[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
Dr. Rozental,
Thanks for the reply.
What I am trying to say is that not source do pose the
same risk. I think we should get idea across to the
public. I do not think that a traffic accident
involving Tc-99m, with a half life of 6 hours should
pose the same concern (read fear) to the public as a
radiographic source like Ir-192. When the government
says that 200 sources a year are not accounted for,
does that give the public confidence in our regulatory
agencies?
I am certainly not trying to say material control is
not important. And yes, accidents involved strong
radiation sources should be taken seriously. What I
am saying is that we should scale our level of actions
to the risk to the public. I do not think a
laboratory dealing with kBq sources should be treated
with the same risk as a irradiator facility.
--- Jose Julio Rozental <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> If you, working in the area, ask a question like
> this: "do all sources pose
> the same risk?"
> how do you think the question the general public
> could ask?
> Enforcement is applied according with the degree of
> violation and the danger
> that source could pose to people and environment.
> About your remark: "As noted only 5 sources in the
> last 14 years have posed
> a significant risk to the public"
> I remind the words of Hans Blix, IAEA General
> Director at the time of the
> Goiania Accident -- "De fact that accidents are
> uncommon should not give
> grounds for complacency. No radiological accident is
> acceptable, and one
> that threatens widespread contamination is bound to
> alarm a public that not
> yet come to terms with radioactivity".
>
> Jose Julio Rozental
> joseroze@netvision.net.il
> Israel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
> To: "Tom" <tom@xrfcorp.com>; "Jose Julio Rozental"
> <joseroze@netvision.net.il>
> Cc: "Stewart Faber" <radproject@optonline.net>;
> "Stewart Farber"
> <farbersa@optonline.net>; "Hart, Tim P GS (RASO)"
> <harttp@RASO.NAVY.MIL>;
> "Radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty
> Bomb' Toll
>
>
> > I think one should also ask the question "do all
> > sources pose the same risk?" There are, according
> to
> > Commissioner Dicus, about 200 sources reported
> lost
> > every year. Last year we lost a 100 microcurie
> Co-60
> > marker source used in nuclear medicine. Should
> > security of this item be as rigorous (translates
> to
> > money) as a radiography source? As noted only 5
> > sources in the last 14 years have posed a
> significant
> > risk to the public.
> >
> > I agree that some groups need to have better
> control,
> > but all things are not equal.
> >
> > --- Tom <tom@xrfcorp.com> wrote:
> > > 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
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
************************************************************************
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/