Re: Idiot-proof survey meters, HP profession

[Franz Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 17:51 12.02.1999 -0600, you wrote:
>At 05:03 PM 2/12/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>Why would you set it this low?  How could 2 mR/hr possibly be a hazard to a
>>responding fire fighter.
>
>A general-purpose alarm setting of 2 mr/h could be useful, specifically if
>the facility doesn't normally experience dose rates over 2 mrem/h. Then the
>alarm is indicative of a change in local conditions that warrants
>attention. That would be quite reasonable.

This indication of enhanced levels would show, that radioactive material is
released and that probably further release cannot be excluded.


> 
>But to set an action level for firefighters to evacuate at 2 mr/h doesn't
>seem realistic. 

It does not make any sense. Levels for evacuation cannot be set in terms of
mrem/h, but only in dose (rem) received during rescue action. I would be
more than surprised, if the US had no legal binding values for the maximum
permissible dose for rescue actions. Therefore this cannot be a matter of
individual thinking, how much dose one would accept to rescue somebody else
and it is disgusting to read that for some people this would even depend on
who the person to be rescued is. Firemen must be trained for such
operations and they do not need sophisticated, but fool-proof instruments
which they carry with them and which tell them clearly, when it would be
time to evacuate, either by a peep tone or a blinking light or much better,
both. Moreover firemen do not usually stay for hours in burning houses to
search for victims to be rescued. Either they find them within a few
minutes or there is no chance for the victims to survive. Firemen are not
only supposed to take, but actually paid for taking a certain risk which is
higher than for a typist (though the wage may not be higher....). Firemen
also have a kind of ethics which requires them to risk even their life. Not
only the massmedia would act negatively, if people were killed, because
firemen did not enter into a building at the level of 2 mrem/h, but
certainly severe legal action and punishment would be undertaken against
them. 

I see a large demand for fool-proof survey meters (I prefer this
expression). It depends on what they are used for and by which "fools".
There are situations in which lost or displaced sources have to be found,
not only in a building but for instance after an accident in the field. I
bet that any non-HP is able to read a display after he or she has been
briefly instructed how to use the "on" key and anybody will understand that
they have to report immediable and to go back from the place on an alarm
signal. So these "fools" will be a very valuable help to the "real" HP, who
for instance will have to set the alarm level and exactly locate the
source, if its radioactivity is to high. I cannot see anything negative in
using fool-proof survey meters in this way. The Austrian firebrigades and
of course the army is equipped with such instruments.

My comment does not mean, that a health physicist can be replaced by a
person with a fool-proof survey meter - which leads me to the question of
"What is a health physicist?". It seems that the situation and the system
is totally different in the US and Europe, what I understand from the
contribution of RADSAFERs. For instance in Austria we do not have a
profession called "health physicist", but we have a similar function which
is legally defined. Companies, universities, research institutes,
hospitals, any establishment which uses equipment and radionuclides above a
legally defined amount have to have a person, who is responsible that all
work done is in compliance with regulations and who is also responsible for
help in the case of accidents, spills etc. This is very strict - even a
company having smoke detectors containing Am, have to have a "radiation
protection officer". All radiation protection officers have to fulfill
certain criteria like a defined educational background, depending on the
kind of radionuclides and their amount handled or radiation source. The
lowest necessary background is something like a "technical college", in
most cases an academic degree in chemistry, physics, technical sciences
etc. is necessary. For medical purposes the radiation protection officer
has to be a medical doctor. Additionally to these basic qualifications
these persons have to undergo special official courses in radiation
protection, depending on their needed certification. Only when they hold a
certificate for this special education they can be named as radiation
protection officers by their institution. Their assignment has to be
notified to the authorities, otherwise the institution will not receive
permission to handle the radioactive material or the radiation sources.
There is also the possibility, that somebody may act as an independent
radiation protection consultant, but this person also has to have the same
qualifications and moreover has to prove that he or she has a certain
number of years of practical experience in working with radionuclides and
radiation sources. 

Sounds pretty bureaucratic and I hate bureaucracy (though I am a government
employee), but in this case it seems that bureaucracy prevents us from
having "fools" instead of health physicists employed. Any survey can of
course be done by anybody - nobodody can forbid it, but they would not be
worth the money, because the authorities will never acknowledge such an
"expertise", an acknowledgement would be anyway against the law, and it
would have to be repeated by an authorized person. 

This is the legal side. But unfortunately we have another one, which seems
to cause the same problem in all countries: Nobody can prevent anybody to
do any "measurement" and to report it to the mass media with an idiotic
(now I use  t h i s  word and not "foolish" deliberately) comment. The
"anybody" is organisations like "Greenpeace" and their many green branches.
As long as the mass media accept all this nonsense we can work legally
correct with the highest qualified personnel and the best instruments
available without that it is appreciated or even recognized by the public.

Franz


Franz Schoenhofer
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-495 53 08
Fax.: same number
mobile phone: +43-664-338 0 333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

Office:
Hofrat Dr. Franz Schönhofer
Federal Institute for Food Control and Research
Department of Radiochemistry
Kinderspitalg. 15
A-1095 Vienna
Austria
Tel.: +43-1-40 490 27820
e-mail: schoenhofer@baluf.via.at
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html