Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immedia

[denison.8@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Eric Denison)]

In article  JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com writes:

>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". 

Unfortunately we're all running up against the conflict between what we 
believe SHOULD BE and what IS.  Most (if not all) of us agree that the limits 
on exposure and contamination are much more stringent than they need to be in 
order to safeguard the population.  However, until we manage to change the 
regs, we are constrained to live by them (or join the outlaw militia).  As 
a matter of principle, I'd really like to see the drinking age dropped back to 
18 and the Brady Law canned, with truly nasty punishments for drunk drivers 
and weapon-wielding criminals instead.  Until things change, though, I have 
to abide by laws that I don't particularly like.  And that means that, for 
now, the contaminator IS at fault.

>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...

On our system, at least, background for a wide window on the beta counter 
is about 50 cpm.  Compared to that, 10K is a hell of a lot -- far beyond a 
"small fraction of background."

Eric Denison
denison.8@osu.edu