[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What Happened to Greta Dicus
In response to the question about NRC Commissioner Dicus, please see the
following information distributed by the LLW Forum.
The following information is being sent to you on behalf of the LLW Forum
_________________________
Clinton Plans to Designate New Chair NRC
On August 7, President Bill Clinton announced that he is nominating Richard
Meserve as a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Clinton plans
to designate Meserve as Chair upon his appointment. Meserve will replace
Greta Dicus, who has been serving in the interim as Chair since Shirley
Jacksonšs departure in June. Dicus, who is a former Chair of the Central
Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission and a former Forum
Participant, has served as an NRC Commissioner since February 1996. She will
continue as a member of the Commission through her current appointment until
June 30, 2003.
Meserve is presently a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Covington
and Burling. His practice focuses on environmental and toxic-tort
litigation, nuclear licensing, and the counseling of scientific societies.
Since 1981, he has served on various committees of the National Academies of
Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Engineering. Previously, Meserve
served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackman and to
Judge Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He holds
a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. in applied physics from Stanford
University.
Meservešs appointment to the Commission requires Senate confirmation. To
date, a schedule has not been set for confirmation hearings.
Todd Lovinger
----------
>From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: RADSAFE digest 2577
>Date: Thu, Aug 12, 1999, 9:01 AM
>
> RADSAFE Digest 2577
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL TECHNICIAN POSITION
> by Vivan Fernandez <FERNANVE@nv.doe.gov>
> 2) RE: medical misadministration of I-131
> by "Grimm, Lawrence" <LGrimm@ADMIN.UCLA.EDU>
> 3) RE: medical misadministration of I-131
> by "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> 4) RE: 6430.1A Design Criteria
> by L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov
> 5) RE: 6430.1A Design Criteria
> by Richard_M_Pierson@RL.gov
> 6) Yucca Mountain nuclear waste plan risky -US agency
> by "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
> 7) Re: Trojan Decommissioning
> by DQDX@aol.com
> 8) Re: medical misadministration of I-131
> by "Daren" <dmperrero@email.msn.com>
> 9) Re: medical misadministration of I-131
> by Michael Kay <makay@teleport.com>
> 10) Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm
> by antatnsu@pacbell.net
> 11) Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm
> by antatnsu@pacbell.net
> 12) Re: medical misadministration of I-131
> by High Plains Drifter <magna1@jps.net>
> 13) Radiation Protection Course
> by Alex_S_Tsela/CNS1@cns.co.za
> 14) medical misadmisintration - PN Report
> by William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>
> 15) Re: medical misadmisintration - PN Report
> by Mark Shaffer <MRS@nrc.gov>
> 16) Radioactive Waste Storage Facility
> by Edgar Jawdeh <edgar.jawdeh@ors.gatech.edu>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:55:01 -0700
>From: Vivan Fernandez <FERNANVE@nv.doe.gov>
>To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL TECHNICIAN POSITION
>Message-ID: <s7b18ef9.048@bnsmtp.nv.doe.gov>
>
> RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL TECHNICIAN
>
>Bechtel Nevada, a prime contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy,
>has an immediate opening for Radiological Control Technician (RCT) at
>the Nevada Test Site, sixty miles from Las Vegas, Nevada.
>
>The successful candidate will survey/evaluate workplace environment
>for health hazards associated with potential exposures to various
>radiological/chemical/physical/biological sources. Submit recommended
>control measures for elimination/control of identified health hazards.
>Perform assignments relating to the protection of Nevada Test Site
>workers from unwarranted radiation exposure. Assist in
>development/implementation of methods/procedures necessary to
>ensure healthy work environment/radiological safety within the areas of
>control. Participate in radiological emergency response programs.
