Re: NCRP/NRC recommendations on dose limits for hot particles

[Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

At 11:57 AM 11/4/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>I believe that your assessment is incorrect.  Six out of 15,000 is a bad
>average.  But consider first that half of the overexposures occurred in the
>early days as hot particles were beginning to become recognized as a hazard. 
>Secondly, the incidence rate is much lower when you consider that the
>opportunities for exposure would best be characterized by person-hours worked
>in the radiological environment vs number of TLDs processed.  If 500 Boeing
>767s have been built and 2 have crashed, that's a bad record.  But when you
>consider the number of miles travelled or number of flights made, you get a
>different picture.

It appears we just disagree. Even if we spread the rate out to 6
occurrences among 15,000 workers instead of 15,000 dosimeters, it would be
indicative of a programmatic failure.

Having participated in those early skin dose assessments during the
"feeding frenzy" days of hot particle mania, I can also point out that the
population described refers to the 15,000 DETECTED skin exposures.
Undoubtedly there where far more exposures that went undetected.

===================================
Bob Flood
Dosimetry Group Leader
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(650) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html