Presentation on theme: "Faith-based Radiation Protection"— Presentation transcript:
1Faith-based Radiation Protection Robert L. DixonWake Forest University School of MedicineThe Pope of ProtectionThe Ayatollah of Rad Controlla
2Radiation Protection guidelines for the General Public have long ago departed the realm of Science They also have lost any connection to fundamental logicAnd in their latest iteration, almost any citizen can easily recognize that they defy “common sense”
3But we can still shoot the In 2003 The ICRP* announced its new plan to also protect animals from radiationICRP has chosen the duck as its animal model for radiation protection, Eh.But we can still shoot theducks, right?No problem, we just can’t “nuke” ‘em*International Council for Radiation Protection(ICRP)
4They 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
5Cost per (hypothetical) Life-year saved1 Radiation Emission Standards for Nuclear Power Plants: $100 Million/life-yrRadionuclide Emission Control at NRC- licensed facilities: $2.6 Billion/life-yrWiden lanes on Rural Roads by 2 ft: $120,000/life-yr_______________________________________________1. Tengs et al., Risk Analysis 15, , 1995
6So where would you put the public’s money? What kind of thinking can be responsible for this egregious misallocation of resources?
7Thinking Inside the Box Lower is always better in here
8I can readily prove that most of you are “inside the box” thinkers How many of you drove here ALARA?
9Driving ALARA*Keep your Speed ALARA*As Low As Reasonably Achievable
10Driving ALARA would inarguably 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 fuelIt seems a “no-brainer”
11ALARA? Sure it’ll cost more, but 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)!
13Thinking Inside the Box- you’re not alone Recommends “evasive action” if a solar flare is encountered in-flight! ( 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…
16Your girl friend is “hot” 1.5 Mev gammas from K-40 Sure your girl friend is “hot”, but to minimize your exposure keep close personal contact ALARAYour girl friend is “hot”1.5 Mev gammas from K-40To minimize exposure, try to keep close personal contact ALARA, guysK-40Half life = 1.3 Billion years1.3 MeV beta (90%)High energy gamma ray (1.5 Mev) (10%)
17You may see a cemetery, but I see a low level waste dump full of 40K Oh boy, cleanup!Unowho
18The 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
19Some Predictions of LNT 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.
20My personal version is called LNT-m.a. example National Safety Council: In the USA a person dies every 13 min due to a motor vehicle crashThese folks are “most sincerely” deadLNT: Natural background radiation likewise kills a person in the USA every 12 min,my ass.
22Natural Background in USA- Exclusive of Radon (NCRP #45 & #94) Atlantic & Gulf Coastal Plain mSv/yrMiddle America mSv/yrRocky Mountain Plateau mSv/yrDenver Colorado mSv/yrPopulation-weighted average-1.09 mSv/yrAverage mSv/yr = mSv/yr
23The 1 mSv per yr public dose limit is “Down in the noise” Avg +1 mSv4.0 mSv3.5Avg
24Au contraire – they picked 1 mSv per year Despite the variation in natural background, most locales in the US are below 6 mSv per annum.So where would logic dictate settingthe public dose limit?, perhaps 5 mSv?Au contraire – they picked 1 mSv per yearThey evidently don’t believe it’s safe to live in Denver, COBut that was after IV or V BEIRS
25But the “Lords of Protection” secretly yearned to set it even lower, so they turned to a little trickery to try to accomplish the same thingWith “constraints” they could create a new and even lower “de facto” dose limit
26NCRP Report # 116 National Council on Radiation Protection Dose Limit for a Member of the General Public:1 mSv/yrBut………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)
27This is my lucky day,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?
29Secret ICRP training camp So how did “the solar players” come up with this idea?Secret ICRP training campAch so…..Behold! multiple sources!
