Re: Film Badges

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

Don Parry said the following: (and since he did, it is obvious my 
message last night DID get through) ...

> I understand peoples concern with unnecessary cost and over burdensome 
> regulations.  But if a small up front investment can result in a large dose 
> reduction over time, how can one not consider it prudent.

If some of the states have NOT adopted the 15 rem/yr LDE limit, and 
still enforce a 1250 mrem/qtr, then other methods would be necessary 
to maintain the dose to the lens of the eye, which under the current 
state regs, would be considered whole body, below this limit. Lead 
glasses would then be prudent. However, this tool is only to minimize 
dose to a body part that is still not at risk, and the only reason 
one would consider the glasses is to circumvent the risk question in 
the event that the regulatory limit is exceeded. Yes, the practioner 
could say the individual exceeded 1250 mrem, but, they also wore 
glasses, so the actual dose to the eyes was lower.. Again the 
question to be asked is, where is the risk in the first place?

It would be nice if we all were under the same regulatory dose limits 
as well!
------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205

ICN Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -