Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Radiation Risks honeypot

Author Topic: Radiation Risks  (Read 47369 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #25 on: Jun 29, 2005, 01:06 »
well its not misguided its a specification of the job.  sounds like they want someone familiar with the DQO process and implementation of that process.  We use generic techs for MARSSIM but its in a controlled environment.  (Oversite by someone familiar with the process.) I think the events of Ft. St. Vrain still linger and cause some issues.. or could be the body shop guy is just asking for a customer spec.  (If you have done FSS you have the experience..) and this goes back to risk management.. if you are documented "as trained" stakeholders have a warm fuzzy vs. someone that kinda knows what to do-even though it may be correct. 

Take me for example- I have been  a HAZWOPER instructor since 1986 but I still have to take the 8 hour refresher... I cant qualify myself.. I still take the class and ace the tests.. its all good...

never know what doors may open when you take that class.. its tax deductable. Eric and the ORISE boys do a good job presenting it, and it never hurts to have a review of stats every few years!

WASHINGTON - The preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless, a panel of prominent scientists concluded Wednesday.

The finding by the National Academy of Sciences panel is viewed as critical because it addresses radiation amounts commonly used in medical treatment and is likely also to influence radiation levels the government will allow at abandoned nuclear sites.

« Last Edit: Jun 29, 2005, 04:25 by alphadude »

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #26 on: Jun 29, 2005, 01:18 »
Maybe I need to start a "MARSSIM for technicians" training class. I could do it by distance leaning and keep the costs low.  Any interests?

radgal

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #27 on: Jun 29, 2005, 02:33 »
Sounds good!  I sometimes cover D&D jobs.  Training is always good.  Any idea on cost?

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #28 on: Jun 29, 2005, 04:27 »
you are more than likely qualified.. but its an interesting idea. I'll develop some learning objectives see how it goes. 

halflifer

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #29 on: Jun 29, 2005, 09:04 »
DOE is deff. the way to go and MARSSIM knowlege and certification is going to help you be a 'keeper' when the 'downsizing' projects start....well, downsizing. Count me in and I'll bet you'll be able to get some of the DOE contractors and the Unions at the sites to patronize it too.

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #30 on: Jun 29, 2005, 10:19 »
OK, The Swamps response to this seems to be more popular than my original question, so I'll jump in again. 

All sites have a right to make any certification or qualification requirements that they want.  Our site only wants people with 7 or more years in the field and we prefer people with D&D experience.  Some sites are OK with 2 year people.  We have a process where the whole team (including the manager and the current techs) go through all of the resumes and each individual assigns points to what they feel the experience of the person is in a large variety of categories.

We then look at what that tells us, but then we meet and talk about gut feelings.  Every HP department member contributes to the decision about who we hire.

We have a right to put any hiring criteria that we want (except for those involving bigotry and predudice).  We are the ones hiring the people.  We know what we need.

If companies doing D&D are pushing for MARSSIM certification, they have a right to do that.  It is no different than NPPs requiring the North East utilities exam to work as an HP at their plant.

I have a Bachelors and Masters in IT now, but some companies want certifications in Microsoft Certified Engineer, Oracle databases or Java before they will even interview a candidate.  They have a right to make their qualifications for the job whatever they want, as far as education and experience goes.

Halflifer gives good advice on this.

Alphadude, post your course cost.  I have had my head in MARSSIM, NUREGs and Abelquist 's book for a long while now, but if the cost were reasonable, I'd take your course.  It is a complicated set of criteria, and I am most positive I might learn a thing or two.  I certainly have not memorized MARSSIM, LOL!



RAD-GHOST

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #31 on: Jun 30, 2005, 04:16 »
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.

This is way to Funny....... and Sadly enough, way to True!

Then again, it does make some interesting stories for the Dawin Awards!

RG.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #32 on: Jun 30, 2005, 07:22 »
Well, since I never retired off any of my other training classes I sold, the cost would be less than $200.  More than likely it would provide 20 hours of equivalent training, some "free" CDs of data and examples. I'm thinking about putting report examples, automatic spread sheets (fill in the blanks) and share ware on the CDs. If I got a CHP to review the mix for me and sign the certificate it might raise the cost a little. 30-40$. If you already have the 40 hr MARSSIM don't bother taking it.

