RE: Medical Exam

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

At 03:16 PM 8/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Steven Van Slyckle stated the following:
>
>> Isn't a whole body count part of the employment at a gov. nuclear
>> facility? I know it is here.
>
>Whole Body counting may be what is required by a facility to ensure 
>that an internal dose assessment is performed. The frequency and 
>criteria for conducting this assessment will be based on the 
>facility operating procedures. The question had to do with whether or 
>not an individual is required by law, to inform their employer if 
>they have been subjected to a medical procedure whereby they have 
>internal dose, which would set off a portal monitor, or other 
>detection device. There is no requirement. The facility is required 
>to ensure that any intake (uptake) of radioactive material due to 
>their operations must be included in the employee's dose report and 
>documents. This may include a frisking program, portal monitor or 
>body burden analysis. 
>
>There are many facilities that do not routinely perform BBA as often 
>as they had done in the past (commercial nuclear power). This is 
>because of the regulatory changes and the TEDE ALARA program. It is 
>sufficient enough to reduce a burdensome program when there are clear 
>indicators available to determine which parts of your population need 
>the increased assessment. This is simple as the jobs an individual 
>works, potential for internal contamination, etc.
>
>Whole body counting, when done infrequently, is NOT a realistic 
>indicator of whether or not an individual in fact received an intake. 
>There are many factors involved. The WBC is the outcome process .. 
>what is needed is the front-end processes to determine when and whom 
>needs the BBA, or other appropriate assessment.
>
>Back to the question at hand .. there is no regulatory requirement to 
>force an individual to provide information on their medical 
>treatments. The employer can restrict the individual if they so 
>chose, but that could also lead to legal action initiated by the 
>employee. But that is another debate all together.
>
>------------------
>Sandy Perle
>Technical Director
>ICN Dosimetry Division
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
>Fax:    (714) 668-3149
>  
>mailto:sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
>mailto:sperle@icnpharm.com
>
>ICN Dosimetry Website:
>http://www.dosimetry.com (~ July 27)
>
>Personal Homepage:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205 
>http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html
>
>"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
>the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
>              - G. K. Chesterton -
>
Sandy,

Aside from the pragmatic reasons why someone employed at a regulated and
monitored facility should inform its radiation protection personnel of
medical procedures involving radionuclides, I keep wondering about the logic
of making a close accounting of employment related doses while ignoring
comparable ones from other sources.  Having been around for a while, I
recall that when in the 1960s then AEC Commissioner James Ramey advocated
the latter, his proposal elicited a strong negative response from the Health
Physics Society and his idea died aborning.   With 20/20 hindsight, maybe we
were very nearsighted then.

Best regards

Andy