>
>The candidate will possess a high school diploma or equivalent plus any
>combination of training/experience comparable to two years of college
>course work with emphasis on math and science. The candidate must
>have at least three years of DOE RCT experience and be currently
>qualified to the DOE RCT standardized core training program. Ability to
>work independently or in a team environment on a wide variety of tasks
>is critical. Industrial hygiene field technician experience is desired as
>well as National Registry of Radiation Protection Technologist (NRRPT)
>certification and experience at the Nevada Test Site. Valid drivers'
>license is required. Basic computer (PC) skills required. Must be able to
>be fitted for and qualify for use with various respiratory protection and
>personal protective equipment.
>
>Bechtel Nevada offers a competitive salary and benefits such as three
>weeks of paid time off per year; 80 hours of paid holidays per year;
>group insurance (health/dental/vision); basic life insurance (1.5 times of
>annual salary); short- & long-term disability; and 401(k) Thrift Plan (100%
>vested after three years).
>
>If your qualifications match, mail/FAX/e-mail resume to Bechtel Nevada,
>Attention: Vivian Fernandez (identify Job #72-99), P.O. Box 98521, Las
>Vegas, NV 89193-8521; FAX (702) 295-2448; or fernanve@nv.doe.gov.
>Equal Opportunity Employer. Ability to meet requirements for a federal
>security clearance and U.S. citizenship required. Pre-employment
>physical examination, including drug screen, is required.
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 14:53:21 -0700
>From: "Grimm, Lawrence" <LGrimm@ADMIN.UCLA.EDU>
>To: "'radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu'" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: RE: medical misadministration of I-131
>Message-ID: <1875BC23A08CD211A52000805FC7373A49F35A@nt1.facnet.ucla.edu>
>
>Hi all:
>
>Sandy Perle and others have criticized a medical misadministration. It
>should be noted that the NRC has looked at the misadministration issue every
>which way. The issue has been studied extensively. Typically when the
>problem occurs, the licensee is scrutinized and if there are systemic
>problems, then new QA/QC measures are enforced. find some copies of the
>Nuclear Licensing Reports - you will be surprised at how often
>misadministrations occur and maybe surprised at the NRC/States' responses.
>
>Does anyone want to guess what the major (90%) causative factor is for
>medical misadministrations? Plain, old, simple human error. Impossible to
>regulate, almost impossible to prevent. Lest we chastise the medical
>community much further, let us all not forget the aphorism "He who casts the
>first stone..". It would be lovely if I could say that I've never made a
>stupid mistake, but alas poor Yorick!
>
>Larry Grimm
>lgrimm@admin.ucla.edu
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:10:39 -0500
>From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: RE: medical misadministration of I-131
>Message-ID: <199908112211.RAA12667@dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com>
>
>Most errors, regardless of the industry, are based on human factors.
>It is for that reason the following is sorely needed (again,
>regardless of the industry):
>
>(1) Increased and more pertinent training. This includes refresher
>and competency reviews.
>
>(2) Increased supervisory insight.
>
>(3) Better procedures, and, requiring actual use of the procedures
>(where appropriate). It's the staff with the most years that often
>don't review procedures since they "already know what is required."
>
>(4) Individuals being held accountable for their action, or inaction
>(all levels).
>
>The greater the degree of the human error, especially the seriousness
>of the result, the more analysis needs to be performed. Perhaps more
>use of EMEA should be performed. If it's a system we're addressing,
>perhaps FTA or FMEA should be sought out.
>
>In the case at hand, it is a simple error that should not have
>occurred. This type of mis-administration should never occur. The
>root cause most likely, again, most likely, is an individual, or
>individuals, not paying attention to details. Simple to correct .. if
>management is really interested.