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17047
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #33 on: Jun 30, 2005, 10:23 »
To head this string back to risk, here is a link to a new report by the National Academy of Sciences that tends to support LNT even for low LET at low doses. (I still like Radiation Hormesis as a factor for low level dose risk. )

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030909156X?OpenDocument
« Last Edit: Jul 11, 2005, 03:13 by Marlin »

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #34 on: Jun 30, 2005, 01:46 »
Thanks for putting us back on topic.  I've never havd a problem with the non-threshold model.  My biggest concern about the latest report is the way it sounds to the general public.  It comes off as a scare.
The should have done more to stress the obvious which is so often missed in discussions about scary stuff like radiation.
To wit:
1. If the risk is proportional to the dose, it needs to be said (because people miss this) that very small doses are associated with very small risk.
2. They have not shown the risk of cancer vs. dose to have a linear proportionality.  Even without a threshold value, there still may be some doses where the risk is proportionally higher than for other doses.
3.  Unmeasurable differences in dose will most likely result in unmeasurable differences in risk.
4.  Even without a threshold, the levels of exposure for most people, including occupationally exposed workers, result in a level of risk too low to be measured directly.  AND that those levels of exposure pose a risk so low in proportion to all other forms of risk that there is no cause for fear.

Every time the pocket-protector crowd opens their mouths, they should remember that the average person has an innate fear of radiation caused by the horrific scenes from Hiroshima and all the science-fiction movies since then.  They need to learn that people react with fear when they don't understand even if the news is good to those who do understand.
Whenever they publis these reports, they need to include a chart containing all the numbers in Marssim's earlier post.
It's all really a matter of proportion and perspective.  From the perspective of the layperson, the perceived risk is blown out of proportion to the real risk.  We tend to respond to the perception rather than the reality.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5827
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #35 on: Jun 30, 2005, 05:56 »

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/030909156X?OpenDocument

what a hoot!
first question...  with 14 paragraphs, 'n 19 members listed, who was screwing off?
2nd question... "since the scientific research indicates that there is no threshold of exposure below..." my question is what is the threshold at which said exposure will definitively become causitive?
3rd... "rise proportionally with exposure..."  therefore the inverse is true, correct?  scientifically speaking.
4th..."likely will develope solid cancer or leukemia froom an exposure of 0.1sv."  acute exposure, right?  for 10rem?  what's the average dose for cancer treatment?"
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17047
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #36 on: Jun 30, 2005, 07:54 »
what a hoot!
first question...  with 14 paragraphs, 'n 19 members listed, who was screwing off?

This is just the press release...

2nd question... "since the scientific research indicates that there is no threshold of exposure below..." my question is what is the threshold at which said exposure will definitively become causitive?

Good question, quoting myself I still like the input of Hormesis on risk or effect.

3rd... "rise proportionally with exposure..."  therefore the inverse is true, correct?  scientifically speaking.

That just means its linear right? I think that was the entire point of the paper....

4th..."likely will develope solid cancer or leukemia froom an exposure of 0.1sv."  acute exposure, right?  for 10rem?  what's the average dose for cancer treatment?"

Doesn't make sense to me either...

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #37 on: Jun 30, 2005, 09:26 »
Quote
Thanks for putting us back on topic.  I've never havd a problem with the non-threshold model.  My biggest concern about the latest report is the way it sounds to the general public.  It comes off as a scare.

Beer Court:  Great post!  I learn so much from every post that you do. I agree with everything that you say, every time.  Yes, especially "back on topic."  I thought this post was headed for the "locked" mode for a while.

Quote
I got a CHP to review the mix for me and sign the certificate it might raise the cost a little. 30-40$.

If I could see a preview, on a website or something, I could most likely convince my company to pay for it.  I would prefer that to tavelling to ORISE and doing the full training.  I might even buy it for myself for that price, just to see if there is something that I missed from self training.


Quote
I still like Radiation Hormesis as a factor for low level dose risk.

Marlin, I agree.

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #38 on: Jul 01, 2005, 08:07 »
Ok so the BEIR panel is a funny group of people??? Remember when we went from  12 rem then 5 rem per year? hmmmm maybe there was a reason for that. Their job is not PR, or to soften the blows. Thats what we do and face it we are part of the pocket protector crowd. (although i never had one, I did have a Pickett slide rule)  We use ICRP, BEIR as the foundations for all of our work, (I hope you all know that) Their work is often cited as "Biblical text" in litigation and rule making.  Time for a paradigm shift.

