Re: P-32/Badging

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

>
>I am extremely concerned with the concept of HPs stating individuals
>should be badged for peace of mind or lawsuit protection.
>
>What do you do when:
>
>a false positive shows up?

We accept only one type of false positive: the case where the TLD wearer was 
absolutely nowhere near radioisotopes during the wearing period (ie on 
sabbatical, not doing research etc.).  In all other cases, the exposure 
stays on the person's history.  This may effectively reduce the actual 
maximum allowable exposure for that individual, but it means that such 
errors or uncertainties contribute to safety.

>the person claims they didn't wear their badge (/properly)?
>the person claims there was an internal uptake?
>the person claims.....?
>
I can only assume that these people are making such claims because they are 
worried about nearing their exposure limit.  People don't make claims about 
zero (negligible) readings so it sounds to me like these people really do 
need badges.  Our badges are done on a quarterly basis.  For ANY exposure 
greater or equal to 0.3 mSv/quarter, action is taken.  The yearly limit in 
Canada for members of the public including UBC personnel is 5mSv (500 mrem). 
 Taking action before an individual comes anywhere near this level 
effectively reduces their need to make such 'claims'.

>Rob Gunter mentioned a couple of key points: particularly surveys and
>good control measures.  I would also like to mention the concept of
>training.  A person who thinks the badge gives them peace of mind
>obviously doesn't understand what they are working with and what the
>badge really does.  NOTHING replaces good survey and training
>programs.

BTW, our training program is extensive and comprehensive.  It includes 
information on the proper care/use/storage of TLDs.  How can you accept a 
person's claim that they didn't wear their badge (/properly) if they have 
received such training?  Do these people also claim to know how to use 
isotope properly?  What do you choose to believe?

As well, I'd like to point out that the original discussion was on reducing 
badging based on exposure histories, not badging vs survey and control.  
Survey and control is the law (at least in Canada), and a lab without an 
adequate wipe test program etc. will find themselves without a licence in 
short order. 

And, like it or not, we do live in a litiguous (sp?) society.  Visit any 
third world country and this point will be hammered home.  Last summer I was 
picking my way through 2x4's propping up a stairwell in Cairo - in a 
hopital, no less!  They were also allowing tourists up in their famous 
tower, which had cracks at the base and a hole in the viewing deck, 37 
floors up.  Later, it was gaping holes with rusty rebar teeth in the 
sidewalks of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania...

Of course, these are just my own opinions.  As I'm beginning to feel like a 
broken CD, I'll make this my last contribution to this thread.  Have a good 
weekend. :-)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Enns                                                            
Radiation Safety Assistant,
Department of Health, Safety and Environment
University of British Columbia,
Canada.
aenns@unixg.ubc.ca
---------------------------------------------------------------------