30Public Dose Limit- simplified Rule one : 1 mSv/yrRule two : Now DivideRule one by 4
31Our weapons are fear, surprise, and the risk coefficient! This “Church” is Ruthless in dealing with Non-believers!Our weapons are fear, surprise, and the risk coefficient!“Will you confess! …………………………. “Mother”
32So how did I get involved in this Orwellian world? We presented our final report to NCRP, and were called before “the Pope” (like Gallileo)Ben Archer, Joel Gray,Bob Dixon, Doug Simpkin
33Thou 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 122But..Our reply to NCRPZip it!It is futile to resist
34Source Constraints – An ICRP fantasy 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 timeThis argument is developed in much greater detail in our paper in published in Radiation Protection Dosimetry(2005),v.115, No. 1-4, pp
37ICRP SPEED LIMIT source constraints Speed limit- 60 mphbut we MUST CONSTRAIN YOU TO 20 mph since you may own more than one auto, or drive on more than one highwayThis logic is closely analogous to that used for “source –constraints” - ignoring simultaneity
38Suppose we had “caved in” and accepted 0 Suppose we had “caved in” and accepted 0.25 mSv/yr as a shielding design limit in our NCRP 147 report ?
3918-MV Vault---Pb “Upgrade” (1-->>0.25 mSv/y)Primary shielding47,000 lb of Pb$47,000 material costSecondary shielding76,500 lb of PB$76,500Construction costs for demolition and restoration of vault $150,000Grand total $275,0001.5 in. Pb1.25 in. Pb
40Additional shielding thickness 2.5 cm lead 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 cm leadMaterial cost of additional lead $115,000 USDConstruction Costs per vault : $150,000 USDTotal additional cost per vault: $265,000 USDIf built when publicdose limit was 5 mSv/yr: $385,000 USDTotal estimated cost nationwide: $1 Billion!Total lead required nationwide: 8 x 108 kg
41It’s going to cost you $250,000 to “upgrade” your vault to 0 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 vicinityadministratorAdministratorAnd 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
42And 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)
43Glad to hear you beefed up your room shielding Doc Glad to hear you beefed up your room shielding Doc. Who’s gonna pay for it?Why You, of course
44Many 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.
45Predictions if Designing Shielding to 0.25 mSv per year An estimated additional 109 kg (1/2 billion pounds) of lead would be required for medical x-ray alone (50% of total annual production).
46(hypothetical) annual risk from 3/4 mSv/yr 4x10-5 (real) annual risk to2:metal miners & smelters x 10-5Construction workers x 10-52 Wilson and Crouch, Risk-Benefit Analysis, Harvard 2001.
47Still no one from NCRP would engage us in debate, so AAPM and ACR convened a national consensus conference at which all interested parties could participateAll major societies were invited: medical, dental, medical physics, health physics, regulatory bodies, and NCRP
48ACR AAPM RSNA SNM HPS ACMP NRC FDA CRCPD ADA ACA NCRPCONSENSUS!
49Recent NCRP report series for shielding medical 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.
50International Shielding Conference Madeira Portugal, May 2004But the real perpetrator of this nonsense was outside our borders – the ICRP. Dixon receives “frag” order“ALARA” attack profile
52Hey Emperor. Time for a reality check from the USA 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.
54Aug ICRP regroups and launches a surprise counterstrike across Atlantic - A “stakeholder” meeting [sponsored by the French nuclear energy agency(NEA)?]
55The ICRP, the duck, and your gonads 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)
56ICRP Source Constraints take a beating I had unexpected allies To you from me at the NRCHere’s one from DOEAAPM
57The 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”.
58The New ICRP Effective Dose paradigm whither the gonads? 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
63have to “nuke” a bunch of them How’re they gonna find enough duck A-bomb survivors to figure risks, Eh?I guess we’llhave to “nuke” a bunch of themThey’re not gonna like that, Eh?
64And the “duck” rebellion is already beginning The ICRP is next- bring it on Lars-ErikTwo can play this decoy game
65An 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?
66The Conference Rapporteur, 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.