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5827
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #39 on: Jul 01, 2005, 01:46 »
marlin.... iffen the relationship of esposure 'n cancer is truely linear, then there is a point where it is negligible and gets caught in the general societal causes of the disease.  but i didn't see this listed anywhere.  don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing with ya on this, 'k?
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5827
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #40 on: Jul 01, 2005, 01:50 »
Ok so the BEIR panel is a funny group of people??? Remember when we went from  12 rem then 5 rem per year?

Time for a paradigm shift.

i remember when the ncrpm came out in '80 with their dref, dose rate effectiveness factor, also.  that was to be a numerical constant to be used to reduce received occupationial radiation dose prior to entry into personnel radiation histories.  'n they recommended a dref of something like 7 for low let radiations. 
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

alphadude

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #41 on: Jul 01, 2005, 02:26 »
remember its STATISTICALLY negligible... dilution will was away most sins....

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5827
  • Karma: 2646
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #42 on: Jul 02, 2005, 10:07 »
remember its STATISTICALLY negligible... dilution will was away most sins....
statistics drive lawsuits, health care options, medical decisions.   iffen it's statistically negligile, then it is virtually void.  be that as it may, what is that point, the point of negligility?
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #43 on: Jul 02, 2005, 02:09 »
ote]statistics drive lawsuits, health care options, medical decisions.   iffen it's statistically negligile, then it is virtually void.  be that as it may, what is that point, the point of negligility?
Quote

I agree SloGlo, but back to my original point, this whole thing is driven by fear of death.  We never got a lawyer involved when my Father passed away.  We accepted it.  People die from many things every day.  Who is to blame for that?  If it is murder, then it is the person who committed it, and the great policemen are on that.  If it is cancer, then who knows?  It is ridiculous to legislate this when there are so many causes of death that have a higher risk level greater than 10 mRem/year.

Education of this info is the key.  The whole hormesis theory says that if there were no natural radiation on Earth, mankind may not have survived, as a whole.  For people to live in an environment where a tiny bit more radiation is added to natural radiation seems safe to me.  OK, I get 370 mRem/year for being alive on this planet.  Do I really care whether I get 380 or 371 mRem/year?  This is where ALARA or ALARTRA comes in.  I say "so what" is "what's so"!

People where I live should focus on smog, not radiation.  Smog, cars, now that is what kills a lot of people.

I am reminded of what my favorite comedian, Bill Hicks said before he died of pancreatic cancer (I am summarizing), "If you are so afraid of death then go to grave yards and protest.  Lock hands and and block the grave yard.  Protesters say : 'Go away she ain't getting in'  Buriers say 'but she is dead, we need to bury her'  Protesters say 'there will be no death on this planet so take her somewhere else" 

Now that is what I am talking about.  Forget the math.  This is what is real.  This whole risk thing is emotional, not scientific. 

Get rid of the natural uranium and then I will enjoy the math that I do every day,  then it will make sense to go to chemical E-6 levels.  How can we do that without destroying the planet though?  Riddle me that riddler!

Now if I were afraid that I was sick, I would gladly get 100 mRem from an x-ray or CAT scan and realize that it was a wise risk.

What we are saying that mostly people die of natural causes (old age) and that if a person who was supposed to die of natural causes were to buy a house built on a former nuclear facility that gave him 15 mRem/yr extra exposure, he would die earlier.

I just don’t believe that.  Anyone who believes differently, I need more than science, mathematics and statistics to convince me.  You have to convince my belief system and logical mind.

I know that we are headed away from ALARA, but to me, it is an unwise decision for ordinary USA citizens.

OK, off my soapbox.  Everyone else jump in!

