[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll
Dear John and all
Yes, I understood what you said, however what I said is that you, a
radiation professional, should mention your idea on risk, in this case, in
the affirmative form, not in the interrogative form. A member of the public
does not knowing the danger of radiation, could do it in the interrogative
form.
Look the difference:
a) not all sources pose the same risk (As professional should tell to
another professional, discussing this subject and explain reasons)
b) do all sources pose the same risk? (this question we can expect from a
member of the public or from a professional asking to member of the public
waiting its reactions from the question, not from a professional asking to
another professional)
This very tiny detail is part of the risk perception concept that many
colleagues mention in this list. This is part of the risk communication on
radiation issue "Say what you mean and mean what you say"
Going to the rest of your statement, I surely agree with you - And this is
part of the so called Safety Culture - "The assembly of characteristics and
attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an
overriding priority, protection and safety issues receive the attention
warrented by their significance"
IAEA BBS, Ed 115
Jose
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>
To: "Jose Julio Rozental" <joseroze@netvision.net.il>; "Tom"
<tom@xrfcorp.com>
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: Saturday, January 17, 2004 1:23 AM
Subject: 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/