Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immedia

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> Return-path: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu ("port 1512"@[128.174.5.11])
>  by delphi.com (PMDF V5.1-8 #22009)
>  with ESMTP id <01IKJDLM8VCW95PKAG@delphi.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:23:43 EDT
> Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24])
>  by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA249622; Thu,
>  26 Jun 1997 17:21:01 -0500
> Received: from localhost by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
>  id AA26917; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:20:59 -0500
> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:20:59 -0500
> From: Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>
> Subject: Re: PI with I-131 Treatment and Immedia
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Errors-to: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Reply-to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Message-id: <199706262200.AAA17585@ns1.via.at>
> Precedence: bulk
> Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: Radiation Safety Distribution List
> 
> 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. 

I don't know why you argue this point since I agree with it.

>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. 

> 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. ...
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
...

On and on about not contaminating labs. The point is rad protection of people.
 
> 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

Now you go on about "we do it because *gov't*, (in its ignorance?) *makes
us*". I agree with this too. That's the point. It's ignorant. Unfortunately,
not everyone says "it's ignorant", again that's the point. They say "we do it
because... 'its justified' to protect people. That's the point. We can agree
on everything. Except perhaps on whether you do enough, or too little, to take 
corrective action to reduce costs and save nuclear technologies that many seem 
willing to see continue in decline in order to maximize their role and costs
without understanding. 

> 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. 

Now this is nonsense...  
>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. 

Driving speed is predication on safety. If you want a fair analogy, say, "rad
limits are like a speed limit of 3 km/hr, we know that may be too low, but we
are good little unthinking citizens. In fact we set limits at 2 km/hr in order 
to be sure we never exceed the mandated speed limit (and we set "good practice 
guidelines" at 1 km/hr so we know we won't exceed our admin 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? 

Right. They shouldn't. But they are! No sane society would accept 3km/hr speed 
limits, but rad protectionists get away with it because they pretend to the
public that they must be protected, and they must spend $ Millions to the
protectionists, with costs of $ Billions to the people affected, to avoid the
certainty of life-threatening risks. 

> 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 ?????

This is incorrect. The levels of SOx that are "allowed" are sufficient to kill 
many people each year. These are of course among the most vulnerable, but
whenever "normal" levels rise only a little, there is a certain, linear,
increase in *actual* deaths. So at "normal" levels there is certainly some
effect also. Yet for much less cost than what we apply to radiation at
non-existent health risks we could reduce normal" and prevent significant
increases that clearly and certainly add to "normal" deaths from such
pollution (to which diesel exhaust is a significant contributor). 

> Your example of tearing a car apart cannot be accepted for radiation
> protection 

Oh I don't know. Its happening as we watch at Northeast Utilities.

and even less for such laboratories which do low-level counting
> for other purposes. 

And it's happened at medical and industrial facilities and research labs
throughout the world (again, not talking about the "low-level counting lab"
issue, but those thousands of cases of "inspections" and "investigations",
with shutdown orders, just on the "occupational and public safety" justified
actions. I expect you've been involved in many, probably on both sides of the
"investigation" :-)  There are many cases much less "significant" than the NIH 
and MIT P32 incidents that have gotten thousands of hours of attention from
all concerned. 

> Franz

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com