>
>
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:11:08 -0700
>From: L_K_II_Les_Aldrich@RL.gov
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: RE: 6430.1A Design Criteria
>Message-ID: <87101F5DC313D311842000A0C999618A26AD17@APEXCH02.rl.gov>
>
>Kurt,
>
>Try http://www.explorer.doe.gov:1776/htmls/directives.html
>
>Les Aldrich
>l_k_ii_les_aldrich@rl.gov
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kurt R. Geber [SMTP:kg1@ornl.gov]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:52 PM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list
>> Subject: 6430.1A Design Criteria
>>
>> --=====================_181516366==_.ALT
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>> I am trying to find a website that will tell me if DOE Order 6430.1A,
>> "General
>> Design Criteria" , has been officially cancelled in whole or part (and
>> if in
>> part, which?). Any help would be appreciated.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Kurt R. Geber, CHP
>> Office of Radiation Protection
>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory
>> P.O. Box 2008
>> Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6160
>>
>> ph: 423-574-0929
>> fax: 423-241-2779
>> pgr: 873-7194
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --=====================_181516366==_.ALT
>> Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> <html><div>I am trying to find a website that will tell me if DOE
>> Order
>> 6430.1A, "General Design Criteria" , has been officially
>> cancelled in whole or part (and if in part, which?). Any help would be
>> appreciated.</div>
>> Thanks.
>> <br>
>>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <font size=2 color="#0000FF">Kurt R. Geber, CHP<br>
>> Office of Radiation Protection<br>
>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory<br>
>> P.O. Box 2008<br>
>> Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6160<br>
>> <br>
>> ph: 423-574-0929<br>
>> fax: 423-241-2779<br>
>> pgr: 873-7194<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> </font></html>
>>
>> --=====================_181516366==_.ALT--
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> **
>> 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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:57:17 -0700
>From: Richard_M_Pierson@RL.gov
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: RE: 6430.1A Design Criteria
>Message-ID: <7910A7E76CA8D111BDC900A0C999614F02EDAB0F@APEXCH04.rl.gov>
>
>Kurt,
>The recently approved DOE handbook "Design Considerations"
>(DOE-HDBK-1132-99 - April 1999) should provide the information you are
>looking for. Specifically reference the FOREWARD on page xiii. It can
>be found at:
>
>http://tis.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/
>
>Click the recently approved link to access the respective .pdf file.
>
>Richard M. Pierson, HP
>River Protection Project
>509.373.7591 Pgr. 85-3122
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kurt R. Geber [SMTP:kg1@ornl.gov]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:52 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 6430.1A Design Criteria
>
>--=====================_181516366==_.ALT
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>I am trying to find a website that will tell me if DOE Order 6430.1A,
>"General
>Design Criteria" , has been officially cancelled in whole or part (and
>if in
>part, which?). Any help would be appreciated.
>Thanks.
>
>
>Kurt R. Geber, CHP
>Office of Radiation Protection
>Oak Ridge National Laboratory
>P.O. Box 2008
>Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6160
>
>ph: 423-574-0929
>fax: 423-241-2779
>pgr: 873-7194
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--=====================_181516366==_.ALT
>Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>
><html><div>I am trying to find a website that will tell me if DOE Order
>6430.1A, "General Design Criteria" , has been officially
>cancelled in whole or part (and if in part, which?). Any help would be
>appreciated.</div>
>Thanks.
><br>
>
><br>
><br>
><font size=2 color="#0000FF">Kurt R. Geber, CHP<br>
>Office of Radiation Protection<br>
>Oak Ridge National Laboratory<br>
>P.O. Box 2008<br>
>Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6160<br>
><br>
>ph: 423-574-0929<br>
>fax: 423-241-2779<br>
>pgr: 873-7194<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
></font></html>
>
>--=====================_181516366==_.ALT--
>
>************************************************************************
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 19:32:25 -0700
>From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu, radwaste@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Yucca Mountain nuclear waste plan risky -US agency
>Message-ID: <199908120232.TAA18990@swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Wednesday August 11, 7:59 pm Eastern Time
>
>Yucca Mountain nuclear waste plan risky -US agency
>
>SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Geological Survey
>said on Wednesday the Energy Department's plan to build a vast
>nuclear waste repository in Nevada's Yucca Mountain was
>potentially risky, but no better option existed for dealing with the
>nation's nuclear waste.
