dixon faith-based radiation protectionii

8/13/2019 Dixon Faith-Based Radiation ProtectionII

1/67


2/67

Radiation Protection guidelines for theGeneral Public have long ago departed

the realm of Science

They also have lost anyconnection to fundamental logic

And in their latest iteration, almost anycitizen can easily recognize that they

defy common sense


3/67

ICRP has chosen the duck as

its animal model for radiationprotection, Eh.

But we can stillshoot the

ducks, right?

No problem,wejust cant nukeem

In 2003 The ICRP* announced its new plan to alsoprotect animals from radiation

*International Council for Radiation Protection(ICRP)


4/67

They have taken on all the trappings ofReligiona set of beliefs that cannot be

either verified or deniedyou either believe

in them or you dont


5/67

Cost per (hypothetical) Life-yearsaved1

Radiation Emission Standards for NuclearPower 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


6/67

What kind of thinking can beresponsible for this egregiousmisallocation of resources?

So where would you put thepublics money?


7/67

Thinking Inside the Box

Lower isalways better

in here


8/67

I can readily prove that most of you

are inside the box thinkers

How many of you drove here

ALARA?


9/67

Driving ALARA*

Keep your Speed ALARA

*As Low As Reasonably Achievable


10/67

A definite, proven benefit to you and the public.Saves on fuelIt seems a no-brainer

Driving ALARA would inarguablyreduce

the risk of death - not only to you, but to

other members of the public in your path .


11/67

Hey, It doesnt apply to

drivingjust radiation!

Im not driving ALARA(or Miss Daisy)!

ALARA? Sure itll costmore,but dont forgetwere dealing with

deadly radiation

here.
http://www.inwoodband.com/pics/two%20faced.jpg


12/67

So how does it feel inside that box?


13/67

Thinking Inside the Box- youre not alone

Recommends evasiveaction if a solar flare isencountered in-flight!(0.1- 0.5 mSv/hr)

Thereby creating muchgreater riskscollision riskby chaos in air traffic

control, fuel starvation byreduced jet engine efficiencyat low altitudes, and manymore than I have space for


14/67


15/67

Cosmic 0.3 mSv

Internal (K-40) 0.4 mSv

Terrestrial 0.3 mSv

Average Natural Background 3 mSv/yr

Radon 2 mSv


16/67

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%)

Sure your girl friend is hot, but to minimize yourexposure keep close personal contact ALARA


17/67

Oh boy,cleanup

!

You may see acemetery, but I seea low level waste

dump full of 40K

Unowho


18/67

The Linear Non Threshold (LNT)

assumption- a fundamental tenet ofThe Church

With which death by coefficient can bemeted out to the frightened masses

without restraint


19/67

Some Predictions of LNT

Despite irradiation of mankind throughout hisevolutionary development, LNT predicts thatnatural background radiation is killing people

at the rate of one million per year.

M l i i ll d


20/67

My personal version is calledLNT-m.a.

exampleNational Safety Council: In the USA aperson dies every 13 min due to a motor

vehicle crash

LNT: Natural background radiation likewise

kills a person in the USA every 12 min,

my ass.

These folks are mostsincerely dead


21/67


22/67

Natural Background in USA- Exclusiveof 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


23/67

The 1 mSv per yr public dose limit is Down in the

noise

3.54.0 mSv

Avg

Avg +1 mS


24/67

Au contrairethey picked 1 mSv per year

They evidently dont believe its safeto live in Denver, CO

Despite thevariationinnaturalbackground, most locales in the US

are below 6 mSv per annum.

So where would logic dictate settingthe public dose limit?, perhaps 5 mSv?

ut that was after IV or V EIRS


25/67


26/67

NCRP Report # 116National Council on Radiation Protection

Dose Limit for a Member of the General Public:

1 mSv/yr

ButTheres a catch youre not

supposed to use it unless you conduct aninvestigation of possible exposure to othersources (another farce by the Solar Flare

Players-Act I, scene I next frame)


27/67

Im from upstairs, and amconducting an NCRP - typeinvestigation-So where do youlive or go after work? Isanybody else irradiating youbesides me?

This is

my luckyday,


28/67

So ho did the sola pla e s come p ith


29/67

Secret ICRP training camp

Behold! multiple sources!

So how did the solar players come up withthis idea?

Ach so..


30/67

This Church is Ruthless in dealing with Non-believers!


31/67

This Church is Ruthless in dealing with Non-believers!

Will you confess! . MotherOur weapons are fear,

surprise, and the riskcoefficient!

So ho did I get in ol ed in this O ellian o ld?


32/67

Ben Archer, Joel Gray,

Bob Dixon, Doug

Simpkin

So how did I get involved in this Orwellian world?

We presented our finalreport to NCRP, andwere called before the

Pope (like Gallileo)


33/67

Thou shalt design all thy shielding to mSv per annumwhether thou believest or not, for it is thus written in

NCRP 116 chapter one, verse 122

But..Zip it!

It is futile to resist

Our reply to NCRP


34/67

Source ConstraintsAn ICRP fantasy

The Myth of Multiple Sourceswhich 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 ourpaper in published in Radiation ProtectionDosimetry(2005),v.115, No. 1-4, pp. 16-22.

1 mSv


35/67

1

1

1

1 mSv

This


36/67


37/67

ICRP SPEED LIMITsource 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 forsource constraints - ignoring simultaneity


38/67

Suppose we had caved in and

accepted 0.25 mSv/yr as ashielding design limit in ourNCRP 147 report ?


