Re: Industry Event

["Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu>]

Al --

I wish I had your faith and the ability to make the abosolute statement
that there was NO health effect.  But I do not.  And, just because there
is no apparent adverse effect does not condone the situation or support
unnecessary exposure.  All well and good that there was no apparent ill
effect (thus far) in this instance.

My long time good friend and colleague, forgive my preaching, but I
implore you not to lose sight of our obligations as health physicists and
to recall that health physics is about protection -- prospectively where
and when ever possible.  Whatever happened to ALARA?????????????????

Ron

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, ALDEN N TSCHAECHE wrote:

>
> Hey Ron - Actually, all of us could be "playing" in 1000 dpm/100cm2
> contamination right now and we'd never know it. The limit for total
> contamination in the DOE family as stated in 10 CFR 835 and the Rad Con
> Manual is 5000 dpm/100cm2. It is unlikely that the usual survey methods
> generally used could even detect 1000 dpm/100cm2 total contamination on
> items released for uncontrolled use. And no, I wouldn't mind if my
> family lived, ate, played or whatever in such contamination for their
> entire lives. From the health standpoint it wouldn't matter. Remember
> the radium contaminated house in Pensylvania where millicuries of radium
> was all over the porch where babies played? The babies suffered no ill
> effects. Having said that, there are reasons other than health and
> safety for not contaminating the world. Many industries wouldn't like
> it. But it's NOT a health problem. We must stop putting radiation in a
> special hazard class and  stop treating any radioactive atom as if it
> really were deadly. Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov
>
> *** Reply to note of 03/20/96 21:29
>
> From: ron kathren
> To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE
>
> Subject: Re: Industry Event
> Sandy --
>
> It's all in how you look at things; presumably you mean 1000 dpm/100 square
> cm.  Let me ask the question:  would you want your children (or newly
> pregnant wife, for that matter) playing in an area with that level of
> contamination (especially if it's Pu -- I know, I know, power plants are
> concerned with beta activity!)?  That level of contamination over a wide
> area might be of concern; if confined to a small area might be
> insignificant.  The problem is somewhat more complex, I think, than you
> suggest.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ron Kathren
>
> >     Haven't seen the article but have seen many like it before. The
> >     problem with this nuclear hysteria is, that they never provide any
> >     real information, such as, how much contamination, what was the extent
> >     of the contamination, was anybody else contaminated due to having
> >     contact with the tools, where was it found, how long was it in the
> >     area before being identified as contaminated and was there any dose
> >     associated with it. To put things in perspective from a nuclear power
> >     plant perspective, an item is considered contaminated if there is 100
> >     cpm above background, i.e., in our case, 1,000 dpm. While we don't
> >     know the levels of contamination in this situation, 1,000 dpm is not
> >     significant, becoming so only due to its association with a power
> >     plant.
> >
> >     Sandy Perle
> >     Supervisor Health Physics
> >     Florida Power and Light Company
> >     Nuclear Division
> >
> >     (407) 694-4219 Office
> >     (407) 694-3706 Fax
> >
> >     sandy_perle@email.fpl.com
> >
> >     HomePage: http://www.lookup.com/homepages/54398/home.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>