>
>USGS Director Charles Groat, in a foreword to a newly released
>report by his agency on the Yucca Mountain plan, said the U.S.
>public ``should know that the choices are not clear cut and that
>none is without risk.''
>
>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing a draft
>environmental impact statement on the plan to store huge amounts
>of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (144 km) from
>Las Vegas.
>
>An eventual storage site, which would not be built until the latter
>part of the next decade at the earliest, could be used to house
>spent nuclear fuel currently stored at reactors across the country.
>
>About 38,000 tons (34,000 tonnes) of waste currently exists. That
>amount is expected to double in the coming years.
>
>The Geological Survey, a division of the Department of the Interior,
>reviewed the Department of Energy proposal with a special view to
>the engineering and earth sciences elements of the plan.
>
>``If Yucca Mountain is developed as the nation's first underground
>repository for high-level radioactive materials, it would be one of the
>most complicated and expensive engineering projects ever
>undertaken by the U.S.,'' said Geological Survey researcher Tom
>Hanks, author of the agency's report.
>
>The only alternative currently available would leave the waste dotted
>at more than 100 sites around the country, he said. Hanks added
>that the alternative plan would pose greater risks to a broader range
>of society than consolidating the material all at one site.
>
>``Seventy thousand metric tons of high-level radioactive waste has
>to go somewhere,'' the report's authors said.
>
>Late last year, Energy Department officials said Yucca Mountain
>was a promising site for a permanent storage facility, but added
>further scientific study was needed before construction started.
>
>A final recommendation on Yucca Mountain is not due to be made
>until 2001.
>
>Environmentalists oppose the site for a number of reasons,
>including fears that ground water could be contaminated by leaking
>radioactive fuel, and its proximity to Las Vegas.
>
>------------------------
>Sandy Perle
>E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
>Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:33:30 EDT
>From: DQDX@aol.com
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Trojan Decommissioning
>Message-ID: <7cad1415.24e38c7a@aol.com>
>
>Tom Meek has been a Health Physicist at Trojan for years, and I believe he is
>still there. You should be able to get his number through the HP Membership
>handbook.
>Dennis Quinn
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:14:41 -0000
>From: "Daren" <dmperrero@email.msn.com>
>To: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: medical misadministration of I-131
>Message-ID: <035901bee44f$5ef338e0$a9aefed0@perrero-family>
>
>I would be very curious to hear C. Marcus' opinion of such situations. I
>hope she's out there and monitoring this thread. In my opinion she's more
>than qualified to address these kinds of things given her background and
>involvement in the such regulatory issues.
>
>
>dmperrero@msn.com
>I'm with the government, I'm here to help....
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:23:58 -0700
>From: Michael Kay <makay@teleport.com>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: medical misadministration of I-131
>Message-ID: <37B25A6E.A9DD9FDF@teleport.com>
>
>There are some areas where "Plain, old, simple human error" is not
>acceptable--where your POSHE affects someone else. Mindfulness, concentration on
>the task at hand, and following procedures WILL eliminate such errors. Assuming
>that you have the right patient without following identification procedures is
>Hubris--the prime ingredient for a tragedy.
>
>Would you also say accidents are inevitable? Go tell that to the Dupont Chemical
>Plant with a 26-year history of no lost time accidents, the foundry that passed
>1,000,000 accident free work-hours. It depends on the culture of the specific
>workplace--the responsibility of management.
>
>The acceptance of such errors as unavoidable is part of a culture that will have
>more happen. Apply the Motorola 6-Sigma Quality Standard to medical
>administrations (the error is less than 1.0 minus the cumulative error
>distribution for Z = 6 standard deviations). That would put the number of
>misadministrations at 1 in 999999999+ or less than 1 per year worldwide.
