Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immedia

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Franz and Eric have it exactly reversed, excepting that work or 'experiments'
that are *necessarily* sensitive must be protected. Unfortunately, most
"contamination" of the workplace being discussed is the *sole result* of
monitoring, at very great expense, to levels that are completely irrelevant to 
protecting people from radiation exposure. So instead of trying to be rational 
about monitoring levels, there is disciplined conviction that the error is on
the part of the "contaminator". 

Imagine, conceptually, monitoring other pollutants/risks at levels equivalent
to radioactivity/radiation - say diesel exhaust. Continuously measure such
pollutants at levels that are at a small fraction of background, supposedly to 
take action. Now if you had a tail light out in your car and the police didn't 
give you a warning, they called a tow truck to carry it away to fix the light
before it could be driven. (Now what if they took it all apart and checked all 
lights and electrical system, and...  and charged you $131/hour for the
privilege :-)  --  too much huh? :-)  well, we can't always be too serious,
but we do need to think "outside the envelope" :-) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> Schoenhofer
> Habichergasse 31/7
> A-1160 Wien
> AUSTRIA
> Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
> Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
> e-mail: schoenho@via.at
> 
> ----------
> > Von: Eric Denison <denison.8@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> > An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Betreff: Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immediate Return to Work
> > Datum: Dienstag, 24. Juni 1997 15:13
> > 
> > I've been trying to stay out of this, but I have to drop in on it now.
> > 
> > In article  Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net> writes:
> > 
> > >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.
> > 
> > The dose to any one person coming in contact with the PI may indeed be 
> > miniscule, but the staff of the labs that the PI visits should boot her
> out 
> > without hesitation.  I inspect labs here at OSU for regulatory
> compliance.  
> > Each inspection includes surveys for both non-removable and removable 
> > contamination.  If I go into a posted lab and find areas substantially
> above 
> > background with my meter, I'm going to make the lab folks clean things
> up.  
> > Similarly, if I get smear wipe results of 10,000 dpm, the lab folks are
> going 
> > to get an immediate phone call and a letter telling them to determine the
> 
> > cause of the contamination and clean the stuff up.
> > 
> > The PI may not be giving anyone a significant dose, but she certainly
> could be 
> > causing them a lot of hassle and extra work.  She should be knowledgeable
> 
> > enough about the situation and considerate enough of the lab staff to
> isolate 
> > herself from direct contact with people and equipment in the posted labs.
>  If 
> > gloves and a lab coat will suffice, that's great.  If it takes staying
> out of 
> > the labs for a few days or a few weeks, so be it.  I know that if someone
> came 
> > into our labs (which we survey weekly) and left I-131 hand prints
> everywhere, 
> > I'd smack 'em silly and tell 'em to come back when they're not going to
> crap 
> > up my area.
> > 
> > Eric Denison
> > Radiation Safety Technician
> > denison.8@osu.edu
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Eric,
> 
> I tried to stay out too, because we had a very similar discussion not so
> long ago. I  expressed some ideas which were very close to yours and I
> pointed out the problem of having alarms at all entrances and all
> contamination monitors with all the paperwork included. The person might
> not be a health hazard, but a bureaucratic hazard. Kissing ones wife is one
> thing which might be justified from the point of risk-benefit analysis
> (what a terrible scientific expression!), but having a woman (or a man)
> around, contaminating my laboratory, my office and the toaletts with I-131,
> causing a terrific amount of paperwork and upsetting other employees is
> another business, where a risk-benefit analysis shows clearly, that there
> is no benefit.
> 
> Franz