Re: Film Badges

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

don.parry@cis.state.mi.us wrote:

Thanks, Don. When I noted such exposures on this list several months ago it
was roundly rejected. Averages and means are far lower of course, but the
active practioners receive such doses. (Re your note about badges, this is
also true of professional groups at Oak Ridge, which is widely ignored in the
lab dosimetry (esp. Wing who focused on this group). Recall Einstein's comment
about science based on "what the watchman recorded". Note also the Shipyard
Worker Study actively suppressed by DOE, NCRP, et al, while knowing that a
Rickover program didn't go badged or without good records (not to mention much
more limited confounding doses from internal contamination, chemicals, and
previous/followon work experience that the lab epi studies don't address well. 

As Otto Raabe noted, there are a few "good" epi studies in the rad worker
health effects, but those are generally ignored and suppressed.  :-) 

It's also easy to consider that these medical professionals might not think
much of 15 vs 25 mrem/year debates. Such studies that have been done of
medical practioners show no adverse health effects (for radiologists and
others after about 1921). But then such studies are not done much, with a
reading a couple of years ago that NCRP et al know the likely results and have
no (have negative?) interest in such results that would challenge the LNT fiction.

Such studies of course also discredit further the mantra: "You need millions
of people to test the LNT" recently stated here again. Only a few thousand
people are needed to disprove the LNT at 10-30 cSv. There are many such
studies, and many more would be done if there was any real interst in
resolving the issue. But we killed the Center for Human Radiobiology at
Argonne (showing a threshold of more than 10 Gy bone dose for bone cancer, and
no leukemia, while DOE will put $millions into ATSDR health studies of the
public exposed to I-131 in the '40s-'60s. (Also ignoring the fact that Cohen's
studies have a few million to 250 million people and disprove the LNT.) Is
there no integrity left anywhere in radiation health effects science as
promulgated by the rad protection establishment?

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
muckerheide@mediaone.net
Radiation, Science, and Health
==============================

> Sandy wrote:
> 
> "The LDE annual limit is 15 Rem"
> 
> Some states have not adopted this limit, especially for x-ray.  Our
> regulations still state the dose limit as 1250 mRem/quarter.  I have
> seen
> several physicians in cardiac cath operations that routinely approach
> this
> level.  Some, in an effort to avoid receiving higher badge readings
> will
> not wear a film badge, or will not wear it all of the time.  A review
> of
> the film badge records in this situation would not be an accurate
> reflection of the employees dose or risk.  For personnel involved with
> high
> dose, invasive radiology, lead glasses do not seem to be that
> outrageous of
> an investment to protect the worker.  I do not know the cost, but
> assuming
> the glasses are relatively durable and could be used for a long time,
> I
> can't believe the cost per year per worker could be that high.  And
> with
> the relatively low energy of diagnostic beams, they would provide a
> substantial reduction in the dose.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Donald E. Parry
> Radiation Safety Section
> MI  Dept of Consumer & Industry Services
> Voice: 517-241-1989; Fax: 517-241-1981
> E-mail: don.parry@cis.state.mi.us
> Web site: www.cis.state.mi.us/bhs/divisions/hfs/rss/