Re: exposure based on protocol

[aenns@unixg.ubc.ca (Alan Enns)]

>I would recommend that you review the personal exposure histories of your 
>Principal investiagtors.  If their protocols remain relatively constant, and 
>they follow these protocols, then the potential exposure received from the use 
>of P-32 should remain constant  Rarely did the PIs received exposure greater 
>than 10 percent of limits in my 4 years at Naval Medical Research Institute. 
>mike coogen sends
>
I see problems using this approach at a university setting.  The high 
turnover rate within most research labs is such that basing future 
monitoring on past trends could be quite dangerous, regardless of the 
protocol.  We instruct all new rad. lab employees on how to handle 
radioisotopes, however, a small percentage tends to forget/ignore what they 
have been taught (which is one of the reasons for compliance inspections).  
Higher exposures ARE rare, but they do occur.  
Another reason for excess dosimetry has already been pointed out: employee 
peace of mind.  Recently, an employee was diagnosed as having cancer.  
Understandably he and everyone in his department wanted to see their 
exposure histories.  Who could say what would have happened if we had not 
had those pages and pages of zero exposures. Reducing dosimetry merely to 
reduce cost is one tightrope we would rather not walk. Besides at 
universities, dosimetry is clearly a cost associated with the research, so 
having the researcher pick up this cost makes it a non-issue for the RSO.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Enns
Radiation Safety Assistant,
Department of Health, Safety and Environment
University of British Columbia,
Canada.
aenns@unixg.ubc.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------