Faith-based Radiation Protection. The Pope of Protection. Robert L. Dixon Wake Forest University School of Medicine. The Ayatollah of Rad Controlla. Radiation Protection guidelines for the General Public have long ago departed the realm of Science.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Pope of Protection
Robert L. Dixon
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
The Ayatollah of Rad Controlla
Radiation Protection guidelines for the General Public have long ago departed the realm of Science
They also have lost any connection to fundamental logic
And in their latest iteration, almost any citizen can easily recognize that they defy “common sense”
In 2003 The ICRP long ago departed the realm of Science* announced its new plan to also protect animals from radiation
ICRP has chosen the duck as its animal model for radiation protection, Eh.
But we can still shoot the
No problem,we just can’t “nuke” ‘em
*International Council for Radiation Protection(ICRP)
They have taken on all the trappings of Religion – a set of beliefs that cannot be either verified or denied – you either believe in them or you don’t
Radiation Emission Standards for Nuclear Power Plants: $100 Million/life-yr
Radionuclide Emission Control at NRC- licensed facilities: $2.6 Billion/life-yr
Widen lanes on Rural Roads by 2 ft: $120,000/life-yr
_______________________________________________1. Tengs et al., Risk Analysis15, 369-390, 1995
So where would you put the public’s money? of beliefs that cannot be either verified or denied – you either believe in them or you don’t
What kind of thinking can be responsible for this egregious misallocation of resources?
Lower is always better in here
I can readily prove that most of you are “inside the box” thinkers
How many of you drove here ALARA?
Driving ALARA box” thinkers*
Keep your Speed ALARA
*As Low As Reasonably Achievable
Driving ALARA would box” thinkersinarguably reduce the risk of death - not only to you, but to other members of the public in your path .
ALARA? Sure it’ll cost more, box” thinkersbut don’t forget we’re dealing with “deadly radiation” here.
Hey, It doesn’t apply to driving – just radiation! I’m not driving ALARA (or Miss Daisy)!
So how does it feel inside that box? box” thinkers
Recommends “evasive action” if a solar flare is encountered in-flight! (0.1- 0.5 mSv/hr)
Thereby creating much greater risks – collision risk by chaos in air traffic control, fuel starvation by reduced jet engine efficiency at low altitudes, and many more than I have space for…
Solar Flare box” thinkers? You’ve got to be kidding!
Average Natural Background 3 mSv/yr box” thinkers
Cosmic 0.3 mSv
Internal (K-40) 0.4 mSv
Radon 2 mSv
Terrestrial 0.3 mSv
Sure your girl friend is “hot”, but to minimize your exposure keep close personal contact ALARA
Your girl friend is “hot”
1.5 Mev gammas from K-40
To minimize exposure, try to keep close personal contact ALARA, guys
Half life = 1.3 Billion years
1.3 MeV beta (90%)
High energy gamma ray (1.5 Mev)(10%)
Oh boy, cleanup!
With which “death by coefficient” can be meted out to the frightened masses without restraint
National Safety Council: In the USA a person dies every 13 min due to a motor vehicle crash
These folks are “most sincerely” dead
LNT: Natural background radiation likewise kills a person in the USA every 12 min,
Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain- 1.05 mSv/yr
Middle America- 1.25 mSv/yr
Rocky Mountain Plateau- 1.45 mSv/yr
Denver Colorado- 1.65 mSv/yr
Population-weighted average-1.09 mSv/yr
Average +0.25 mSv/yr = 1.34 mSv/yr
Avg +1 mSv
Despite the #94)variationinnatural background, most locales in the US are below 6 mSv per annum.
So where would logic dictate setting
the public dose limit?, perhaps 5 mSv?
Au contraire – they picked 1 mSv per year
They evidently don’t believe it’s safe to live in Denver, CO
But that was after IV or V BEIRS
But the “Lords of Protection” secretly yearned to set it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thing
With “constraints” they could create a new and even lower “de facto” dose limit
Dose Limit for a Member of the General Public:
But………There’s a catch – you’re not supposed to use it unless you conduct an investigation of possible exposure to other sources (another farce by “the Solar Flare Players”-Act I, scene I next frame)
This is my lucky day, it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thing
I’m from upstairs, and am conducting an ”NCRP - type” investigation-So where do you live or go after work? Is anybody else irradiating you besides me?
So how did “the solar players” come up with this idea? it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thingSecret ICRP training camp
Behold! multiple sources!
Rule one : 1 mSv/yr
Rule two : Now Divide
Rule one by 4
This “Church” is Ruthless in dealing with it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thingNon-believers!
Our weapons are fear, surprise, and the risk coefficient!
“Will you confess! …………………………. “Mother”
So how did I get involved in this Orwellian world? it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thing
We presented our final report to NCRP, and were called before “the Pope” (like Gallileo)
Ben Archer, Joel Gray,
Bob Dixon, Doug Simpkin
Thou shalt design all thy shielding to ¼ mSv per annum whether thou believest or not, for it is thus “written” in NCRP 116 chapter one, verse 122
Our reply to NCRP
It is futile to resist
The Myth of Multiple Sources– which fails to consider:
This argument is developed in much greater detail in our paper in published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry(2005),v.115, No. 1-4, pp. 16-22.
1 mSv whether thou believest or not, for it is thus “written” in NCRP 116 chapter one, verse 122
This logic is closely analogous to that used for “source –constraints” - ignoring simultaneity
Suppose we had “caved in” and accepted 0.25 mSv/yr as a shielding design limit in our NCRP 147 report ?
18-MV Vault---Pb “Upgrade” shielding design limit in our NCRP 147 report ?
47,000 lb of Pb
$47,000 material cost
76,500 lb of PB
Construction costs for demolition and restoration of vault $150,000
Grand total $275,000
1.5 in. Pb
1.25 in. Pb
Estimated costs to “upgrade” the US base of Radiation Therapy Vaults of 6 MV – 18 MV Linear Accelerators in order to meet a lower dose limit of ¼ mSv.yr-___________________________
Additional shielding thickness 2.5 cm lead
Material cost of additional lead $115,000 USD
Construction Costs per vault : $150,000 USD
Total additional cost per vault: $265,000 USD
If built when public
dose limit was 5 mSv/yr: $385,000 USD
Total estimated cost nationwide: $1 Billion!
Total lead required nationwide: 8 x 108 kg
It’s going to cost you $250,000 to “upgrade” your vault to 0.25 mSv/yr for a slight (hypothetical) increase in protection for the 5 or so members of the public who work in its immediate vicinity
And by the way, every pizza parlor, ice cream shop, home or business in the Denver region will have a higher radiation level than that just outside your expensive new leaded accelerator walls-
Also, those 5 people will be getting more radiation from natural radioactivity inside their own bodies than from your accelerator
And since it’s going to take several months for the construction, you’ll have to send your patients to the nearest facility in the next county. I hope they don’t mind (or die as a result of Rx interruption)
Glad to hear you beefed up your room shielding Doc. Who’s gonna pay for it?
Why You, of course
Many developing countries who cannot afford modern medical x-ray equipment, waste their precious resources on shielding to the ICRP suggested “limit” of 1/3 mSv/yr blindly adopted by their regulators.
(hypothetical) annual risk from 3/4 mSv/yr 4x10 x-ray equipment, waste their precious resources on shielding to the ICRP suggested “limit” of 1/3 mSv/yr blindly adopted by their regulators.-5
(real) annual risk to2:
metal miners & smelters 56 x 10-5
Construction workers 14 x 10-5
2 Wilson and Crouch, Risk-Benefit Analysis, Harvard 2001.
Still no one from NCRP would engage us in debate, so AAPM and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participate
All major societies were invited: medical, dental, medical physics, health physics, regulatory bodies, and NCRP
ACR AAPM RSNA SNM HPS ACMP NRC FDA CRCPD ADA ACA and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participate
Recent NCRP report series for shielding and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participatemedical x-ray sources
“ NCRP has concluded that a suitable source control for shielding individuals in uncontrolled areas in or near medical radiation facilities is an effective dose of 1 mSv in any year. “
1 mSv.y-1 to the maximally exposed individual in an uncontrolled area will provide adequate protection to the employees and the members of the public that access the uncontrolled areas.
International Shielding Conference and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participate
Madeira Portugal, May 2004
But the real perpetrator of this nonsense was outside our borders – the ICRP. Dixon receives “frag” order
“ALARA” attack profile
JDAM – Los! and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participate
Hey Emperor! Time for a reality check from the USA. Those clothes aren’t real and your source constraint concept is fundamentally illogical; plus you don’t know how to apply it.
Mission accomplished clothes aren’t real and your source constraint concept is fundamentally illogical; plus you don’t know how to apply it.
Aug 2006 - ICRP regroups and launches a surprise counterstrike across Atlantic - A “stakeholder” meeting [sponsored by the French nuclear energy agency(NEA)?]
The ICRP, the duck, and your gonads counterstrike across Atlantic - A “stakeholder” meeting [sponsored by the French nuclear energy agency(NEA)?]
The ICRP staged a counterattack in DC in Aug ’06 – a North American “stakeholder” conference. I was there representing AAPM and ready for them (and their Duck); however, the stake I was holding was wooden, if you get my drift!
Your gonads took a beating, however, .
There were more .govs than .orgs at this conference (and a few .nuts)
To you from me at the NRC
Here’s one from DOE
The oft - heard refrain was: “We don’t understand source constraints, nor do we need them”.
“It is not clear to us (nor apparently to ICRP either) how to apply them in practice”.
The New ICRP Effective Dose paradigm whither the gonads? constraints, nor do we need them”.
The new ICRP tissue-weighting factors:
the gonads are dethroned(0.2 → 0.08) and the breasts are uplifted (0.05 → 0.12).”
Those once-proud doppelgangers, icons of radiation protection for decades (and ritually protected at all costs using all manner of lead accessories), have now been relegated to the “backwater of organs
The gonads are hereby dethroned (0.2 → .08) constraints, nor do we need them”.
And the breasts are uplifted (0.05 → 0.12).” constraints, nor do we need them”.
The gonadal supporters were upset, so Lars-Erik threw them a bone, saying the ICRP still believed in protecting the gonads – but it rang hollow
What ‘bout the duck? bone, saying the ICRP still believed in protecting the gonads – but it rang hollow
How’re they gonna find enough duck A-bomb survivors to figure risks, Eh?
I guess we’ll
have to “nuke” a bunch of them
They’re not gonna like that, Eh?
And the “duck” rebellion is already beginning figure risks, Eh?
The ICRP is next- bring it on Lars-Erik
Two can play this decoy game
An attendee stated that ICRP had chosen “Eurocentric” animals, to which an exasperated Lars-Erik retorted “a duck is a duck is a duck!” At that point, I pulled out my duck call, blew a “triple quack with repeat”, which brought down the house –including Lars-Erik- thereby defusing the situation.
I later gave the duck call to an NEA conference leader who had admired and coveted it - perhaps with similar future mischief in mind?
The Conference Rapporteur, animals, to which an exasperated Lars-Erik retorted “a duck is a duck is a duck!” At that point, I pulled out my duck call, blew a “triple quack with repeat”, which brought down the house –including Lars-Erik- thereby defusing the situation. Henri Métivier, borrowed from a couple of my PPT “slides” in presenting the final conference summary, including my quote below:
Attempting to increase public protection by forcing the doses allowed from medical X-ray sources to Heroically low levels (10% of natural background)is likely to represent net harm to the patient population (the same public) in terms of both increased healthcare costs as well as increased health risk to individual patients, with no proven benefit whatsoever.
Oh no! – Solar Flare- I’m outta here! animals, to which an exasperated Lars-Erik retorted “a duck is a duck is a duck!” At that point, I pulled out my duck call, blew a “triple quack with repeat”, which brought down the house –including Lars-Erik- thereby defusing the situation.