>This is achievable if you want it to happen. Management can make it happen.
>
>Michael A. Kay, ScD, CHMM
>HS&E Consultant
>makay@teleport.com
>"Grimm, Lawrence" wrote:
>
>> Hi all:
>>
>> Sandy Perle and others have criticized a medical misadministration. I
>>
>> Does anyone want to guess what the major (90%) causative factor is for
>> medical misadministrations? Plain, old, simple human error. Impossible to
>> regulate, almost impossible to prevent. Lest we chastise the medical
>> community much further, let us all not forget the aphorism "He who casts the
>> first stone..". It would be lovely if I could say that I've never made a
>> stupid mistake, but alas poor Yorick!
>>
>> Larry Grimm
>> lgrimm@admin.ucla.edu
>> ************************************************************************
>> 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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:36:31 -0700
>From: antatnsu@pacbell.net
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm
>Message-ID: <37B25D5E.83554507@postoffice.pacbell.net>
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------9F7E23BB3D0786F50B36BA38
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>McDonald, Michael P wrote:
>
>> Sandy and Al,
>>
>> "Safe" and "dangerous" are terms that we may never actually be able to
>> quantify, with respect to public opinion about radiation. What the public
>> needs to be taught is that there is a certain level of risk associated with
>> a certain level of radiation.
>
>Sorry, the public will never be able to use levels of risk. All a member of the
>public wants to know is: "Is it safe, or not?" I challenge anyone to gather a
>representative group of the public and see if they can understand risk let alone
>use it.
>
>> Why is it that we hear very little about
>> medical rad doses,
>
>Because no regulatory agency requires medical rad doses to be
>calculated/measured and recorded.
>
>> yet the antis will make a huge production out of recycled
>> rad metal coming from Oak Ridge?
>
>Anything to make the nuclear industry more expensive. Stopping recycle makes it
>more expensive.
>
>> Sure, most of us agree that 5 rem is a
>> "safe" dose, yet most of use would like to keep our dose less than that, and
>> are willing to spend our own dollars to do it. Why?
>
>But, what is the answer?
>
>> When we can answer
>> that question, as an HP community, we'll be better able to relate the "risks
>> vs. benefits" theme to the public, hence educate.
>
>If we agree on a safe dose, we're done. Risk is irrelevant.
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice to
>> hear your neighbor ask: "Hey Sandy or Al, how much risk is there associated
>> with the recycled metal coming from Oak Ridge?"
>
>But that will never happen.
>
>Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
>
>
>--------------9F7E23BB3D0786F50B36BA38
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
>begin: vcard
>fn: Al Tschaeche
>n: Tschaeche;Al
>org: Nuclear Standards Unlimited
>email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
>title: CEO
>x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
>x-mozilla-html: FALSE
>version: 2.1
>end: vcard
>
>
>--------------9F7E23BB3D0786F50B36BA38--
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:42:59 -0700
>From: antatnsu@pacbell.net
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm
>Message-ID: <37B25EE3.2C4B4835@postoffice.pacbell.net>
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------9CA68C38F3F7FF4724277D81
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Kim Merritt wrote:
>
>> >"Safe" and "dangerous" are terms that we may never actually be able to
>> >quantify, with respect to public opinion about radiation.
>
>But we must.
>
>> What the public
>> >needs to be taught is that there is a certain level of risk associated with
>> >a certain level of radiation.
>
>They will never learn it.
>
>> I think this comes down to having differing views of the term "safe". In
>> my opinion the public looks at the term "safe" as meaning risk free.
>
>True.
>
>> When
>> I think of something being safe I look at it more from a risk perspective.
>
>But the public doesn't.
>
>> What is the relative risk of this compared to the rest of the hazards in my
>> life? Given this difference, if I used the public perspective of "safe" I
>> would have to answer no to the question regarding whether 5 rem per year is
>> safe.
>
>Why not. Where is the data that demonstrates 5 rem is not safe?