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #44 on: Jul 02, 2005, 03:43 »
Well Ray, it all depends on where you get stuck in the acronym.  ALARA of course has five words, three of which are significant - Low, Reasonably, & Achievable.
A lot of people get stuck on the word "Low", forgetting to ask themselves, "how low?"  The answer, of course, is to continue reading the acronym.  Then, a few people blow by the word "Reasonably" and arrive at the answer, "Achievable".
If you take out the modifier "Reasonably", then you essentially have "As Low As Possible".  I think that a lot of people see ALARA as meaning ALAP, because they don't want to be the arbiters of what is reasonable and what is not.  It is not the worst quality in the world to be tenacious at doing a job to its completion.
I catch myself doing things that would never fall into the category of "reasonable" if I were to analyze them.  For example, I'll back up my lawn mower to get a few blades of grass that I might have missed.  It isn't really worth the time, effort and fuel to slice an inch off of ten blades of grass.  They will still be there next time.  But who DOESN'T go back to get them?  I just got done cleaning my pool.  I confess that I went back after putting away the hose and vacuum head to get one more leaf (the size of a fingernail) with the net.  I swear that there was not one speck of anything in that pool but that leaf.  Still, I connected the net to the pole and scooped out that tiny fragment of a leaf.  At the moment, my kids are in the pool, where they could easily have removed that little leaf, but I wasn't about to wait for them to do it.  I was going to leave that pool totally clean or not at all.
I'm prety sure that I wouldn't have spent any money to get that leaf, but I do spend money on those blades of grass when I waste gas to clip them.  Here's the dilemma: which is more unreasonable, saving that gasoline or calculating the cost vs. benefit of leaving that grass uncut?  Is splitting hairs ever a good idea?
Anyway, it is often pretty hard to know when you have crossed the line between reasonable and unreasonable.  I think it is okay that the line is pretty wide and dotted in places.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

raymcginnis

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #45 on: Jul 03, 2005, 08:03 »
Beer Court:  You made me laugh and you taught me with you words of wisdom.  I am trying to think of a word, oh yeah, you made me joyous.  I love your analogies!  Good posts always!  Keep the cool ideas flowing.

halflifer

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #46 on: Jul 04, 2005, 09:45 »
ahhhhh, reason. One man's reason is another man's excuse and somebody's reasonable man is somebody else's fanatic. (the word 'man' was used generically in this posting and was not intended to exclude women from any of the issues discussed herein)

Offline RDTroja

  • Site Heretic
  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4015
  • Karma: 4558
  • Gender: Male
  • I knew I got into IT for a reason!
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #47 on: Jul 05, 2005, 09:28 »
I think that a lot of people see ALARA as meaning ALAP, because they don't want to be the arbiters of what is reasonable and what is not.

The acronym was originally ALAP -- As Low As Practicable. There were two problems with this: the first was that no one could pronounce 'practicable' and the second was that no one knew what it meant. The use of 'reasonably achievable' softened and clarified it a bit, but still failed to quantify the concept... like Beer Court said the line between reasonable and unreasonable is a vague line at best and a moving target as well. So the NRC tried to quantify it by suggesting that you should spend $1,000 to save one Rem, which evolved into $5,000/Rem and settled on $10,000/Rem (see a familiar trend forming?) which is still not adequate to provide 'reasonable'. Using that standard someone could justify about 50 Rem to cut one day off of an outage (replacement power costs + labor) and even more if you consider fines imposed by grid managers for missing outage completion dates. Spend 500 Rem to cut 10 days? I hope not. Reasonable? Depends on who you talk to (and who is getting the dose.)

When you are an HP doing the negotiation dance with contractors on a fixed price contract, trying to get them to spend money to reduce dose is not an easy task and you are forced to find ways to show that you are going to save time as well (lower dose = less HP related interruptions, less lead to deal with, etc.) because if you pull out the $10,000/Rem number all they have to do is say 'critical path' and you don't have a leg to stand on. It is the contractor's job to spend less money, it is your job to spend less dose and 'reasonable' is a negotiation. Fortunately for the HP side, most utility managers are very conscious of the response they would get if they allowed what the NRC (or INPO) considered to be too much dose for a job or an outage overall. In any case, you have to find the 'reasonable' ground between those that don't care about dose and those that don't care what it costs to save dose... a grey area at best.
"I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician."

                                  -Marty Feldman

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to understand that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
                                  -Ronald Reagan

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.

                                  - Voltaire

halflifer

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #48 on: Jul 10, 2005, 10:14 »
the National Acadamy of Science sez that ANY radiation exposure results in increased risk.  :( :o
How do we square that with our views on Hormesis?

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: Radiation Risks
« Reply #49 on: Jul 12, 2005, 06:36 »
How do we square that with our views on Hormesis?

The same way that we square our views on space exploration with the risk of death in the sky.  Or our recent ancestors squared their views of  global exploration with increased death due to infectious disease unknown to the population.  There is no advancement with out risk.  Not all risk yields change.  Not all change is bad.  After all, even the most ardent conservative evolutionist would not advocate the reinstallation of the tail to the gene pool of the current model of Homo Sapien.

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?