[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: give me your opinion
I guess that this scenario, to my mind anyway boils down to 2 different
conditions. The actual condition is the person down, unconscious,
requiring medical attention. The potential condition is that the
rescuers may have some type of uptake of Pu. My response would be to
attend to the actual condition.
1) Respiratory protection increases the stress in an already stressful
situation.
2) Respiratory protection ensures that communications are garbled
3) If I am already in the area, what use would it be to put respiratory
protection on my "contaminated" face so I could inhale all that PU that
is on my face.
4) The use of chelating agents will reduce the CEDE tremendously.
5) The 4-5 minutes that it takes the first medical responders to arrive
would allow the "plume" to dissipate somewhat.
6) I do not believe that an uptake of Pu can in any manner be construed
as IDLH so the patient should not be moved until a primary assessment is
completed, and preferably a secondary assessment.
Just thoughts from one who has been put in situations like that, only
with other nuclides involved.
Chris A. Marthaller RRPT
Phone (505) 234-8661
Sr. Training Coordinator - WIPP
ChrisM@wipp.carlsbad.nm.us
Obviously, only my own views
-----Original Message-----
From: Archer, Joe
Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 2:40 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html