Re[2]: exposure based on protocol

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     Well stated. Relying on historical data and studies for determining 
     future course of actions reminds me what most reputable investment 
     companies tell you ... past performance or trends are not necessarily 
     indicative of future performance. The same holds true for radiation 
     exposure.
     
     The factors one needs to be always cognizant about are:
     
     1. Individuals can and will make mistakes. The more adept they are at 
     doing what they do, the more prone they are to make mistakes. That is 
     one key reason why I require my lab technicians to ALWAYS have their 
     operating procedures out, and, following them whenever processing 
     TLDs. It's the person who knows everything that will make the mistake, 
     not normally a newer employee, for the new employee is overly cautious 
     and hesitant due to their lack of familiarity with the procedures. So, 
     watch your longtime employees if you want to identify potentially 
     harmful trends in your facility.
     
     2. Workers like to be monitored. It is cheap insurance when compared 
     to a law suit. The current estimate of getting a radiation induced 
     cancer case thrown out of court is on the order of $500,000. To go to  
     a jury, the cost is on the order of $1.5 to 3 million dollars. You can buy 
     a lot of dosimetry with that! 

     Anyway .. just some food for thought.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------