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

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Schoenhofer wrote:
> 
> 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? 

Governments simply follow the ICRP and NCRP (in the USA)
recommendations.  Until those recommendations are changed, all will
remain as is.  The idea that we must protect the public against multiple
(10) practices simultaneously (the ICRP and NCRP recommendation) is one
of the main things driving the doses down.  It is inconcievable to me
that a member of the public could be exposed simultaneously to more than
two or three practices, but the regulators want to be ultra
conservative.  So we have doses like 1 mrem and 10 mrem from the US EPA.
Sorry about the old units.  It's too early in the morning to convert.

So it is a political decision, not a scientific one.  The greens pick up
on that idea and carry it to rediculous extreams.

We must get the ICRP and NCRP to change their recommendations!!!!!!! 

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
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