[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
I have to agree with Jose. According to EPA there are thousands of
orphan sources right here in the good old USA. I would venture to say
that that number of sources missing says something about controls in the
USA needing to be improved.
Tom Hazlett
joseroze@netvision.net.il wrote:
>Please, consider:
>a) poor control in Brazil
>b) poor control by user
>
>In the First case we can consider general context, and this is not
correct.
>
>Poor control by user you can find anywhere in many developed countries,
>including USA
>
>AN OVERVIEW OF MANAGING THE U.S. RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAM CONCERNING
>GENERALLY-LICENSED SOURCES AND DEVICES
>Commissioner Greta Joy Dicus, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
>Washington, D.C. 20555
>Keynote Presentation at the
>10th Annual International Radiation Protection Association Conference
>May 15, 2000
>Hiroshima, Japan
>
>...............
>"U.S. operational experience with radioactive materials includes few
>accidents with generally-licensed devices, and only five have resulted in
>potential radiation overexposures to the general public since 1989.
The U.S.
>metal recycling industry has been particularly affected by losses and
thefts
>of radioactive sources, some of which were generally-licensed and have
>subsequently become mixed with metal scrap destined for recycling."
>
>"For a smelting event involving a large radiation source (believed to
not be
>a generally licensed device) one U.S. steel mills incurred an average cost
>of approximately US$ ten million, while yet in another case the cost
>approached US$ 23 million."
>
>"Lost, stolen, and abandoned generally-licensed sources or devices
appearing
>in recycled metals constitute a worldwide problem. Thirty other smelting
>events have been reported in at least eighteen other countries (1). Others
>may have occurred but have not come to our attention or cannot be
>confirmed."
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>USA PERSPECTIVES
>SAFETY & SECURITY OF RADIOACTIVE SOURCES
>BY GRETA JOY DICUS
>IAEA BULLETIN, 41/3/1999
>
>
>............................
>"Each year, the NRC receives about 200 reports of lost, stolen or
abandoned
>radioactive sources and devices. It is important to note that such reports
>are received only when licensees recall that they have a source, know that
>it is lost or stolen, know that there is a requirement to report the
loss or
>theft, and make that report."
>"In some cases, the loss of control of radioactive sources resulted in
>radiation overexposures of unsuspecting members of the public. For
example,
>in 1979, an unshielded 1 GBq (28 Ci) iridium-192 industrial radiography
>source was accidentally left at a temporary job site in California. A
>worker, not knowing what itwas, picked it up and placed it into a back
>pocket of his trousers. The dose to his buttock exceeded 200 Sv(20,000
rem).
>
>In 1992, a 0.14 GBq (3.7 Ci) iridium-192 brachytherapy source was
accidently
>disconnected from the cable attaching it to a remote afterloader while it
>was emplaced in a patient. The source eventually became dislodged from the
>patient together with surgical dressings. The discarded dressings
containing
>the source were sent to a disposal facility which routinely conducted
>radiation surveillance of incoming waste. Radiation from the source was
>detected and it was thus discovered the patient died from complications
>resulting from the overdose and 90 members of the public were accidentally
>exposed to the source.
>
>In 1996, industrial radiography devices were stolen....."
>
>
>The above examples doesn't mean poor control by Regulatory Authority.
>So, I can't agree with your expression: "poor control in Brazil"
>
>Jose Julio Rozental
>joseroze@netvision.net.il
>Israel
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stewart Faber" <radproject@optonline.net>
>To: "Stewart Farber" <farbersa@optonline.net>; "Hart, Tim P GS (RASO)"
><harttp@RASO.NAVY.MIL>; "Radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; "Jose
Julio
>Rozental" <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
>Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:41 PM
>Subject: Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
>
>
>
>
>>1/15/04 9:47:36 AM, Jose Julio Rozental <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
wrote:
>>
>>[EXCERPT INCLUDED FROM MY ORIGINAL POST:]
>>
>>
>>>>The fact that the Goaiana incident was not a group of "workers"
>>>>
>>>>
>servicing a
>
>
>>>>teletherapy unit, but a group of thieves/scavangers who were ripping
>>>>
>>>>
>apart
>
>
>>>>an abandoned teletherapy unit due to poor controls in Brazil of unused
>>>>medical equipment [at the time] alone should be corrected by the W.
>>>>
>>>>
>Post, along
>
>
>>>>with the clear errors in the number of people seriously injured.
>>>>
>>>>
>>[COMMENT BY JOSE ROZENTAL]:
>>
>>
>>>About the topic "poor control", I don't agree, this is not correct. I
>>>
>>>
>was
>
>
>>>Director of Department of Nuclear Installations and Material for 18
years
>>>and among my responsibilities, one was the control of radioactive
>>>
>>>
>sources.
>
>
>>>About Goiania, as before mentioned, I was sent there by the Regulatory
>>>Authority as General Coordinator to Respond the Emergency. I was the
>>>
>>>
>first
>
>
>>>person in Brazil to be informed about the event by the Health Secretary
>>>
>>>
>of
>
>
>>>State and in the same day I travel to Goiania. There were 5
>>>
>>>
>investigations
>
>
>>>on the Goiania Accident in Brazil.
>>>a) Police in Goiania,
>>>b) State General Attorney,
>>>c) State Congress,
>>>d) Federal Police,
>>>e) Federal Court of Justice
>>>
>>>The dimension in Goiania was lack to follow good procedures and I
agree
>>>control by users.The Users were penalized by the Federal Court of
>>>
>>>
>Justice.
>
>
>>>Anyone that wish correct information about Goiania, please write to me,
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>>>one better than me know data about Goiania Accident.
>>>
>>>Jose Julio Rozental
>>>joseroze@netvision.net.il
>>>Israel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>============
>>Dr. Rozental:
>>Your comment above leaves me a bit confused. I wasn't in any way
trying to
>>
>>
>criticize overall regulations
>
>
>>or procedures in Brazil [as they existed at the time] in my original
>>
>>
>comment, only that the fact that a
>
>
>>group of illiterate scavengers could come to possess an unused
teletherapy
>>
>>
>unit implies a clear failure
>
>
>>of controls [at least by the user who owned the unit]. You write
above the
>>
>>
>the Goiania event was due to
>
>
>>"lack to follow good procedure and I agree control by users." So my
>>
>>
>comment that the incident was:
>
>
>>"due to poor controls in Brazil of unused medical equipment [at the
time]"
>>
>>seem in agreement. Thus, I'm not clear why you write my basic comment on
>>
>>
>this point is not correct and
>
>
>>you don't agree. Perhaps I'm missing some fine point of semantics.
>>
>>I completely recognize your expertise and involvement in dealing with
this
>>
>>
>unfortunate event and have the
>
>
>>highest regard for your thoughts on this matter.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Stewart Farber
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>************************************************************************
>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/