Re: Treatment of Contaminated Personnel

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

At 04:13 AM 2/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>d) Now let's take into account  the following  remark: If the dose rate is
>>1000 R/h, back off and do not perform a rescue.

Again we are considering  the first step of the scenario: The radiographer
was injured,  but conscious and there was an operational detector available.
If the  Ir-192 or Co-60 were unshielded the dose rate near the  surface of
each source would  be >> than 1000 R/h. 

 a)  Co-60 --> l3.2 R.cm2/mCi.h --> ~  2.5  x 10(5)R.cm2/h considering an
activity of 20 Ci 
   
 b) Ir-192 -->  4.8 R.cm2/mCi.h --> ~ 5.0 x 10(5) R.cm2/Ci.h considering an
activity of 100 Ci 

However around one meter away the dose rate would  drop down to the dose
rate measured by the radiographer  25 R/h, and in this condition there would
not be difficulty to rescue the passengers of both vehicles considering
experimented first on-scene responder.


>In some existing training (not in Los Alamos) the official advice is: if
>you measure ANY radiation, wait for the knowledgeable authorities. This
>official advice is followed during exercises and drills. I am told: in a
>real situation where life is at risk, we would do it differently. How strange!


This is a good point to Readsafers to think and to comment, specially those
engaged in emergency response. -- Training is always training, for this
reason the training should be as realistic as possible. However I do believe
that the second and the third parts of the scenario have some connection
with your remark.

The second part of the scenario,  consider that the survey   meter was
broken, and no measure could be made, however the radiographer was conscious.

-- What should be the attitude of the radiographer after to admit  the
impossibility of any survey?:

a) -- Ask to people to rescue the injured passangers from the other vehicle
and to call urgently the knowledgeable authorities to rescue them, as well
as  asking them also to keep away from his vehicle, because there is the
possibility of radiation exposure in case of the source be unshielded?
-- However to rescue the injured passengers  from  the other vehicle, in
case of the source be unshielded, the dose received by those people will be
>> than 5 mSv in a single year, is correct the radiographer attitude to
those people?

The third  part of the scenario, should consider the above  situation
(detector broken) and also that the radiographer was unconscious.

In this case only people familiar with radioactive label  could understand
that the vehicle was transporting radioactive source.
I agree with you there are  people in this case  to rescue the passengers of
both vehicles.

Best regards,

J. J. Rozental
<josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Israel
jjrozental

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