gas consumption (due to the
Rn-222
component), and above all, we must find some way to completely
eliminate the
populations's exposure to cosmic and terrestrial radiation.
References
ICRP 1979 - International Commission on Radiological Protection,
1979.
Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication
30,
Oxford, Pergammon Press.
UNSCEAR 1982 - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic
Radiation, 1982 Report to the General Assembly, 1982. Ionizing
Radiation:
Sources and Biological Effects, United Nations, New York.
Voelz 1985 - G. Voelz, R. Grier, and L. Hempelmann, 1985. A 37-year
medical
followup of Mannhattan Project Pu workers. Health Physics,
48:249-260.
Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-0068
Fax (615) 322-3764
Pager (615) 835-5153
e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
internet www.doseinfo-radar.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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:17:08 -0400
From: CONTEDU <contedu@hsph.harvard.edu>
Subject: Harvard Announces Industrial Hygiene Program
- --=====================_15114753==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Comprehensive Industrial Hygiene:
Practical Applications of Basic Principles
June 23 - 27, 2003
Overview
Recognized industry-wide for having benefited thousands of
professionals=20
and technicians, this program offers a comprehensive introduction to
the=20
fundamentals of state-of-the-art industrial hygiene practice.
Learn how to use the key concepts and principles of this profession
to:=20
identify potential hazards in the workplace, select methods for
the=20
assessment of exposures to hazards, evaluate the consequences of
excessive=
=20
exposure, and institute techniques for prevention and control of=20
occupational disease.
Who Should Attend
=B7 safety managers and technicians
=B7 manufacturing and facility engineers
=B7 line and plant managers
=B7 occupational physicians and nurses
=B7 chemists
=B7 industrial hygienists and technicians
=B7 loss control managers and risk managers
Why You Should Attend
Understanding the elements of occupational safety and health is
essential=20
for the protection of workers in any setting. This program will
provide you=
=20
with the key principles of industrial hygiene practice needed by=20
professionals and technologists with direct or managerial
responsibility=20
for industrial hygiene programs.
Upon Completion Of This Course You Should Be Able To
=B7 evaluate work practices and engineering control techniques
for the=
=20
prevention of occupational disease
=B7 recognize health hazards in occupational settings
=B7 select control measures specific to exposures
=B7 determine the physiological and toxicological effects of
exposures=
=20
to industrial hazards
=B7 understand the physical and chemical behavior of aerosols
and gas=
=20
mixtures
=B7 analyze industrial exhaust ventilation systems
=B7 identify methods to measure and control noise stresses in
the=20
workplace
=B7 distinguish the effects of ionizing and non-ionizing
radiation
=B7 detect the sources of ergonomic stress in the factory and
office
Additional Benefits
=B7 in-class demonstrations of air sampling and ventilation=
measurements
=B7 discussion of current OSHA issues suggested by
participants
=B7 orientation toward practical application of industrial
hygiene=20
principles
Faculty offer extensive practical experience and results-based
teaching=20
methods to ensure that participants leave with the necessary skills
and=20
understanding.
For more information and to register:
Visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/FIH.shtml
phone: (617) 384 - 8692
fax: (617) 384 - 8690
e-mail: contedu@hsph.harvard.edu
address: Center for Continuing Professional Education
677 Huntington Avenue, CCPE-Dept. A
Boston, MA 02115-6096
- --=====================_15114753==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<font color=3D"#000080"><b>Comprehensive Industrial Hygiene:<br>
Practical Applications of Basic Principles<br>
<br>
</font>June 23 - 27, 2003 <br>
<br>
</b><font color=3D"#000080">Overview<br>
</font>Recognized industry-wide for having benefited thousands of
professionals and technicians, this program offers a comprehensive
introduction to the fundamentals of state-of-the-art industrial
hygiene
practice.<br>
<br>
Learn how to use the key concepts and principles of this profession
to:
identify potential hazards in the workplace, select methods for the
assessment of exposures to hazards, evaluate the consequences of
excessive exposure, and institute techniques for prevention and
control
of occupational disease.<br>
<br>
<font color=3D"#000080">Who Should Attend<br>
</font><font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> &=
nbsp;</x-tab></font>safety
managers and technicians <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>manufacturing
and facility engineers <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>line
and plant managers <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>occupational
physicians and nurses <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>chemists
<br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>industrial
hygienists and technicians <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>loss
control managers and risk managers <br>
<br>
<font color=3D"#000080">Why You Should Attend</font><b> <br>
</b>Understanding the elements of occupational safety and health is
essential for the protection of workers in any setting. This program
will
provide you with the key principles of industrial hygiene practice
needed
by professionals and technologists with direct or managerial
responsibility for industrial hygiene programs.<br>
<br>
<font color=3D"#000080">Upon Completion Of This Course You Should Be
Able
To<br>
</font><font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> &=
nbsp;</x-tab></font>evaluate
work practices and engineering control techniques for the prevention
of
occupational disease <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>recognize
health hazards in occupational settings <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>select
control measures specific to exposures <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>determine
the physiological and toxicological effects of exposures to
industrial
hazards <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>understand
the physical and chemical behavior of aerosols and gas mixtures <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>analyze
industrial exhaust ventilation systems <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>identify
methods to measure and control noise stresses in the workplace <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>distinguish
the effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>detect
the sources of ergonomic stress in the factory and office <br>
<br>
