Radiation Risks

[raymcginnis]

The other thread, "how hot is clean" was getting away from the original question, but I feel we are all on a roll here, so I created a new thread to continue the discussion.  All input has been intelligent and has helped me whether I agree or disagree with all of the posted opinions.

Let me start this thread by sharing something I don't know and something that I have observed.  I don't know what gave my Father a rare form of lung cancer that is usually associated with women.  He had a tumor on the outside of his lung, the size of a grapefruit.  It was attached to the outside lining of his lung.

Now, I did indeed suspect that it may be attributed to asbestos exposure from ships that he worked on, but this could never be proven, nor did I care to prove it.  He was not here anymore, so it didn't matter to me or my family if someone were to blame.  No lawyer could bring him back to us, so we just grieved over our loss.

When I was 12, he was driving in an automobile, with us all there, and we were behind a logging truck in Georgia.  A piece of lumber came off of the truck and Dad had to swerve to save us.  That almost killed him then (as well as the rest of my family).   

Now driving is a real risk, compared to residual radioactivity.  I know that some will point to asbestos and radiation risks that may have even been the cause of my Father's death.

Here is what I know myself.  I have been in this business since my early years.  I have lost many friends that I know that I can attribute their deaths to automobile accidents.  I cannot name one person, who has crawled in the bowels of nuclear power plants, that I can attribute their death to radiation exposure.  Not one!

I am still here and I used to get 1 to 3 R per job in the old days.  My Dad almost died when I was 12.  So did I.  We both lived for many years after that.  Maybe asbestos got my Dad and maybe it was something else.

We have to be intelligent about legislation concerning saving lives. That is my point.  Sometimes they can't be saved, no matter how many tax dollars you spend.  Certainly, we don't want evil people in business who kill people for profit, but I have seen no evidence of that happening so far.

What I have seen evidence of is job protectionists who just want job security for what they have been doing for years.  To them, I say, watch out for those logging trucks while on vacation.

[halflifer]

We have to be intelligent about legislation concerning saving lives. That is my point.  Sometimes they can't be saved, no matter how many tax dollars you spend.  Certainly, we don't want evil people in business who kill people for profit, but I have seen no evidence of that happening so far.

...and, of course, in the end no law, nor any act by any mortal can save us for ever.

[halflifer]

Certainly, we don't want evil people in business who kill people for profit, but I have seen no evidence of that happening so far.

there was an internal memo by an official at Johns Mansville to the effect that people who had made a good living working with asbestos shouldn't mind dying from it and they had to die from something.
additionally, with all of the cases of falsified documentation there have been in our field, I'd have to say we have shared the neutrons with folks who wouldn't mind letting a few people die if it would increase the profit margin. we do have some people whose god is green and carries the likeness of a dead white guy.

[remhog]

quite a few people i would say, rush, rush, rush its not enouph to make 2 million a day profit for 325 days a year we need to make 2 million a day for 350 days a year, when does the greed stop ?                                                           

[Already Gone]

I think the last message was a prime example of what Ray is talking about.
There is no nuclear power plant in the United States that makes anywhere near $2million profit per day.  the largest plants make less than $1.5million GROSS revenue at full power, before line losses.  By the time it gets to the meter, taxes, wages, debt service, capital expenses... etc. get paid, and the profit is calculated, there is about $200,000 or so that can be called "profit".
Still, that comes out to about $65 million a year if the plant runs full bore for 325 days.  Sound like a lot?  Not when you consider that the initial investment was around 10 billion in today's dollars.  Profit is not a bad thing.  It is the heart of the American Capitalist economic model.  It is the motivation to build businesses and hire people.  Without it, we would have no jobs.  Before you start dissing profit, remember what feeds your kids.

But, there goes some RP tech who's po'd because he can't collect his paycheck for that extra 25 days a year.  What does he do?   He cries that profits are overtaking safety.  I'm throwing the flag on this one!!!

I admit that it could happen.  I think that we must remain vigilant to prevent the power companies from sacrificing safety for profit.  But, crying wolf won't help.  So far, we hear a lot of techs crying that the utilities have lowered the premium on safety, but how may of those same techs would be willing to work 10 out of their 12 hours in containment if it would make the workers safer?  By the same token, how many of those techs will work at heights without a harness or carry air samplers up ladders to save a little time?

