RE: contamination by spraying

[Glen.Vickers@ucm.com]

I understand that this is potential occupational exposure and somewhat
interesting, but I'm starting to wonder where we draw the line in risk
assessment.  I guess in the world of litigation, employers are willing to
spend a lot of money to assign risk to some seemingly insignificant
activities.

What if my kids play in a mud puddle?!  What about mud-pack facials, sand
boxes, or kids playing in the water sprinkler?  The sports of baseball and
football require more exposure to dirt than a person might otherwise be.
Will radiological concerns about our natural environment turn everyone into
couch potatoes?  Is it the exercise that makes kids who play outdoors
healthy or hormesis?  Someone, someday, will try to apply the concern of the
offshore workers to one of these seemingly low-risk activities.

This seems to be on the lower end of the risk/benefit analysis spectrum.
How far do we go?  No limit as long as someone wants to pay for it?  And the
activist said, "They wouldn't have studied it if they weren't really
concerned..."

Any opinions or thoughts from our older and wiser colleagues?


Most sincerely,
Glen Vickers
glen.vickers@ucm.com

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Jonkers, Gert SIC-CTAN/2 [SMTP:Gert.G.Jonkers@opc.shell.com]
	Sent:	Tuesday, October 20, 1998 3:35 AM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	contamination by spraying

	Dear Colleagues,

	During an offshore spill of production water, the excess of water
	cascaded into the sea. The wind broke up the cascading water and
mist
	droplets sprayed the crew of supply boats working near the platform.
As
	production waters may contain Naturally Occurring Radionuclides
(NORs;
	particularly radium isotopes and lead-210) an issue was raised about
the
	irradiation/contamination of the crew.

	Apart from the conventional hazards of being sprayed with production
	water, has anyone of you ever dealt with such a type of exposure
issue?
	Up till now I do not yet know NOR concentrations, nor droplet size
	distributions, but (for an innitial guesstimate) what would be the
main
	pathways for exposure?
	- evaporating production water, causing surface (clothing/skin)
	contamination?
	- larger mist droplets, entering the body via ingestion?
	- smaller mist droplets, entering the body via inhalation?

	Your opinion(s) in this matter are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

	Kind Regards, Gert Jonkers 
	CTAN - Analytical - Nuclear Measurement Techniques
	http://sww.ksla.shell.nl/analytical/skills/nuclearmea/1.html
	   Radiotracer applications, 
	   Gamma-transmission and Neutron BackScatter (NBS) measurements
	   Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM)
	   Radiological Protection Advice
	Shell Research and Technology Centre, Amsterdam (SRTCA), 
	http://www.srtca.shell.nl/welcome.html
	PO Box 38000, NL-1030 BN Amsterdam, the Netherlands
	tel.        +31 - 20 - 630 3424
	fax        +31 - 20 - 630 2911
	e-mail   Gert.G.Jonkers@OPC.Shell.COM
	
************************************************************************
	The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
	information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html