Re: NUREG-1633

[Mike Lantz <mlantz33@cybertrails.com>]

Thanks Peter.  I appreciate the notice that this draft NUREG-1633 has been pulled; sounds like because of critism by the states, if I understand you right.

For me, however, the draft NUREG still seemed to provide very clear thoughts compared to the WHO documents that seemed to ramble.  You're going to make me type some abbreviated examples from the NUREG:

	"In theory, there could be numerous evacuations without an associated release of radioactive material:  If KI were used as a routine protective measure, theoretically, it could be administered to a general public numerous times without any associated exposure to radionuclides."
	"The administration of a drug to the general public, including pregnant women and children, during an emergency in the United States without medical supervision is a significant departure from the norm in emergency response."
	"Essentially all the affected children (Chernobyl) lived more than 10 miles from the reactor and are believed to have been irradiated as a result of consuming contaminated foodstuffs.  The United States provisions for interdiction of contaminated food and water would have prevented this unfortunate occurence."  
	"KI is contraindicated in several situations and a high degree of caution would have to be exercised before recommending its administration on a mass basis, including pregnant women and children."
	"KI distribution could present considerable logistical concerns."

There were other good thoughts in this document, and yes, it was clearly positioned against KI use as a first line of defense.  I read this NUREG and understood the position.  The WHO and IAEA draft document on KI guidance seemed confusing or worse, but was clearly positioned for the use.

Thank you again,

Mike LAntz, CHP

Dear Mr. Lantz,
   You should be aware that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission withdrew
NUREG-1633 and removed it from the NRC's website several months ago. 
You should also be aware of the blistering comments on that document
from the Departments of Health of Ohio and New York.  New York, for
example, in a letter from Dr. Karim Rimawi, commented that the State had
been looking forward to the document, thinking that it would help them
in considering the KI issue, only to find that it was not a
dispassionate assessment but a document designed to support a particular
position, i.e., opposition to KI.  See also the comments of Commissioner
McGaffigan of the NRC, quoted in Inside NRC sometime in September or
October 1998.  Is anyone circulating NUREG-1633 as a document still to
be relied on?  -- Peter Crane
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html