Don't even start complaining about the utilities' commitment to safety until you can show a little of your own.  Then, when you do bring your case, do it without pulling numbers out of your a$$.

[remhog]

where did  you get your numbers?

[RAD-GHOST]

I would like to reply, but I saved you the time of Moderating Me!   

RG

[remhog]

I'll shut -up

[raymcginnis]

I started this thread with the intentions that all the people who dealt with MARSSIM and RESRAD could have their own place to discuss these issues.  I forgot that everyone was reading this.  Nobody should shut up!  Everyone can express their opinions, as long as it meets the site's basic criteria.  Yes, it is moderated, but that is to protect the innocent and the integrity and reputation of the site.  This is my favorite forum!

I love all of these responses to my post so far (BTW I don't moderate it; my initial post could have been deleted).

This plant safety risk factor complaint is something that I heard many people complain about at my last NPP.  I say it fits into my original post, so everyone join in, but be civil and don't use names.

I would still like the pro E-6 people to join in and discuss this, taking into mind what the NPP are saying about the risks that they take everyday, protecting the workers from not only radiation, but from getting hit on the head with an air sampler that falls from 30 feet on a fellow worker's head, when the handle breaks loose, by accident (true story of mine).

I like the new knowledge that we all get from everyone's experience on this subject, so everyone talk, but keep it civil and intelligent.

We should all put our heads together and teach each other our nuclear experience on all levels about what we think about risk.

I did enjoy every post, so far.

[RAD-GHOST]

Ray,

It's a tangled thread we weave!  Sometimes the responses are directed at another member, not you!

RG

[Already Gone]

If I have the sense of what the original question is about, I think you are talking about the relative value of the risk versus the cost of eliminating it below a certain level.

All I can cite is the law of diminishing returns.  If you are reclaiming a site and the residual radioactivity levels are so low that the postulated increase in the rate of cancer is one in ten trillion, how much money is it worth to lower those levels to one in 15 or 20 trillion?  At levels this low it takes hundreds of times as much effort, money, and time to cut the levels in half as it takes to cut higher levels in half.  Is it really worth all that when you are really only guessing at how much good it will do?

Try this analogy to see my point.

Put 20 grains of sand in a teaspoon of water.  Remove at least 18 of them.
Put 20 grains of sand in another teaspoon of water.  Remove at least 19 of them.
Note the difference (if any) in the effort required to do this.
Now - put 20 grains of sand into your swimming pool.  Remove at least 18 of them.
Put 20 grains into your neighbor's pool.  Take out at least 19 of them.
Note the futility of trying to do this and wonder aloud why you bothered to take any of them out in the first place.  Observe the number of neighbors who thought you were goofy to try.  Compare that to the number of  people who think you are goofy for talking to yourself in the back yard.

Is it really going to save someone's life to reduce background radiation levels in some remote location by 1 or 2 microR/hr?  Wouldn't we be better off spending that money on buying smoke detectors for people who can't aford them?  You stack up the number of children who died of cancer caused by the decommisioned site 20 miles outside of town.  I'll stack up the number of children who died in fires where there was no working smoke detector.  Sadly enough, you'll have a "theoretical probability" essentially equal to zero, and I'll have hundreds every year.  But your budget will still be bigger.
People who have seen children die as the result of drunk driving, drug abuse, and violence would look at the effort being put into lowering radiation "risk" and see it the same way the neighbors see a goof who's mumbling to himself in the back yard.

[raymcginnis]

Beer Court:  You are right on top of my original point!  That is the best analogy that I have ever seen about risk and ALARA!  Did you invent that?  Whether yes or no, it is still awesome!  That is exactly what I was trying to say originally.  You said ever so more eloquently though.

Excellent!

Marssim, you had great input also!  I appreciate everyone jumping in!

Now this is a great topic!  Everybody come on in, the water is fine!

[Camella Black]

Ok, I am slightly prepared for the bombardment of negative thoughts and comments that are sure to come my way ...

Why is it that most people in the nuclear industry can not either see or admit that yes sometimes things happen, that yes sometimes a person's ill health just might be the cause of work related exposure, or that that sick child down the road may be sick because of the "decommisioned site 20 miles outside of town"?