<font color=3D"#000080">Additional Benefits<br>
</font><font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> &=
nbsp;</x-tab></font>in-class
demonstrations of air sampling and ventilation measurements <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>discussion
of current OSHA issues suggested by participants <br>
<font
face=3D"Symbol">=B7<x-tab> </=
x-tab></font>orientation
toward practical application of industrial hygiene principles <br>
<br>
Faculty offer extensive practical experience and results-based
teaching
methods to ensure that participants leave with the necessary skills
and
understanding.<br>
<br>
For more information and to register:<br>
Visit:
<a href=3D"http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/FIH.shtml"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/FIH.shtml</a><=
br>
<b>phone:</b> (617) 384 - 8692 <br>
<b>fax:</b> (617) 384 - 8690 <br>
<b>e-mail:</b>
<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>contedu@hsph.harvard.edu</u></font> <br>
<b>address:</b> Center for Continuing Professional Education <br>
677 Huntington Avenue, CCPE-Dept. A<br>
Boston, MA 02115-6096<br>
</html>
- --=====================_15114753==_.ALT--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: RE: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY
HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
- --0-95679621-1053451324=:72013
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
My understanding is that the NRC does not determine how much control
is to be placed on the patient. It is the licensees responsibility of
ensure that public exposures do not exceed 100 mrem/y (1 mSv/y) or 500
mrem/y (5 mSv/y) to a caretaker. In this case, the licensee did not meets
its obligation to reduce exposures to the public.
With regard to a patient terminating treatment, I would believe that
all the licensee is required to do is instruct the patient on reducing
exposures to the public. Once the patient leaves the facility, the licensee
has no control over their actions. HOWEVER, I suspecting that it is not
unreasonable for a facility to refuse to treat a patient who they suspect
will not (1) complete the course of treatment, and (2) follow directions
associated with that treatment. I can honestly say I have not heard of a
situation where the patient has left during a treatment. I can imagine a
situation where an Alzheimer's patient may require treatment, but sedation
and montoring could be used to control their actions.
"Knapp, Steven J." <Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV> wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the right to
terminate their medical treatment and go home at any time unless they pose
imminent danger to the public. If a patient goes home, the situation is not
monitored. Where is the consistency in mitigating the radiation risk when
the patient is hospitalized versus being at home? This appears to be a
regulatory problem, not a health risk problem. The NRC consultant stated
the radiation health risk to family members was insignificant.
The questions still remains, how much control over the patient and
family is required before the NRC determines the control is adequate? Would
the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO completed the procedures listed
in the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and a noncompliant and
informed family member exceeded the radiation dose limit?
It is obvious the RSO could have done things to lessen the
opportunity for the NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would that have
been enough?
. . .
- -- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
- ---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --0-95679621-1053451324=:72013
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>My understanding is that the NRC does not determine how
much control is to be placed on the patient. It is the licensees
responsibility of ensure that public exposures do not exceed 100 mrem/y
(1 mSv/y) or 500 mrem/y (5 mSv/y) to a caretaker. In this case, the
licensee did not meets its obligation to reduce exposures to the
public. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With regard to a patient terminating treatment, I would believe
that all the licensee is required to do is instruct the patient on reducing
exposures to the public. Once the patient leaves the facility, the
licensee has no control over their actions. HOWEVER, I suspecting
that it is not unreasonable for a facility to refuse to treat a patient who
they suspect will not (1) complete the course of treatment, and (2)
follow directions associated with that treatment. I can honestly
say I have not heard of a situation where the patient has left during a
treatment. I can imagine a situation where an Alzheimer's patient
may require treatment, but sedation and montoring could be used to control
their actions.<BR><BR><B><I>"Knapp, Steven J."
<Steven.Knapp@MED.VA.GOV></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>I am not a lawyer, but I surmise patients have the
right to terminate their medical treatment and go home at any time unless
they pose imminent danger to the public. If a patient goes home, the
situation is not monitored. Where is the consistency in mitigating the
radiation risk when the patient is hospitalized versus being at home?
This appears to be a regulatory problem, not a health risk problem.
The NRC consultant stated the radiation health risk to family members was
insignificant.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>The questions still remains, <U>how much control
over the patient and family is required</U> before the NRC determines the
control is adequate? Would the NRC have a similar conclusion if an RSO
completed the procedures listed in the NRC letter to St. Joseph Mercy
Hospital and a noncompliant and informed family member exceeded the
radiation dose limit?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003>It is obvious the RSO could have done things to
lessen the opportunity for the NRC to find fault, but even if he did, would
that have been enough?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=871454312-19052003></SPAN></FONT>. .
.</FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>-- John<br>John Jacobus,
MS<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com<p><hr
SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com";>The
New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
- --0-95679621-1053451324=:72013--
************************************************************************
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/
------------------------------
End of radsafe-digest V1 #789
*****************************
***********************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe digest mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put
the text
"unsubscribe radsafe-digest" (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/