Re: Medical examination for a radiation worker

["Warren Church" <Warren_Church@uml.edu>]

I think that one of the main purposes of radiation protection training for
radiation workers who potentially may get very little dose is to try and give the
worker a good prospective as to what his/her risk might be.  As we know radiation
workers like the general public very often have misconseptions regarding radiation
risk.  From my experiance a paronoid worker is not a good or a safe worker.
Warren_Church@uml.edu

Sandy Perle wrote:

> > Sorry Sandy, but you're wrong.  19.12 doesn't say that anyone getting 100+
> > millirem/yr is a radiation worker.  19.12 says training is required for
> > anyone getting 100+ millirem/yr.  There really is no definition of a
> > radiation worker.  There is only a definition of occupational dose vs dose
> > to members of the public.  The limit for dose to members of the public is
> > 100 millirem in a year, but a person who is engaged in licensed activities
> > and who gets less than 100 millirem in a year while doing so is NOT a member
> > of the public, since they are getting occupational dose.  Likewise, a member
> > of the public who gets more than 100 millirem doesn't get re-classified as
> > a "radiation worker".
> >
> > And while the NRC doesn't require extensive training for low dose workers,
> > there is certainly a need for training on basic radiation safety and
> > compliance issues like contamination control, posting and labeling.  All
> > it takes is a microcurie of fixed P-32 contamination on the skin to exceed
> > a regulatory dose limit.
> >
> > John Laferriere, CHP
> > john.r.laferriere@dupontpharma.com
>
> John,
>
> We're quibbling over semantics. Yes, section 19.12 does not say
> "radiation worker." However, it excludes the individual from any
> further scrutiny, training or otherwise. In essence, a DeMinimis
> value. As far as providing dosimetry, there need be none as well, in
> that the threshold requiring that is 500 mrem/year.
>
> Whether or not the individual should get training is a different issue
> compared to "required" to be provided training. If it is prudent, the
> facility should provide training, but that is at their discretion, taking
> into account the facility, potential for risk, considerations of
> potential litigation, etc. But whether or not they are required to do
> this, is all that I am showing with 19.12.
>
> The bottom line still remains, how much need be put forward when
> there is no dose, no risk for dose and there has been an
> assessment made that says that they will under no
> circumstances, exceed the 100 mrem threshold. That is all 19.12
> addresses. If you want to call the individual a radiation worker, fine.
> I don't have a problem with that. The NRC only says that you need
> not be concerned with the individual. Simple as that.
>
> Sandy Perle
> E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
>
> "The object of opening the mind, as of opening
> the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
>               - G. K. Chesterton -
> ************************************************************************
> 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