My life has revolved around the nuclear industry for the past 31 years, I may have only worked a couple of outages, but I have lived the life believe me. I currently live less than 2 miles from the gates of SRS and of the Duratek/Chem Nuclear Burial Grounds and have defended the nuclear industry for years, but I still believe that we should do whatever is in our power to leave a site clean when we no longer have use for it.

[darkmatter]

Thoughts on Radiation Risks:

Even if you didn't know then, you know now, what are you doing here?

Life itself is a risk, except for us immortals.

I accept the risks needed to pass on my DNA. (family)

Compared to my brothers & sisters & cousins, it seems a nuclear career has been much happier, healthier and longer life. (go figger, their predictions failed)

Maybe its something like vaccination, a little exposure (to anything) makes you stronger.

Somebody's been rollin the Dice.

[raymcginnis]

Wow Marssim!  Excellents stats!  If you footnote them, that could be a paper or someones thesis.  Good thoughts from Camella also!  Everyone keep sharing.  This is a great topic, I think!

Marssim, do you have those numbers in a spreadsheet?  I would like to plot them and study them.

[Already Gone]

Ok, I am slightly prepared for the bombardment of negative thoughts and comments that are sure to come my way ...

Why is it that most people in the nuclear industry can not either see or admit that yes sometimes things happen, that yes sometimes a person's ill health just might be the cause of work related exposure, or that that sick child down the road may be sick because of the "decommisioned site 20 miles outside of town"?


My life has revolved around the nuclear industry for the past 31 years, I may have only worked a couple of outages, but I have lived the life believe me. I currently live less than 2 miles from the gates of SRS and of the Duratek/Chem Nuclear Burial Grounds and have defended the nuclear industry for years, but I am still believe that we should do whatever is in our power to leave a site clean when we no longer have use for it.

There's no way I'm going to disagree with that.  You have to face the reality that nothing is perfect and some people have died differently than they otherwise would have because of their involvement or proximity to nuclear energy.

Notice that I didn't say that they died "because of" nuclear energy.  People die because they were alive.  There are no exceptions.  The very notion of "saving lives" is absurd.  The best we can do is preserve the quality of those lives and extend them by promoting healthy conditions.  If we can help people live healthy lives they will live longer and suffer less.  But, they will still die.

So the question becomes one of degree.  How clean is clean enough?  How much time and money do you want to take away from other causes to continue abating a hazard that is not very hazardous at all?

No, I don't think that all radiation is harmless.  But face it.. we have done such a good job at rendering it harmless that a time comes to move on to something else.  Once the levels get to a certain point, the further reduction of them should take a lower priority than some other, more hazardous, environmental condition.

I don't know the answer to this, but let's consider it for a moment.  If you keep a remediation going for a couple of years longer, how much damage are we diong to the environment (and those who live in it) by preventing the reforestation of the area?  Can it be possible that delaying the introducton of trees and vegetation is making the site more toxic than the material we are trying to remove?  Is it possible that we pass a point where we are actually doing harm by continuing a cleanup?

[radgal]

Excellent points Beer Court!   I never thought about it quite that way.  I like everyone else comments too.  Hey the scarriest, riskiest thing I do to myself and my daughter is drive on I294 to and from work everday!  There is at least one bad accident a week on my commute.  Talk about risk!

[SloGlo]

So the question becomes one of degree.  How clean is clean enough?  How much time and money do you want to take away from other causes to continue abating a hazard that is not very hazardous at all?

ware's my phlag!?!  fifteen yards.... illegal use of anudder thread!   play the post over!

[SloGlo]

'k... talkin about risks 'n radiation.  an old rule of thumb type of stat is that in the average body, every minute, ~10e6 cells are interacted with by radiation.  that's 6e8 cells/hr.  what's the average background rate in the continental u.s. of a?  10 µr/hr (i got dat 'un from the atomicarcheologist.... kewl, huh)?  that's, like, 6e7 cells/hr/µr.  so, iffen yer inna 2 mr/hr field, yinz got ~1.2e12 cells per hour getting interacted with.  'n yew thought ya was just standing around doing nutting, huh?

[Deep'n the Swamps]

I have been an HP since 1985...plants, DOE, Decommisions, ..just about everything. I have recently been passed for a couple of projects looking for "Marssim experience." What a joke. A guideline for establishing and evaluating release criteria/data being used to exclude a HP? for surveying? I think something is being misapplied here.

Somebody help me understand this IDIOCY.