39/67

18-MV Vault---Pb Upgrade(1-->>0.25 mSv/y)

1.25 in. Pb

1.5 in. Pb

Primary shielding

47,000 lb of Pb

$47,000 material cost

Secondary shielding

76,500 lb of PB

$76,500

Construction costs fordemolition and restoration of

vault $150,000

Grand total $275,000

Estimated costs to upgrade the US base of


40/67

Estimated costs to upgrade the US base ofRadiation Therapy Vaults of 6 MV18 MV LinearAccelerators in order to meet a lower dose limit of

mSv.yr-___________________________Additional shielding thickness 2.5 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 USD

Total estimated cost nationwide: $1 Billion!Total lead required nationwide: 8 x 108 kg

Its going to cost you


41/67

It s going to cost you$250,000 to upgrade yourvault to 0.25 mSv/yr for a

slight (hypothetical) increasein protection for the 5 or somembers of the public who

work in its immediate vicinityAnd by the way, every pizza parlor, icecream shop, home or business in the

Denver region will have a higher radiationlevel than that just outside your expensive

new leaded accelerator walls-

Also, those 5 people will be getting more

radiation from natural radioactivity inside theirown bodies than from your accelerator

administratorAdministrator


42/67


43/67

Glad to hear you beefedup your room shieldingDoc. Whos gonna payfor it?Why You, of course
http://www.uhn.ca/uhn/corporate/reports_statements/AR2006_site/images/AC07_UHN_06_gamma.jpg


44/67


45/67

Predictions if Designing Shielding to0.25 mSv per year

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


46/67

(hypothetical) annual risk from 3/4 mSv/yr

4x10-5

(real) annual risk to2:

metal miners & smelters 56 x 10-5

Construction workers 14 x 10-5

2

Wilson and Crouch, Risk-BenefitAnalysis, Harvard 2001.


47/67

Still no one from NCRP would engage usin debate, so AAPM and ACR convened a

national consensus conference at whichall interested parties could participate

All major societies were invited:medical, dental, medical physics, healthphysics, regulatory bodies, and NCRP


48/67

ACR AAPM RSNA SNM HPS ACMP NRC FDACRCPD ADA ACA

NCRPCONSENSUS!


49/67

NCRP has concluded that a suitablesource control for shielding individuals inuncontrolled areas in or near medicalradiation facilities is an effective dose of 1mSv in any year.

1 mSv.y-1 to the maximally exposedindividual in an uncontrolled area will

provide adequate protection to theemployees and the members of thepublic that access the uncontrolledareas.

Recent NCRP report series for shieldingmedical x-ray sources


50/67


51/67

JDAMLos!

Hey Emperor! Time for a reality check from


52/67

Hey Emperor! Time for a reality check fromthe USA. Those clothes arent real and yoursource constraint concept is fundamentally

illogical; plus you dont know how to apply it.


53/67

Aug 2006 - ICRP regroups and launches a surprise


54/67

g g p pcounterstrike across Atlantic -A stakeholder meeting[sponsored by the French nuclear energy agency(NEA)?]


55/67

The ICRP, the duck, and your gonads

The ICRP staged a counterattack in DC

in Aug 06 a North Americanstakeholder conference. I was thererepresenting AAPM and ready for them

(and their Duck); however, the stake Iwas holding was wooden, if you get mydrift!

Your gonads took a beating, however, .There were more .govs than .orgs atthis conference (and a few .nuts)

ICRP Source Constraints take a beating


56/67

ICRP Source Constraints take a beatingI had unexpected allies

Heres one fromDOE

AAPM

To you from me atthe NRC


57/67

The oft - heard refrain was: Wedont understand source

constraints, nor do we need them.

It is not clear to us (norapparently to ICRP either) how toapply them in practice.


58/67


59/67

The gonads are hereby dethroned (0.2 .08)

A d th b t lift d (0 05 0 12)


60/67

And the breasts are uplifted (0.050.12).


61/67

What bout the duck?


62/67

What bout the duck?

Howre they gonna find I guess well


63/67

How re they gonna findenough duck A-bomb

survivors to figure risks,

Eh?

I guess we llhave to nuke

a bunch of

them

Theyre not gonnalike that, Eh?

And the duck rebellion is already beginning


64/67

Two can play

this decoy game

And the duck rebellion is already beginning

The ICRP is

next- bring iton Lars-Erik

An attendee stated that ICRP had chosen


65/67

I later gave the duck call to an NEA conferenceleader who had admired and coveted it -

perhaps with similar future mischief in mind?

An attendee stated that ICRP had chosenEurocentric animals, to which an exasperatedLars-Erik retorted a duck is a duck is a duck!

At that point, I pulled out my duck call, blew atriple quack with repeat, which brought downthe houseincluding Lars-Erik- therebydefusing the situation.

The Conference Rapporteur, Henri


66/67

Attempting to increase public

protection by forcing the dosesallowed from medical X-ray sources toHeroicallylow levels (10% of natural

background)is likely to represent netharm to the patient population (thesame public) in terms of bothincreased healthcare costs as well asincreased health risk to individualpatients, with no proven benefitwhatsoever.

Mtivier, borrowed from a couple of myPPT slides in presenting the final

conference summary, including my quotebelow:

Oh no! Solar Flare Im outta here!


67/67

TheEnd

Oh no!Solar Flare- I m outta here!

dixon faith-based radiation protectionii

Documents