RE: give me your opinion

[Mike Dempsey <mdempsey@lanl.gov>]

I totally disagree, if you got exposed to inhaled Pu  (and we have not
decided if it is oxide, metal or nitrate, insoluble, non-respirable, or
soluble)  you could POSSIBLY get leukemia or lung cancer in 10-30 years,
probably never.  The victim (of this unlikely) scenario is at greater risk
from the head injury than the Pu.

My own opinion.

Mike Dempsey

At 03:52 PM 1/25/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Joe,
>
>I am a paramedic among other things. In my opinion, my safety is just as
>important as rescuing a downed worker. Of course, we all make split second
>decision and sometimes people do heroic things which are rather stupid from
>a point of personal safety. But all people should be trained in this
>specific scenario to don the respirator first. Of course, it must be drilled
>in and the respirator immediately accessible and the tasks frequently
>practiced. This is not a situation in which 30 seconds is likely to make a
>difference to the injured worker but it could make all the difference to the
>rescuer.
>
>Practicing what and how to do something during an emergency will also make a
>big difference. Just talking about it does not work.
>
>The opinion of a skilled rescuer ........
>
>sharyn baker
>Instructor
>Health and Safety Division
>University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
>Denver, Colorado
>
>
>> ----------
>> 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
>> 
>************************************************************************
>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