skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: The Seven (Or More) Deadly (Or Not So Deadly) Sins of Radiation Protection

Abstract

This editorial considers the errors that can occur in the routine practice of radiation protection in the workplace. This work provides a tool and an incentive for radiation protection professionals to mentally examine their radiation protection responsibilities to identify actions they may take to improve their part of the practice of radiation protection for the benefit of humankind. We introduce a rating tool that is patterned after the IAEA International Nuclear Event Scale.?Sins? discussed include ignorance of the radiological situation, failure to integrate safety management, disabling safety interlocks, warning devices, access controls, omission of''reasonable'' from the policy of''as low as reasonably achievable'' (ALARA), extrapolation of risk beyond reason, using radiation exposure as an excuse for terminating an unwanted pregnancy, escalation of safety requirements beyond reason, failure to average a concentration standard, not responding to concerns (of workers, public, patient s, etc.), over-training, and substitution of prescriptive procedures for judgment. Readers are encouraged to look at their radiation protection activities and judge which ones do not make sense from the viewpoint of protecting people against radiation. It is likely that readers will find more than one radiation protection activity that bears scrutiny.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab., Richland, WA (US)
Sponsoring Org.:
US Department of Energy (US)
OSTI Identifier:
15001383
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-33819
HC1004000; TRN: US200425%%161
DOE Contract Number:  
AC06-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Journal Name:
Radiation Protection Dosimetry
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 90; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: PBD: 1 Jun 2000
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ALARA; INTERLOCKS; PATIENTS; PREGNANCY; RADIATION PROTECTION; IONIZING RADIATIONS; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY; ERRORS; GOOD PRACTICES; INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR EVENT SCALE; PROTECTION; RADIATION; EDITORIAL

Citation Formats

Strom, Daniel J., and Stansbury, Paul S. The Seven (Or More) Deadly (Or Not So Deadly) Sins of Radiation Protection. United States: N. p., 2000. Web. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033164.
Strom, Daniel J., & Stansbury, Paul S. The Seven (Or More) Deadly (Or Not So Deadly) Sins of Radiation Protection. United States. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033164.
Strom, Daniel J., and Stansbury, Paul S. Thu . "The Seven (Or More) Deadly (Or Not So Deadly) Sins of Radiation Protection". United States. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033164.
@article{osti_15001383,
title = {The Seven (Or More) Deadly (Or Not So Deadly) Sins of Radiation Protection},
author = {Strom, Daniel J. and Stansbury, Paul S.},
abstractNote = {This editorial considers the errors that can occur in the routine practice of radiation protection in the workplace. This work provides a tool and an incentive for radiation protection professionals to mentally examine their radiation protection responsibilities to identify actions they may take to improve their part of the practice of radiation protection for the benefit of humankind. We introduce a rating tool that is patterned after the IAEA International Nuclear Event Scale.?Sins? discussed include ignorance of the radiological situation, failure to integrate safety management, disabling safety interlocks, warning devices, access controls, omission of''reasonable'' from the policy of''as low as reasonably achievable'' (ALARA), extrapolation of risk beyond reason, using radiation exposure as an excuse for terminating an unwanted pregnancy, escalation of safety requirements beyond reason, failure to average a concentration standard, not responding to concerns (of workers, public, patient s, etc.), over-training, and substitution of prescriptive procedures for judgment. Readers are encouraged to look at their radiation protection activities and judge which ones do not make sense from the viewpoint of protecting people against radiation. It is likely that readers will find more than one radiation protection activity that bears scrutiny.},
doi = {10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033164},
journal = {Radiation Protection Dosimetry},
number = 4,
volume = 90,
place = {United States},
year = {2000},
month = {6}
}