>
>> Of course under a risk based perpective it is safe and it also
>> explains why someone would spend their own money to be "safer", read
>> minimizing your risk.
>
>Again, where are the data demonstrating there is any risk at all at 5 rem?
>
>> Of course, I would not spend my own money to lower
>> my exposure, that's what employers are for!
>
>But you do spend your money in the form of higher prices for nuclear electricity
>and higher taxes for DOE to waste billions in useless cleanups, ALARA programs
>and shielding.
>
>> Ultimately, although we seem to be speaking the same language as the
>> public, our meaning is different than theirs. Granted, it may seem like
>> semantics but it can lead to instances where we seem to be speaking out of
>> both sides of our mouths, "Yes it's safe, although there is some minimal
>> risk ...".
>>
>> What to do, what to do...?
>>
>> I think this is where educational programs like the one Jay Shelton at
>> Santa Fe Prep has(see earlier thread on INS laudry), have the opportunity
>> to make some progress for the future.
>
>If that program educates health physicists in the knowledge that low doses are
>safe, I might agree that some progress may be made. However, I don't know what
>the program content is.
>
>Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
>
>
>--------------9CA68C38F3F7FF4724277D81
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Al Tschaeche
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
>begin: vcard
>fn: Al Tschaeche
>n: Tschaeche;Al
>org: Nuclear Standards Unlimited
>email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
>title: CEO
>x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
>x-mozilla-html: FALSE
>version: 2.1
>end: vcard
>
>
>--------------9CA68C38F3F7FF4724277D81--
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:01:27 -0700
>From: High Plains Drifter <magna1@jps.net>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: medical misadministration of I-131
>Message-ID: <37B26337.9D34699@jps.net>
>
>Lawrence, one thing the NRC has not been able to do, is to
>invoke sensible hours of work for interns and hospital
>technicians. This one thing - limiting the hours of work
>for personnel performing critical work operations - reduced
>the number of errors made at NPPs.
>
>High Plains Drifter
>magna1@jps.net
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:24:19 +0200
>From: Alex_S_Tsela/CNS1@cns.co.za
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Radiation Protection Course
>Message-ID: <422567CB.003E9193.00@cns.co.za>
>
>
>
>I am looking for an institution that offers a course in radiation
>protection through correspondence
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:59:17 -0400
>From: William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>
>To: RADSAFE@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: medical misadmisintration - PN Report
>Message-ID: <37B2B713.1D234C6E@dteenergy.com>
>
>Here's the NRC, "Preliminary Notification" report. One question: If
>the misadministration was discovered at 10:40 A.M., why did they wait
>until 4:00 P.M. to be "dispatched to the Patient B's home" to administer
>the blocking agen? The 5- 6 hour delay probably had a significant
>impact on the dose to Patient B. For example, NCRP Report No. 65,
>"Management of Persons Accidentally Contaminated with Radionuclides,"
>states (section 7.3.4.2): "... One blocking dose of 300 mg of iodide,
>if given within 30 minutes, will stop further uptake of radioiodine by
>the thyroid. Only about 50 percent of the uptake is blocked if the
>iodide administration is delayed six hours ..." NCRP 65 also states
>(section 6.8): "Daily administration of 300 mg KI should be continued
>for 7 to 14 days. This continuation of the blocking agent is needed to
>prevent recycling of the radioiodine ..." Has this followup care been
>given?
>
>Please don't tell me they were too busy. Oh well, the thyroid is highly
>overrated, anyway.
>
>The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
>It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>
>Bill Lipton
>liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
>August 9, 1999
>
>PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-IV-99-034
>
>This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of
>POSSIBLE
>safety or public interest significance. The information is as initially
>received without verification or evaluation, and is basically all that
>is
>known by Region IV staff in Arlington, Texas on this date.
