Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immediate Return to Work

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

Al Tschaech responded as follows:

> My experience with my wife who had theraputic treatment for a
> hyperthyroid problem is:  I received no significant dose from her
> I-131.  I did receive some dose, but it was not significant.  I did not
> mind kissing her although it meant that I absorbed about 10000 dpm of
> I-131.  Using the telephone after she did gave me about 1000 dpm.  Using
> the same fork and knife gave me about 500 dpm.  None of that activity
> produced any significant dose to me.  I consider it bad radiation
> protection to do anything about such low doses as these.

It's an attitude issue, propagated by asinine radiation protection 
regulations that have been perpetuated over the many years. If less 
is good, then let's go further and reduce that low level in half, or 
to a tenth. The levels of contamination Al quotes are considered "BAD 
health physics" in a power plant. INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power 
Operations) brands you a bad plant., and one that has an inadequate 
radiation control program in place. My opinion, it has to do with 
this perpetuating I mentioned, and, more importantly, allows these 
organizations to stay in business, charging millions of dollars per 
year per utility, to focus on reducing a problem that really isn't a 
problem at all!  And then they publish their reports and the public 
sees their comments (if and when released by the utility) and thinks 
there is a major problem out there. What hogwash!!!  The same thing 
happens with dose limits. Used to be you could receive up to 12 
rem/yr  (@ 3rem/qtr with a completed Form 4) ... NOW we're down to 5 
rem/yr and there are moves to cut this to 1/10. WHY?  To justify the 
large amounts of money already spent. perhaps. To justify continued 
support from the public for these radiation reduction programs, 
perhaps. Whatever the reason, a lot of money has been spent.

> >I would not want to sit by someone who has
> > measurable amount of radiation level. 
> 
> Why on earth not?  The dose you get is miniscule and not significant and
> cannot possibly hurt you.  If you can cite any data that demonstrate you
> might be harmed by the tiny dose you might receive from such a person, I
> would appreciate it greatly if you would provide the citation.  I will
> appreciate any suggestions.  My suggestion is to ignore the whole
> thing.  Or is there something here I don't get?

I suppose some would outlaw natural background if they could. In a 
way they are, if they ever push through occupational limits for 
airline crews, which is all natural background.

------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
mailto:sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
mailto:sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Homepages:
http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html (primary)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205 (secondary)

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -