Re: Reduction of dosimetry for P-32

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

>A few additional comments in favor of eliminating dosimeters used by
>individuals who only work with small quantities of P-32 in well-shielded
>experiments in research labs:
>
>1.     The cases of cancer that might occur following low doses of radiation
>that could result in litigation primarily involve leukemia or deep solid
>tumors from penetrating (gamma) radiation.  Since P-32 is a beta emitter, we
>are talking about the potential for skin cancer of the fingers or, to a much
>lesser extent, the other areas of the skin not protected by clothing.

'Well-shielded' is a key word here.  Recently, I visited a biomedical lab 
that had their P-32 waste stored behind a fancy new Lucite shield.  The hot 
room monitor proudly showed me that their beta detector indicated a 
negligible field.  Of course, the LEGS detector that I had with me  told an 
entirely different story.  But this is getting off topic...
Whether or not P-32 can cause cancer or tumors was not really the point - 
employee peace of mind was.  Qualitative explanations based on possibilities 
and potentials only go so far even if they are entirely valid.  Quantitative 
personal exposure histories (regardless of the error levels) still carry the 
most weight.

Perhaps dosimetry costs at your institution could be reduced by reducing 
P-32 use.  How does the cost of P-32 plus dosimetry, increased shielding, 
and extra decay space etc. compare to the cost of P-33?  Are researchers 
being made aware of the increasing number of non-isotopic techniques and 
products available today (see Health Physics, July '95)? 

Amazingly enough, while I was writing the above, a rep from Boehringer 
Mannheim stopped by with some info on non-isotopic products.  According to 
her, studies using their products are as sensitive or more so than those 
using radioisotopes.  As well, their products have shelf lives that surpass 
those of P-32, allowing researchers to use the same stock solution over a 
longer period of time for more consistent results.  Finally, the price of 
their products are based on a comparison of the price per usage of relevant 
radioisotope.  This price comparison does not include disposal costs, nor 
the 'traditional' added costs (benchcoat, survey meters, dosimetry etc) 
associated with radioisotopes.

Alan Enns.