Upload
ahanu
View
30
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Rise and Fall of Paternalism in Radiation Protection. Health Physics Society 56 th Annual Meeting, West Palm Beach, Florida TPM-E.4, Tuesday, June 28, 2011 Daniel J. Strom, Ph.D., CHP Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [email protected] +1 509 375 2626. Link to Abstract Link to Menu. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The Rise and Fall of Paternalism in Radiation Protection
Health Physics Society56th Annual Meeting, West Palm Beach, Florida
TPM-E.4, Tuesday, June 28, 2011Daniel J. Strom, Ph.D., CHP
Pacific Northwest National [email protected]
+1 509 375 2626Link to Abstract
Link to Menu
2
Outline• Motivation: Who’s responsible for safety?• The current radiation protection paradigm• Failures of the current paradigm• Empowering the protectee• Conclusions
3
Motivation
4
Radiation Protection
• Is the profession concerned with protecting humankind and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation– known as “health physics” in some countries
• Because technologies that produce radiation have significant benefits, protection must be provided without “just saying no”
• Radiation protection professionals must collaborate with users of radiation and radioactive materials to ensure safe practices
5
Traditional Hierarchy of Radiation Protection
PhilosophySources and Effects
of Ionizing RadiationSocietal Norms
and Values
Recommendations:Justification, ALARA, Dose Limits
Regulations: Licensing, Inspection, Enforcement
UNSCEARScience Academies
Licensee, Employer and OwnerRadiation Protection Programs
Quantitiesand UnitsMeasurements
Workers Public
Patient Families
Patients
Environment
NormativeStandards
ICRP, NCRP, etc.
ICRU, ISO, IEC, ANSI, IAEA, etc.
Professional orPerformance Standards
Treaties
IAEA, IATA, ILO, INPO, JCAHO, etc;
Banks, Insurers, Manufacturers
NationalCompetent Authorities
Employers and HealthCare Providers
EntitiesNeeding Protection
Governments
Protectors
Protectees
5
Traditional Hierarchy of Radiation Protection
• This paternalistic system does not empower the protectee to protect herself or himself
Parent
Child
Protector
Protectee
6
7
Who Is Empowered to Act?• the United Nations and governments• legislators• regulators• managers• engineers and health physicists• workers• health care professionals• law enforcement personnel• first responders• individual members of the public
8
Individual members of the public • Can take many of the same actions to protect themselves
and their families as can workers and managers• Additional choices
– where to live– remediate dwellings if they have high radon levels– make appropriate risk-management lifestyle choices (such as
not smoking)– not to have needless medical exposures
• elective whole-body CT scans in the absence of symptoms• repeated radiological exams by different health-care providers
– prepare for and respond to accidents and emergencies by sheltering in place or evacuating and by stocking and using potassium iodide if needed
– In some circumstances, individual and familial protection needs may not be met by the traditional system of radiation protection
9
Individual members of the public • Empowered to protect by
– their own self-interest– their responsibility to keep their families safe (especially
parents caring for children)– education and training– accurate information about the radiological situation and what
actions they can take
• Disempowered by – ignorance– apathy– fear– paternalism of the traditional paradigm
10
How are individuals or groups empowered to take protective actions?
• Many sources of empowerment– treaties, laws, regulations, recommendations, and
guidance
– administrative procedures
– design, creation, and maintenance of engineered barriers
– medical care
– education and training
– provision and use of personal protective equipment
– posting and labeling
– self-preservation
Done foror to
individuals
Done by individuals
11
Empowering the Protectee to be the Protector:
12
10 Principles and 10 Commandments of Radiation Protection
No. Principle Commandment (familiar)
1. Time Hurry (but don't be hasty)
2. Distance Stay away from it or upwind of it
3. Dispersal Disperse it and dilute it
4. Source Reduction Make and use as little as possible
5. Source Barrier Keep it in
6. Personal Barrier Keep it out
7. Decorporation (Internal & Skin)
Get it out of you and off of you
8. Effect Mitigation Limit the damage
9. Optimal Technology Choose best technology
10. Limitation of Other Exposures
Don’t compound risks (don’t smoke)
13
Protectors must…• Have quantitative, or at least qualitative, knowledge of
the potential or actual radiological situation• Understand
– what principles and commandments they are empowered to enact
– what resources are needed for successful protection• Be able to judge what is reasonable, in the sense of
optimization, and when protective action is unnecessary• Protectors may have to account for
– individual differences in either susceptibility to effects of radiation
– age, sex, and pregnancy status are significant risk factors– need or desire for protection– triage following an accident or radiological attack may result in
differing efforts for decontamination
Empowering protectee to be protector: Civil Defense
• USA during the 1950s
• Natural extension of protection against aerial bombardment experienced during World War II
• Civil Defense (CD) organization created to protect the public from a nuclear attack
• CD provided training, information, and radiological survey instruments to organizations and individuals
• CD empowered individual members of the public to protect themselves and their families in situations to which the government could not conceivably respond effectively
• One hallmark slogan of that era taught to schoolchildren was “duck and cover”
14
15
Empowering the Protector: Duck and Cover
• “Duck and cover,” meant that if there were a bright flash, children were to duck under furniture and cover their heads
• Besides its protection against flash blindness and flying debris, this was excellent advice that could be life-saving for individuals given that initial nuclear radiation persists for 10 or more seconds
16
Survivalist Literature
• Old Civil Defense literature
• Allen Brodsky’s Actions For Survival: Saving Lives in the Immediate Hours After Release of Radioactive or Other Toxic Agents
17
Case Studies • Unlicensed radium
• Unlicensed radionuclides in wastewater
• Chernobyl: Vitaly Eremenko’s Experience
Unlicensed Radium
• Mid-1980s, Colorado School of Mines
• Classroom in 1893 National Historic Landmark
• 226Ra chemist had worked there 50 years earlier
• 1.5 mSv/hour in one location at gonad level
• How much of the building goes in a waste drum?
