[ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
Bibbo, Giovanni (MED_IMAGING)
bibbog at wch.sa.gov.au
Mon Aug 1 18:47:54 CDT 2005
The reason why people outside US have not responded to this poll and normally do not get involved with discussion could be because:
1. there is no scientific support for both LNT and hormesis or other models. There is no study that conclusively supports a particular model, i.e. that radiation is detriment or beneficial, for all types of radiations and for all dose rates for doses between 0 and 200 mSv. I would think that the majority of people accept the use of LNT because radiation safety is involved in minimising and in many cases preventing any possible radiation exposures because once the exposure has occurred there is very little that can be done to minimise or eliminated the possible radiation risk. Under these circumstances a conservative system is better than a system that cannot be substantiated and therefore subjected to possible law suites.
2. radsafe seems to be a list server dealing mainly with US radiation safety politics with a few people abusing each other. Only occasionally there seem to be some radiation safety discussion or information which is useful.
G Bibbo
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-request at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-request at radlab.nl]
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2005 23:57
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
Send radsafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at radlab.nl
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at radlab.nl
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at radlab.nl
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. AW: [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results (Franz Sch?nhofer)
2. AW: [ RadSafe ] In defense of data (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de)
3. Position at University of California, Riverside (Wesley, David)
4. Re: Help requested to find IAEA document. (Maury Siskel)
5. RE : [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
(Jean-Francois, Stephane)
6. RE: RE : [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
(Glenn R. Marshall)
7. BOOK REVIEWED: - Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and
Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power (John Jacobus)
8. RE: LNT polling - initial results ( Dimiter Popoff )
9. Re: breast cancer least with 1-9 rads (John Jacobus)
10. PET-CT room shielding (kali1 at zahav.net.il)
11. IEEE C95.1(1999) (Khalid Aleissa)
12. ORE data during overhaul period due to AOA(axial offset
anomaly) (Jungkwon Son)
13. " DOE will use dedicated trains " (Franta, Jaroslav)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 04:08:21 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
To: "'A Karam'" <paksbi at rit.edu>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>,
<amrso at mcw.edu>
Message-ID: <011401c593e2$67fc3100$bf572fd5 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Andy,
I filled in my reply. That there are so few people from outside the USA is
for me not surprising: How many non-US-persons are on RADSAFE? As soon as
somebody makes a comment which is not in line with official US politics,
they are flamed. This survey might probably be expanded to other lists like
the RADCHEM list. Even better would be to contact ICRP on that question.
Best regards,
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von A Karam
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2005 21:44
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl; amrso at mcw.edu
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
>
> OK - we have had about 130 replies thus far. Here is how things are
> looking right now (just numbers, no analysis yet):
>
> Threshold 42
> LNT 12
> Hormesis 59
> Linear-quadratic 10
> Other 5
>
> Government 42
> Academia 28
> Nuclear Power 10
> Environmental 3
> Medical 20
> Consulting 14
> Other 13
>
> HP 95
> Rad Biologist 6
> Regulator 1
> Med - rad 3
> Med - non rad 3
> Science - non rad 15
> Other 8
>
> N. America 115
> W. Europe 6
> Russia 1
> Asia (not Japan) 1
> Middle East 1
> Australia/NZ 4
> Latin America 0
> E. Europe/FSU 0
> Other 1
>
>
> If you wish to participate, the survey is at this URL:
> http://lnt.tgi-sci.com <http://lnt.tgi-sci.com>
>
> I'm really surprised that so few outside of North America have
> participated - it would be nice to hear from more of you elsewhere in
> the world.
>
> To be honest with you, the number of people speaking up on behalf of
> hormesis surprises me, but this could be due to self-selection (i.e.
> there might be a tendency to speak up on behalf of a hypothesis that you
> feel to be under attack than on behalf of one that seems fairly solid)
>
> Anyhow - keep logging in (only once per customer!), and we'll keep
> updating you.
>
> Andy
>
> P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP
> Research Assistant Professor
> Rochester Institute of Technology
> 85 Lomb Memorial Drive
> Rochester, NY 14623
> (585) 475-6432 (voice)
> (585) 247-4510 (fax)
> paksbi at rit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:54:47 +0200
From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] In defense of data
To: <asa4 at cdc.gov>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID:
<B35C9C2A433DCE43B5CBB7D5207262DEA0BA7A at exbe01.intra.dlr.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
My imperfect mastery of English may hamper a proper comprehension of these statements [A] and [B] below.
His laudable credo regarding the dominance of data [B] might be seen to be in opposition to his 'protectionism' [A] of scientist who decline to make their data available to the public, once their intellectual priority and property has been established by a due publication process. After that, the public shares the ownership of theses data in case their work - including their salary - has been funded by the public, which usually is the case nowadays.
Hopefully, his preferences and beliefs [C] will prove true during his administration.
Dr. Rainer Facius
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Linder Hoehe
51147 Koeln
GERMANY
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX: +49 2203 61970
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ansari, Armin
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2005 16:09
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] In defense of data
A 2-page article (In Defence of Data) in today's issue of Nature (Vol 436, p 454, July 28, 2005) Article is about Ralph Cicerone, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences.
An excerpt:
<...>
[A] One of his early acts as NAS president was to engage Congressman Joe Barton (Republican, Texas) over a letter sent out last month. Barton had demanded that three climate researchers turn over reams of data on their climate-change research, a stance that has sparked disapproval among his fellow Republicans as well as other scientists (see Senate hearings strengthen calls for US action over climate. Cicerone entered the fray to offer Barton an independent NAS report to stop individual scientists from being intimidated.
