Give Me You Opinion

["Carbaugh, Eugene H" <gene.carbaugh@pnl.gov>]

I'm not a trained emergecy paramedic, or accident responder.  Just a
knowledgeable HP with some first aid training and a Scoutmaster's "Be Prepared"
outlook.

If I was in the room at the time, I'd probably opt to check out the patient.
I'm assuming that the hazard posed by the burst cannister is going to be
subsequent Pu inhalation and that I'm not worried about further explosions,
shrapnel, oxygen deficient environment nor release of a gas which is going to be
an immediate hazard to life and health - I don't consider inhalation of
resuspended Pu to be very likely an immediate hazard to life and health.  Now if
we were dealing with UF6, I'd have a whole different opinion.

My logic is that if the worker is in some kind of cardiac / respiratory arrest,
the only way you're going to perform CPR is without a respirator.  So my initial
reaction is to see about breathing, pulse, and then consider the merits of
leaving him ormoving him to a somewhat cleaner area.  

I think the question is a little like when I once asked a worker how much dose
he would take to save someone's life.  I was looking for awareness of the
guidance on dose for lifesaving actions.  I got a much more practical and honest
answer:  "Depends on how much I like the guy."


Gene Carbaugh
Internal Dosimetry
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
gene.carbaugh@pnl.gov





>From: 	Archer, Joe
> Reply To: 	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: 	Monday, January 25, 1999 2:39 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	give me your opinion
> 
> This is the scenario. A Pu-239 waste canister (Average content 16 grams,
> Max content 80 grams) burst open and knocks out a worker nearby. One
> viewpoint is that a person should run to the workers side without
> worrying about the potential airborne. A second viewpoint is that
> respirators should be located in the immediate vicinity of the work area
> and the attending person should take the 20-30 seconds required to don a
> respirator before attending to the injured party. The crux of the issue
> seems to be the weighted risk to the injured person of taking 30 seconds
> to get to the person versus the potential risk to the attending person.
> The first viewpoint assumes a 30 second delay is a greater risk to a
> person in need of CPR versus the risk of diving into the potential plume
> of a freshly burst container. The second viewpoint argues the need to
> weigh both risks and concludes that the potential airborne is a greater
> risk than a 30 second delay in attending to the injured party. 
> 
> So what viewpoint do you side with, one or two.
> 
> Thanx,
> Joe

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html