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

["Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>]

Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 Wien
AUSTRIA
Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

----------
> Von: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>
> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Betreff: Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immediate Return to Work
> Datum: Sonntag, 22. Juni 1997 23:56
> 
> 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.
............................................................................
...................

Just a very cautious questions: Do you really think that this is
"government" or other similar organisations which want to reduce the
limits? This is not a scientific question, it is a political one. And when
the dose limits for "additional dose rates" will have been reduced to one
thousands of natural doserate, there will still be some (green) groups
which will demand a further reduction to save the planet....


Franz