>
>Facility Licensee Emergency
>Classification
>State Of Texas Licensee Notification of Unusual
>Event
>Hermann Hospital Alert
>Houston,Texas 77030-1501 Site Area Emergency
>License No: L00650 General Emergency
> X Not
>Applicable
>
>Subject: MEDICAL MISADMINISTRATION INVOLVING IODINE-131
>
>On August 5, 1999, the Radiation Safety Officer for Hermann Hospital (a
>State of Texas
>licensee) located in Houston, Texas, provided written notification to
>the Texas Department of
>Health, Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) of a medical misadministration
>involving the
>administration of 1.01 gigabecquerels (27.3 millicuries) of iodine-131
>(I-131) to the wrong
>patient.
>
>The licensee reported that two female out-patients (both with English as
>their secondary
>language) were involved in the error which occurred on the morning of
>August 4, 1999.
>Patient A (for whom the therapeutic dose of I-131 was intended) was
>approximately 55 years
>old while Patient B (who inadvertently received the I-131 dose) was
>approximately 64 years
>old. Patient B had completed a scheduled bone density scan and was still
>in the nuclear
>medicine department. At that time, she was misidentified by the
>technologist as the patient
>who was to receive a therapeutic dose of I-131. She was then
>administered 1.01
>gigabecquerels of I-131 at approximately 10:40 a.m. (CDT) and was sent
>home. Patient A was
>later observed to still be in the waiting room needing to be
>administered the I-131. At this time,
>the licensee realized that the misadministration occurred. Patient A was
>then administered the
>prescribed dose of I-131 and returned home.
>
>At approximately 4:00 p.m. (CDT) on August 4, 1999, the Radiation Safety
>Officer, the Chief of
>the Nuclear Medicine Department and the Nuclear Pharmacy Manager were
>dispatched to
>Patient B's home to discuss the misadministration with her and her
>husband. With the
>patient's consent, the Nuclear Medicine Physician initiated the
>administration of
>supersaturated Potassium Iodide (1 milliliter three times per day) and
>Furosemide (Lasix) at
>an initial dose of 40 milligrams per day to reduce the patient's
>radiation exposure caused by
>the error. The administrations were completed at approximately 5:20 p.m.
>(CDT).
>
>The BRC is currently investigating the misadministration.
>
>RIV received notification of this occurrence by facsimile from TDH on
>August 6, 1999.
>
>Region IV has informed OSP and NMSS.
>
> This information has been discussed with BRC and is current as of 11:00
>a.m. on August 9,
>1999.
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:37:20 -0400
>From: Mark Shaffer <MRS@nrc.gov>
>To: liptonw@dteenergy.com, radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: medical misadmisintration - PN Report
>Message-ID: <s7b287d8.095@nrcsmtp.nrc.gov>
>
>The State of Texas is currently investigating the incident. However, my
>understanding is that it took the Hospital several hours to finally locate
>the patient. Why? I don't know, but we should wait until the Texas Bureau
>of Radiation Control finishes its investigation for the answer. Also, the
>Preliminary Notification describes initiating the administration of
>blocking agents and gives the doses in "ml/day" and "mg/day"....so I'd have
>to assume that means they intend to continue the administration for more
>than one day.
>
>>>> William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com> 08/12 7:03 AM >>>
>Here's the NRC, "Preliminary Notification" report. One question: If
>the misadministration was discovered at 10:40 A.M., why did they wait
>until 4:00 P.M. to be "dispatched to the Patient B's home" to administer
>the blocking agen? The 5- 6 hour delay probably had a significant
>impact on the dose to Patient B. For example, NCRP Report No. 65,
>"Management of Persons Accidentally Contaminated with Radionuclides,"
>states (section 7.3.4.2): "... One blocking dose of 300 mg of iodide,
>if given within 30 minutes, will stop further uptake of radioiodine by
>the thyroid. Only about 50 percent of the uptake is blocked if the
>iodide administration is delayed six hours ..." NCRP 65 also states
>(section 6.8): "Daily administration of 300 mg KI should be continued
>for 7 to 14 days. This continuation of the blocking agent is needed to
>prevent recycling of the radioiodine ..." Has this followup care been
>given?
