Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immedia

["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: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Betreff: Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immedia
> Datum: Mittwoch, 25. Juni 1997 06:15
> 
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

Jim,

I am little surprised about your reaction. I do not know, what I have
reversed - but this might be due to my limited knowledge of the English
language. 

I insist, that I do not want to have my laboratory contaminated with I-131
or any other radionuclide. I insist that  environmental monitoring is
justified to detect changes in background levels. It is also justified to
find polluting sources and I think that the detection of relatively low
levels of radionuclides in a distance of many miles from a wast
incineration plant would indicate that at the source and in the vicinity
the contamination must be extremely high. For these cases we need
environmental monitoring at very low level and any contamination of the lab
is not welcome!!!!!

Labs doing radionuclide analysis do not only work for radiation protection
purposes, they do precision work on determination of tritium, C-14 and
other radionuclides to determine the age of artifacts, solving
hydrogeological questions, find sources of environmental contamination and
natural radionuclides in water, radon in air etc. Is it really your
intention that this all should be cancelled by allowing an environmental
pollution and lab pollution of relatively high radionuclide concentrations
- just because you only are concerned by radiation protection of employees
- or whatever it is?

We have in almost all countries legislation, defining maximum permissible
concentrations, maximum permissible contamination of water, foodstuff, air
etc. Whether we like it or not, we have to stick to them. I do not like the
Austrian limit of 3.3 pCi/l of radium-226 in water, because in my opinion
it is much too low, but when analysing water with exceeding values I have
to categorize it as "not fit for consumption". A fellow radsafer pointed
this already out - whether we like limits or not, we have to stick to
legislation. I know quite a lot of persons, who do not like the speed
limitations on our streets, highways and motorways, not even the
restrictions regarding consumption of alcohol - but we have to observe the
limits. Why should limits in radiation protection be treated different from
limits of lead in tap water, limits on alcohol concentration in blood when
driving a car or limits for pesticides in food? 

I am astonished again that some persons obviously regard radiation
protection limits as something very special, which should be totally
different from other environmental parameters. I assure you that other
environmental parameters are controlled as well on a routine basis - ozone,
SO2, NOx, dust, etc. - and they are monitored well below "limits". By the
way, what is the background level of diesel exhaust ?????

Your example of tearing a car apart cannot be accepted for radiation
protection and even less for such laboratories which do low-level counting
for other purposes. 

Franz