[raymcginnis]

I have been an HP since 1985...plants, DOE, Decommisions, ..just about everything. I have recently been passed for a couple of projects looking for "Marssim experience." What a joke. A guideline for establishing and evaluating release criteria/data being used to exclude a HP? for surveying? I think something is being misapplied here.

Somebody help me understand this IDIOCY.

This is getting off topic a little, but I will reply.  Some smaller MARSSIM sites, like the one I work at, require their technicians to be at almost an engineering level.  I don't expect our technicians to know everything about MARSSIM.  That is my job and my manager's job.  Technicians have to document their surveys in a way that is MARSSIM compliant and also complies with the "Final Status Survey" procedure written by me.  Technicians who have done this before are valuable, because they require less training and understand the procedures, based on MARSSIM faster.  Our technicians have all been in the business since the 1970s.  They are computer literate and know exactly how to document their work.

If you never did shipping surveys, on your own, you would not know how to properly document an SCO shipment survey, for an example. 

In larger organizations, the MARSSIM documentation is taken care of by people in between the engineers and the technicians.  In smaller organizations, the line between engineers and technicians is very thin and there is much sharing of duties.  That is where the fun begins.  I suspect that the jobs that you are applying for expect you to start approaching engineering type duties, and previous MARSSIM experience would be a legitimate thing to look at for job qualifications.

Yes anyone can go to a large release site and just turn in survey data.  For small sites, they expect more.  I hope this answered your concerns.  Your concern was short, so I may be pulling a rabbit out of the hat, or not.

In some cases, idiocy is not the case.  Necessity is.

[alphadude]

take the MARSSIM class..

sincerely,
Mr. MOTO

[alphadude]

What is the mission of this thread?  I see all these risk statements but it preaching to the choir. Discussion of risk in this venue is somewhat moot.   

[alphadude]

perhaps the issue is not "how clean is clean" or "will D&D hurt the environment." Its really an issue of the threshold of sensitivity for liability and suit. Statistical management of data as with MARSSIM ultimately provides stakeholders some degree of confidence that suit and liabilty will be reduced to a minimum by todays standards.  Risk can be managed, the degree of that management depends on the the issues hinted at here in this thread.  (HPs are professional risk takers and managers.)

Are there any among you that would not sue if a causal link with your cancer and your job could be proven or statistically surmised?

Remember, in America, "the logical man" situation does not apply to any situation little lone D&D or "nuke" ! After traveling to other "more logical countries" you see things like open holes not blocked and barricaded or posted, no warnings on hot coffee etc. WHY? Any logical person would know that if you walk into an open hole or spill hot coffee on you something will happen.. Only in this country do we promulgate the "non-responsible" man culture. (Why meee! You built this nuke here and I got cancer!)  This could tie in with our 76% rate of literacy and poor education system which motivates out lower class kids and allows school drop outs.   

Point being, preach ye may, its not going to change until you change the system that supports this lunacy!

[Deep'n the Swamps]

Thanks for replying to my off topic question. I have performed shipping surveys including air cargo, land, and sea. I found some training info for Marssim:

Description

This five-day course emphasizes the decision-making processes involved in the design and implementation of a MARSSIM-based decommissioning survey. Topics include an overview of radiological survey types, the data quality objectives process, selection and application of DCGLs, background reference area selection, survey instrument detection sensitivity, area classification, statistical design of surveys, measurement uncertainty, and performing statistical tests.

Who Should Attend

This course is designed for those individuals who will be responsible for designing the decommissioning radiological survey plans, overseeing the implementation of these plans, and evaluating the collected data. It is not aimed at the technicians who will actually be performing the surveys.

Cost

A tuition of $1,695 includes the full cost of training and instructional materials.
 

another one states:
three day MARSSIM workshop trains personnel to develop site closure radiological surveys, implement the surveys, evaluate the collected data, and prepare the site release documentation required for approval by the appropriate regulating authorities. The workshop also provides instruction for management and regulatory personnel in the assessment of site release documentation.

Sorry....I won't be spending any money (as a tech) to qualify me for something I can already do, or learn quickly onsite. I have seen many, many projects where the criteria for survey release limits vary, and I agree this is a good tool for standardizing decommission data. However, to exclude experienced techs from a project for lack of "Marssim Training," is misguided, or being used to help ensure incoming techs know what they are doing. In either case...misguided.
 
Thanks for the reply.