Re: HPS Objective

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

David --

As one who has had first hand experience with shoe fitting fluoroscopes (I
cut my health physics teeth on them about 40 years ago), I for one would
argue that not only was the exposure unecessary, but was also potentially
harmful, and not necessarily to the feet.  The tubes were typically not
provided with a shielded housing or enclosure, and exposure rates of tens of
R/min (that's right, R/min) (and in some cases higher)at the level of the
gonads of the user were not uncommon.  And, the salesmen were exposed many
times a day, and might have incurred annual doses in the vicinity of 1 Gy.
As far as I know, there has never been a followup study of shoe salesmen.
And, recalling from my youth how many times I used these devices (I used to
sometimes stop in at a nearby shoe store for fun and games on my way home
from school), I suspect there was much exposure that was largely ignored.

In any case, as a minimum, given the fact that our knowledge of potential
low level radiation effects is at best incomplete, prudence would dictate
that we eliminate such unecessary exposures, even if we cannot say with
absolute certainty that there will be a discernable detrimental effect
attributable to them.  This is the essence of ALARA.  And, others could make
pretty convincing arguments that there might be effects; certainly
chromosome changes have been observed in populations in areas of high
natural background, although there does not seem to be a health related
link.  One could even think of radiation exposure as analagous to cigarette
smoking --  one or only a few cigarette(s) a day may be OK in terms of
detectable detrimental effects.  onetheless, prudence (and most physicians I
dare say) suggests zero.

Just my own opinions for which I undoubtedly will take a lot of flak.

Ron Kathren

    

 
At 10:45 AM 8/7/97 -0500, David W. Lee wrote:
>	Speaking strictly for myself, I must say that I fully agree with Bernie's
>comment.  The word "unnecessary" to me semantically implies that we, as
>health physicists, should continue to chase after or otherwise mitigate
>radiation exposures even after such exposures are found to be well below
>the level of imparting any harmful biological effects.  Semantically, I
>think the Society's objective, as presently worded, makes an illogical
>value judgment/conclusion; namely, that if something is "unnecessary," it
>must a priori be "bad" or "harmful."  I think that a more accurate wording
>of the HPS's objective would be as follows:
>
>		"The objective of the Society is the protection of people and the
>environment from exposure to potentially harmful levels of radiation."
>
>
>Example to induce further discussion.  One of the most egregious historical
>examples, from a total radiation exposure standpoint, is the past use of
>shoe store fluoroscopes.  While I think most HPs would agree that the use
>of these devices provided no real "value-added" in terms of fitting shoes
>better, most of us might also have acknowledge that use of these devices
>did not really result in any biological harm to the feet of those who used
>the devices.  The radiation exposure was admittedly "unnecessary," but who
>amongst us wishes to argue that it was "harmful," and if so, if what way?
>
>Best regards,  David
>
>
>
>
>At 09:19 AM 07-08-97 -0500, you wrote:
> 
>         The objective of the Society is the protection of people and 
> 	the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation.
>
>	--Souldn't "unnecessary" be changed to "harmful", or "unnecessary
>and potentially harmful"?
>
>
>
>David W. Lee
>Los Alamos National Laboratory
>Radiation Protection Services Group (ESH-12)
>PO Box 1663, MS K483
>Los Alamos, NM  87545
>PH:   (505) 667-8085
>FAX:  (505) 667-9726
>lee_david_w@lanl.gov
>
>