[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patient Release - A Related Question

Steven Rima wrote:
> 
>      Okay, Stephen, I'll buy that answer, but then why on earth are we
>      spending hundreds of millions on environmental cleanups to get the

Correction:  $100s Billions

>      public's dose to less than 15 or 25 mrem/y? If the cost of additional
>      hospitalization was the driving force to increase the public dose
>      limit from 100 mrem/y to 500 mrem/y for medical applications, why
>      isn't the same type of ALARA analysis applied to D&D activities?

Answer:   $100s Billions for cleanups
         As former-NRC Chairman Dicus stated: "Who Pays?  The Public."
    Now consider:  "Who Gets Paid?"   Fed programs? Reg "costs" as
"profits"? 

    And - "cost of hospitalization" wouldn't count if still just passed
on the insurance company.  But, new medical/HMO "cost-control" shifts
incentives against hospitalization. Nuclear Medicine costs little to
provide large doses to patients compared to large costs to provide "rad
protection" to prevent possible trivial doses to the public.

Unfortunately, the nuclear industry still hasn't started to challenge
the unwarranted costs, previously "profits" stuck to the ratepayer, of
excessive rad controls. (Waiting for "privatization" to take hold - when
"rad control" will become responsible for balancing costs and benefits
instead of "control at any cost" - enabling rad control to become a
profession and a valuable management asset rather than bookkeepers and a
cost burden, to be replaced by a computer or tech.)

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

>      Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
>      Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
>      MACTEC-ERS, LLC
>      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Patient Release - A Related Question
> Author:  Stephen Mcguire <SAM2@nrc.gov> at Internet
> Date:    11/2/99 8:12 AM
> 
> >>> Steven Rima <steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM> 10/28 3:13 PM >>>
>      RADSAFERs,
> 
>      In my last post on this topic, I asked a question that has bugged me
>      for quite a while. Maybe someone out there can attempt to answer it.
> 
>       QUESTION: Why is there/should there be such a double standard??? I-131
>      is I-131, whether from a hospital or power plant, and a mrem is a
>      mrem, no matter the source, so why can hospitals do things that would
>      get other licensees cited, fined, or even shut down? An argument can
>      be made that residents near a power plant benefit from its operation,
>      but I don't believe that the random member of the public exposed to a
>      radioactive patient receives any benefit whatsoever.
> 
> Answer:  The answer to this question is given in NUREG-1492, "Regulatory
> Analysis on Criteria for the Release of Patients Administered Radioactive
> Material," 1997.  In brief, the use of the 500 mrem limit (which is provided for
> in NRC regulations and NCRP and ICRP recommendations under special circumstances
> when its use can be justified)  is justified as being a net benefit to society.
> The largest benefit is reduced hospitalization costs, the value of which was
> determined to exceed the detriment from radiation exposure.
> 
> With regard to the benefit to a "random member of the public,"  very few human
> activities would pass a test that required that each and every individual have a
> net individual benefit from the activity.  if individual risks can be considered
> acceptable (not zero), then it is enough that the activity provide a net benefit
> to society.  But even beyond that, if the "random member ofthe public"  has
> health insurance or pays Medicare taxes, they will benefit from lower premiums
> or taxes due to lower hospitalization costs.
> 
> NUREG-1492 also estimates that most of the collective dose will be incurred by
> family members, not "random members of the public."   In addition, NUREG-1492
> estimes that the overwhelming proportion of the dose is from direct radiation,
> not from contamination.  Concern about contamination from patients is more of a
> psychological issue than a radiation protection issue.
> 
> Stephen A. McGuire
> Mail Stop T-4D18
> Incident Response Operations
> U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
> Washington, DC 20555
> 301-415-6204
> sam2@nrc.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                !
> !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
Ó!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
yu'r«AŽ>References: