Faith based radiation protection
Download
1 / 67

Faith-based Radiation Protection - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 176 Views
  • Updated On :

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.

Related searches for Faith-based Radiation Protection

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Faith-based Radiation Protection' - eman


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Faith based radiation protection l.jpg

Faith-based Radiation Protection

The Pope of Protection

Robert L. Dixon

Wake Forest University School of Medicine

The Ayatollah of Rad Controlla


Slide2 l.jpg

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”


Slide3 l.jpg

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

ducks, right?

No problem,we just can’t “nuke” ‘em

*International Council for Radiation Protection(ICRP)


Slide4 l.jpg

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


Cost per hypothetical life year saved 1 l.jpg
Cost per (hypothetical) Life-year saved of beliefs that cannot be either verified or denied – you either believe in them or you don’t1

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


Slide6 l.jpg

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?


Thinking inside the box l.jpg
Thinking Inside the Box of beliefs that cannot be either verified or denied – you either believe in them or you don’t

Lower is always better in here


Slide8 l.jpg

I can readily prove that most of you are “inside the box” thinkers

How many of you drove here ALARA?


Slide9 l.jpg

Driving ALARA box” thinkers*

Keep your Speed ALARA

*As Low As Reasonably Achievable


Slide10 l.jpg

Driving ALARA would box” thinkersinarguably reduce the risk of death - not only to you, but to other members of the public in your path .

  • A definite, proven benefit to you and the public.

  • Saves on fuel

  • It seems a “no-brainer”


Slide11 l.jpg

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)!



Thinking inside the box you re not alone l.jpg
Thinking Inside the Box- you’re not alone 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…


Slide14 l.jpg

Solar Flare box” thinkers? You’ve got to be kidding!


Slide15 l.jpg

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


Slide16 l.jpg

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

K-40

Half life = 1.3 Billion years

1.3 MeV beta (90%)

High energy gamma ray (1.5 Mev)(10%)



The linear non threshold lnt assumption a fundamental tenet of the church l.jpg
The Linear Non Threshold (LNT) assumption- a fundamental tenet of “The Church”

With which “death by coefficient” can be meted out to the frightened masses without restraint


Some predictions of lnt l.jpg
Some Predictions of LNT tenet of “The Church”

  • Despite irradiation of mankind throughout his evolutionary development, LNT predicts that natural background radiation is killing people at the rate of one million per year.


My personal version is called lnt m a example l.jpg
My personal version is called tenet of “The Church” LNT-m.a. example

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,

my ass.


Natural background in usa exclusive of radon ncrp 45 94 l.jpg
Natural Background in USA- Exclusive of Radon (NCRP #45 & #94)

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



Slide24 l.jpg

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


Slide25 l.jpg

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


Ncrp report 116 national council on radiation protection l.jpg
NCRP Report # 116 it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thingNational Council on Radiation Protection

Dose Limit for a Member of the General Public:

1 mSv/yr

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)


Slide27 l.jpg

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?


Secret icrp training camp l.jpg

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 thing

Secret ICRP training camp

Ach so…..

Behold! multiple sources!


Public dose limit simplified l.jpg
Public Dose Limit- simplified it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thing

Rule one : 1 mSv/yr

Rule two : Now Divide

Rule one by 4


Slide31 l.jpg

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”


Slide32 l.jpg

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


Slide33 l.jpg

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

But..

Our reply to NCRP

Zip it!

It is futile to resist


Source constraints an icrp fantasy l.jpg
Source Constraints – An ICRP fantasy whether thou believest or not, for it is thus “written” in NCRP 116 chapter one, verse 122

The Myth of Multiple Sources– which fails to consider:

  • Most sources do not converge to a single location (short range, inactive at night)

  • A given person cannot be in more than one place at a given time

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.


Slide35 l.jpg

1 mSv whether thou believest or not, for it is thus “written” in NCRP 116 chapter one, verse 122

1

1

This

1


Icrp speed limit source constraints l.jpg
ICRP SPEED LIMIT whether thou believest or not, for it is thus “written” in NCRP 116 chapter one, verse 122source constraints

  • Speed limit- 60 mph

  • but we MUST CONSTRAIN YOU TO 20 mph since you may own more than one auto, or drive on more than one highway

This logic is closely analogous to that used for “source –constraints” - ignoring simultaneity


Slide38 l.jpg

Suppose we had “caved in” and accepted 0.25 mSv/yr as a shielding design limit in our NCRP 147 report ?


Slide39 l.jpg

18-MV Vault---Pb “Upgrade” shielding design limit in our NCRP 147 report ?

(1-->>0.25 mSv/y)

Primary shielding

47,000 lb of Pb

$47,000 material cost

Secondary shielding

76,500 lb of PB

$76,500

Construction costs for demolition and restoration of vault  $150,000

Grand total  $275,000

1.5 in. Pb

1.25 in. Pb


Slide40 l.jpg

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


Slide41 l.jpg

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

administrator

Administrator

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


Slide42 l.jpg

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)



Slide44 l.jpg

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.


Predictions if designing shielding to 0 25 msv per year l.jpg
Predictions if Designing Shielding to 0.25 mSv per year x-ray equipment, waste their precious resources on shielding to the ICRP suggested “limit” of 1/3 mSv/yr blindly adopted by their regulators.

  • An estimated additional 109 kg (1/2 billion pounds) of lead would be required for medical x-ray alone (50% of total annual production).


Slide46 l.jpg

(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.


Slide47 l.jpg

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


Slide48 l.jpg

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

NCRP

CONSENSUS!


Slide49 l.jpg

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.


Slide50 l.jpg

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


Slide51 l.jpg

JDAM – Los! and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participate


Slide52 l.jpg

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.


Slide53 l.jpg

Mission accomplished clothes aren’t real and your source constraint concept is fundamentally illogical; plus you don’t know how to apply it.


Slide54 l.jpg

Aug 2006 - ICRP regroups and launches a surprise counterstrike across Atlantic - A “stakeholder” meeting [sponsored by the French nuclear energy agency(NEA)?]


Slide55 l.jpg

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)


Icrp source constraints take a beating i had unexpected allies l.jpg
ICRP Source Constraints take a beating counterstrike across Atlantic - A “stakeholder” meeting [sponsored by the French nuclear energy agency(NEA)?]I had unexpected allies

To you from me at the NRC

Here’s one from DOE

AAPM


Slide57 l.jpg

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”.


Slide58 l.jpg

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


Slide59 l.jpg

The gonads are hereby dethroned (0.2 → .08) constraints, nor do we need them”.


Slide60 l.jpg

And the breasts are uplifted (0.05 → 0.12).” constraints, nor do we need them”.


Slide61 l.jpg

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


Slide62 l.jpg

What ‘bout the duck? bone, saying the ICRP still believed in protecting the gonads – but it rang hollow


Slide63 l.jpg

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?


Slide64 l.jpg

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


Slide65 l.jpg

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?


Slide66 l.jpg

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.


Slide67 l.jpg

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.

TheEnd


ad