Re: Children: rad exposure from Nuc Med patients -Reply

["George, Andrea K" <andrea.k.george@vanderbilt.edu>]

Excellent point!!


On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:03:12 -0600 (CST) Mike Malaxos 
<rss@arach.net.au> wrote:

> Dear Radsafers,
> 		When applying the ALARA principle and the risk ( either positive or
> negative ) associated with very low doses of radiation (a 1 millrem dose
> recieved by a child visiting a mother) should the risks associated by
> stress experienced by the child, who does not see the parent, be factored
> into the equation). 
> 
> When 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> M.Malaxos
> Radiation Safety Services
> 69-71 Robinson Avenue Belmont
> Western Australia.  6104 
> Fax 61 89 475 0165
> P 61 89 475 0099  a/h 089 255 1214
> email rss@arach.net.au
>  
> 
> ----------
> > From: J. J. Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Subject: Re: Children: rad exposure from Nuc Med patients -Reply
> > Date: Wednesday, 21 January 1998 15:25
> > 
> > Thank you very much for your 
> > 
> > At 03:30 PM 1/20/98 -0600, you wrote:
> > >The observations made by Prof Rozental and Franz Schoenhofer are
> > >right. 
> > >
> > >However(with respect, sirs), they do represent the ideal : it is a very
> > >common experience at this children's hospital for one adult to arrive
> with
> > >the paediatric patient and accompanied by several other children.   The
> > >other children are often of an age where they cannot be left
> > >unsupervised (and sometimes can't be separated from the parent). 
> > >
> > >In context, though, the diagnostic doses given to children result in
> quite
> > >low exposures, and a quick, single visit by the whole family, though it
> > >should be discouraged, does not usually result in more than a trivial
> > >exposure.   Our Nuclear Medicine Technologists, for example, do not
> > >accumulate even 10mSv in a year's full time work with these (and other)
> > >patients, and rarely exceed even 5mSv. 
> > >
> > >Thus, it is always important to give weight to the    Reasonably
> > >Achievable    part of ALARA. 
> > >
> > >
> > >Mark Hanlon,
> > >Radiation Safety Officer,
> > >The New Children's Hospital,
> > >P.O. Box 3515,
> > >PARRAMATTA, NSW, 2124
> > >Australia
> > >
> > >
> > >Phone   61 2 9845 3324           FAX    61 2 9845 0831
> > >
> > >email      markh@nch.edu.au
> > >
> > >
> > =======================
> > Dear Mark
> > 
> > Thank you very much for your observation. I have been in many developing
> > countries, and I visited many institutions using radionuclide. For this
> > reason I understand very well  what you are talking about. It is a not
> easy
> > task  follow good Radiation Protection Procedures,  specially if we
> consider
> > that:
> > 
> > a) There are few Member States that do not have any infrastructure of
> > radiation safety;
> > 
> > b) In several other Member States, although a minimum infrastructure is
> > formally in place, the actual level of radiation safety does not meet
> > minimum requirements
> > 
> > This is a situation of great concern.
> > 
> > For this reason, when you wrote: "Thus, it is always important to give
> > weight to the    Reasonably Achievable part of ALARA" the answer for this
> is
> > just the implementation of:
> > 
> > a) minimum radiation safety  requirements and an integrated strategy
> aiming
> > at establishing an adequate safety infrastructure;
> > 
> > b) Safety Culture toward the minimum requirement
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > 
> > J.J.Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
> > Israel

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These are my ramblings and have not been
authorized by Vanderbilt University in any way.

Andrea K. George, Sr. Safety Officer
Hazardous Materials Management
Vanderbilt University
Email: andrea.k.george@Vanderbilt.Edu