[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Spikes and chest x-rays
I've always had a bit of a problem with the "about as
much as a chest x-ray" yardstick. Perhaps it's just
a comprehension prolem on my part, but it seems to me
that this comparison is often somewhat inappropriate.
In this case, whole body irradiation is being compared
to irradiation of the lungs and surrounding tissue.
True, there will be some scatter from the field of the
x-ray, but it hardly constitutes uniform, whole body
irradiation. There is also the issue of the type of
radiation. For a chest x-ray, you are essentially
dealing with gamma rays whose energies range from almost
zero up to 100-120 kV. I have seen the chest x-ray
comparison made for exposure to I-131 from fission
(reactor or weapon). In that case, you have internal
uptake of radioactivity, and it probably won't be acute
in comparison to the chest x-ray.
This comparison is often made in an attempt to help
members of the general public make some sort of
connection between the levels of risk from an incident
or exposure scenario. It probably serves that purpose
fairly well, especially in situations where most HP
professionals would agree that the health risk is
minimal. However, an agitator wouldn't have to do
much research to turn up the objections I've made here.
Those promulgating the comparison could be portrayed
as simplifying the situation, or comparing apples to
oranges. I can just hear some blowhard saying "and
they're supposed to be the 'experts'!"
Comments?
Phil Hypes
1LT_Philip_Hypes_at_chppm8__apgea@chppm-ccmail.apgea.army.mil
Anyone who may find themselves tempted to reply to the
above by mailing me a religious chain letter is referred
to Proverbs 10:19.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html