• Ra-contaminated asbestos “snow” 20 cm deep in basement
• No licensee, no regulator, no one to report doses to
19
A Combined Sanitary and Storm Sewer System:King County’s West Point Treatment Plant
20
Sewer Lines Are Generally Buried
21
Sewer Lines Are Generally Buried
22
Pump Station
23
Wet Well at Pump Station
24
Combs Clear Debris from Bar Screens
25
Screenings Go to a Dumpster
60Co Pellets (like at Juarez, 1983)
26
27
mm- to cm-sized Grit
28
Secondary Clarifier
29
After Leaving Anaerobic Digestion, Biosolids Are Concentrated
30
Concentrated Biosolids Are Collected for Shipment
31
4-5 48 Tonne (105,000 lb.) Biosolids Trucks/Day• Biosolids shipped east for agricultural application
32
Agricultural Application of Biosolids
• 4-5 trucks per day
Photo courtesy Michael A. Smith
33
Potential Exposure Locations
• wastewater in pipes on the way to the plant
• regulator and pumping stations
• wastewater in the treatment plant
• slime and coated surfaces in treatment plant
• screenings in plant• screenings in dumpster at
disposal site• grit in plant
• grit in dumpster at disposal site
• biosolids in digesters• biosolids in trucks• biosolids applied to crops• crops eaten• resuspended dust from
biosolids• treated water• untreated water (bypass)
34
Chernobyl: Vitaly Eremenko’s Experience
35
Success: The traditional paternalistic paradigm works for• developed countries with significant government
infrastructure
• foreseeable uses of radiation and radioactive material– energy, propulsion, medicine, research, industry, space
travel
• environmental remediation
36
Opportunity:The traditional paradigm fails for
• clandestine releases– Hanford’s Green Run; Chernobyl
• unregulated sources of radiation exposure– orphan sources; indoor radon; medical exposures
• nuclear or radiological attack– war; terrorism
• developing nations
37
Conclusions• Traditional, paternalistic radiation protection
paradigm: institutions protecting people and the environment
• There are situations in which it doesn’t work or doesn’t work well
• There is need for improvement in informed individual protection actions has been demonstrated
• People can learn to protect themselves, and we should make that learning happen
38
References• Brodsky A. 2009. Actions for Survival. Protections from Nuclear,
Chemical and Biological Terrorism. http://www.mjrpublications.com/New-Actions-For-Survival.html
• Eremenko VA, Droppo Jr JG. 2006. A personal experience reducing radiation exposures: protecting family in Kiev during the first two weeks after Chernobyl, Health Phys 91(2 Supp):S39-S46
• Hickey EE, Strom DJ. 2005. Technical basis for radiological emergency plan annex for WTD emergency response plan: West Point Treatment Plant. PNNL-15163 Vol. 3. Richland, Washington, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Strom DJ. 1996. Ten principles and ten commandments of radiation protection. Health Phys. 70(3):388-393. Available by permission of the journal at http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian/10Principles.pdf
• Strom DJ. 2008. "Who's Empowered to Protect? How Are They Empowered? What Do They Need to Know? in Proceedings of the 12th International Meeting of the International Radiation Protection Association, ed. AJ González, IRPA, Buenos Aires. http://www.pnl.gov/bayesian/strom/pdfs/Strom2008F_PNNL-SA-61159_Whos_Empowered_to_Protect.pdf