Re: Re[2]: Children: rad exposure from Nuc Med patients -Reply

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

Steve,
Along with what I suspect is the majority of Radsafers, I find it very
difficult to take a dose of 1 mrem seriously, let alone to  perform an
ALARA analysis of doses at this level.  However, as recent Radsafe
exchanges about air emissions have indicated, EPA has regulatory
requirements at this dose level. So, if we take it seriously in this
instance, aren't we generally obliged to take it as such, regardless of our
personal judgement (unless and until we slay the dragon of LN-T)?
Andy Hull
S&EP-BNL
Upton, N.Y. 11973
Ph  516-344-4210
Fax 516-344-3105


At 01:38 PM 1/26/98 -0600, you wrote:
>     Only one question here... Without seeming inflamatory, why would 
>     anyone do any kind of ALARA analysis for a 1 mrem exposure??? I would 
>     say that if a child of any age would receive 1 mrem from seeing their 
>     parent in the hospital, they should be allowed to without any kind of 
>     ALARA analysis. We keep contradicting ourselves - we generally agree 
>     that doses of this magnitude are not harmful and should not be 
>     regulated in any way, but then we discuss the ALARA implications of 
>     this same dose. Certainly doesn't help our credibility with the 
>     public...
>     
>     Steven D. Rima, CHP
>     Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
>     MACTEC-ERS, LLC
>     steven.rima@doegjpo.com
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Children: rad exposure from Nuc Med patients -Reply
>Author:  "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com> at Internet
>Date:    1/26/98 1:20 PM
>
>
>Psychological factors have been considered to be valid in 
>litigation. The fact that an agent could not have caused a physical 
>problem is mitigated by the contention that the individual THOUGHT 
>that the agent could have. While this may not seem logical, it has 
>held up in some court jurisdictions.
>     
>The point below is well-taken. Some have taken ALARA to its extremes, 
>and in so doing, has made a mockery of radiationm protection in 
>general. If the experts take these extraordinary steps to limit 
>radiation exposure, we can all kiss the move to overturn LNT goodbye. 
>If we can't convince ourselves of what is truly risk, we will never be 
>able to convince the workers who are around us, or, the general 
>public. Time for reason to prevail.
>     
>> Dear Radsafe
>> 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). 
>     
>     
>------------------
>Sandy Perle
>Technical Director
>ICN Dosimetry Division
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
>Fax:    (714) 668-3111
>     
>sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
>sperle@icnpharm.com
>     
>ICN Dosimetry Website:
>http://www.dosimetry.com
>     
>Personal Homepage:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
>     
>"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
>the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
>              - G. K. Chesterton -
>
>