>
>Please don't tell me they were too busy. Oh well, the thyroid is highly
>overrated, anyway.
>
>The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
>It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>
>Bill Lipton
>liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
>August 9, 1999
>
>PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-IV-99-034
>
>This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of
>POSSIBLE
>safety or public interest significance. The information is as initially
>received without verification or evaluation, and is basically all that
>is
>known by Region IV staff in Arlington, Texas on this date.
>
>Facility Licensee Emergency
>Classification
>State Of Texas Licensee Notification of Unusual
>Event
>Hermann Hospital Alert
>Houston,Texas 77030-1501 Site Area Emergency
>License No: L00650 General Emergency
> X Not
>Applicable
>
>Subject: MEDICAL MISADMINISTRATION INVOLVING IODINE-131
>
>On August 5, 1999, the Radiation Safety Officer for Hermann Hospital (a
>State of Texas
>licensee) located in Houston, Texas, provided written notification to
>the Texas Department of
>Health, Bureau of Radiation Control (BRC) of a medical misadministration
>involving the
>administration of 1.01 gigabecquerels (27.3 millicuries) of iodine-131
>(I-131) to the wrong
>patient.
>
>The licensee reported that two female out-patients (both with English as
>their secondary
>language) were involved in the error which occurred on the morning of
>August 4, 1999.
>Patient A (for whom the therapeutic dose of I-131 was intended) was
>approximately 55 years
>old while Patient B (who inadvertently received the I-131 dose) was
>approximately 64 years
>old. Patient B had completed a scheduled bone density scan and was still
>in the nuclear
>medicine department. At that time, she was misidentified by the
>technologist as the patient
>who was to receive a therapeutic dose of I-131. She was then
>administered 1.01
>gigabecquerels of I-131 at approximately 10:40 a.m. (CDT) and was sent
>home. Patient A was
>later observed to still be in the waiting room needing to be
>administered the I-131. At this time,
>the licensee realized that the misadministration occurred. Patient A was
>then administered the
>prescribed dose of I-131 and returned home.
>
>At approximately 4:00 p.m. (CDT) on August 4, 1999, the Radiation Safety
>Officer, the Chief of
>the Nuclear Medicine Department and the Nuclear Pharmacy Manager were
>dispatched to
>Patient B's home to discuss the misadministration with her and her
>husband. With the
>patient's consent, the Nuclear Medicine Physician initiated the
>administration of
>supersaturated Potassium Iodide (1 milliliter three times per day) and
>Furosemide (Lasix) at
>an initial dose of 40 milligrams per day to reduce the patient's
>radiation exposure caused by
>the error. The administrations were completed at approximately 5:20 p.m.
>(CDT).
>
>The BRC is currently investigating the misadministration.
>
>RIV received notification of this occurrence by facsimile from TDH on
>August 6, 1999.
>
>Region IV has informed OSP and NMSS.
>
> This information has been discussed with BRC and is current as of 11:00
>a.m. on August 9,
>1999.
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:55:43 -0400
>From: Edgar Jawdeh <edgar.jawdeh@ors.gatech.edu>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Radioactive Waste Storage Facility
>Message-ID: <37B2C44F.CDF94F53@ors.gatech.edu>
>
>
>This question is for RadSafers who work in a University or a Hospital setting:
>
>Are their any Regulatory Requirements related to design specifications of
>an on-site radioactive waste storage / waste processing facility?
>(Ventilation / Air circulation, Curbs, blow-out walls, ......)
>
>Please reply to edgar.jawdeh@ors.gatech.edu
>
>Edgar Jawdeh
>GA Tech - ORS
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of RADSAFE Digest 2577
>**************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html