RE: give me your opinion

[Mike Dempsey <mdempsey@lanl.gov>]

Thank you for the voice of reason, hard to imagine that you and Joe work at
the same place.  

My own opinion.

Mike Dempsey

At 09:21 AM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote:
>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

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