<...>
[B]In Washington, scientific knowledge is just one of many factors taken into account when making a decision, and quite often not the most important. Cicerone says he is preparing himself to deal with that. "Being an engineer and a scientist, I tend to think that the facts and the data should dominate everything," he says.
<...>
[C]Such old-fashioned rationalism drives Cicerone. When creating study committees, he prefers to look for unbiased thinkers rather than balancing an advocate from one side with an advocate from the other. He is aware that some say this is an impossible task. "Many people say that's hopelessly naive: that science is not objective, everything is relative, everything stems from an individual's philosophy of life, ideology and so forth. I don't believe that."
<...>
__________________________________
Armin Ansari, PhD, CHP
Radiation Studies Branch, EHHE, NCEH
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd, NE (MS-E39) Atlanta, GA 30333
Ph: 404.498.1837 Fax: 404.498.1811
AAnsari at cdc.gov
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:46:01 -0700
From: "Wesley, David" <David.Wesley at ehs.ucr.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Position at University of California, Riverside
To: "'radsafe at radlab.nl'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <2FDAAD8654C69E4585917F55804580E29F9D00 at ehs.ucr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
UC Riverside is hiring a Radiation Safety Specialist. For details on the
job and how to apply, please go to
http://humanresources.ucr.edu/jobs/JobsBrowse.aspx?@strJobNumber=05-07-043
<http://humanresources.ucr.edu/jobs/JobsBrowse.aspx?@strJobNumber=05-07-043>
. Please pass this information along to anyone you know who may be
interested.
Thanks
David Wesley, CHP
Radiation Safety Officer
Environmental Health and Safety
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0306
david.wesley at ehs.ucr.edu
951-827-5746 Direct
951-827-5528 Admin
951-827-5122 Fax
http://www.ehs.ucr.edu
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:26:31 -0500
From: Maury Siskel <maurysis at ev1.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Help requested to find IAEA document.
To: IAEANY <iaeany at un.org>
Message-ID: <42E93F77.5000407 at ev1.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Thank you kindly for leading me to the document and for your very prompt
response. Thanks very much.
Maury Siskel
=====================
IAEANY wrote:
>Dear Mr. Siskel,
>
>If you follow the directions below it will lead you to a downloadable adobe
>version of the publication you requested. Needless to say, the Agency's
>web site is not the most user friendly.
>
> Go to http://www.iaea.org>
> click on scientific & technical publications - publications pages>
> curser down the page to IAEA TECDOCs>
> browse IAEA TECDOCs (found in upper right-hand corner above text)>
> click on no. 47>
> curser down to no. 705
>
> http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/ResultsPage.asp?p=47
> 705
> Rapid Monitoring of Large Groups of Internally Contaminated People
> Following A Radiation Accident
> IAEA TECDOC Series No. 746
> 1994, English, Full Text, (File Size: 2863 KB). 15.00 Euro. Date of
> Issue: 30 May 1994.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ms. Tracy C. Brown
>Liaison/Public Information Officer
>International Atomic Energy Agency Office at the United Nations
>One UN Plaza, Room DC1-1155, New York, NY 10017
>Tel. 212-963-6012
>Fax 917-367-4046
>E-mail iaeany at un.org
>Web http://www.iaea.org
>
>
>
>
>
> Maury Siskel
> <maurysis at ev1.net To: iaeany at un.org
> > cc:
> Subject: Help requested to find IAEA document.
> 27/07/2005 03:41
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>Without success, I have searched several parts of the IAEA web site for
>a technical document or report published in 1994. Can you help? To the
>best of my knowledge, the title is:
>
>Rapid Monitoring of Large Groups of Internally Contaminated People". IAEA
>Technical Report, IAEA-TECDOC-746, 1994.
>
>I would prefer an electronic version of this document, but am distressed
>that I cannot find it anywhere within the IAEA site.
>
>Thank you for any assistance you might offer.
>
>Maury Siskel
>Fort Worth, Texas 76180
>USA
>maurysis at ev1.net
>
>
>.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:47:13 -0400
From: "Jean-Francois, Stephane" <stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com>
Subject: RE : [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID:
<2D7314D7CDDC394FA97DF730C07BC8EE04ECB6F6 at camtmx00.merck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Franz,
There are probably more NON-US people on this list then you presume. But for
some Europeans or even some US people, Canada is often considered as a "cold
US region" so perhaps we don't count as non-US. Personally, answering a
survey is not what I call science. I call that entertainment, even if the
topic is LNT. Science will decide if LNT is applicable or not, popularity is
irrelevant. As for politics, well , I am still too young to enter this noble
art and I think that it does not fit this list either...
Kind regards from Canada (more then 27 degrees almost each day since June in
Montreal...)
Stéphane Jean-François, Eng., CHP
Manager, Environmental and Health Physics services
Merck Frosst Canada
514-428-8695
514-428-8670
stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com
www.merckfrosst.com
-----Message d'origine-----
De : radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] De la part
de Franz Schönhofer
Envoyé : Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:08 PM
À : 'A Karam'; radsafe at radlab.nl; amrso at mcw.edu
Objet : AW: [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
Andy,
I filled in my reply. That there are so few people from outside the USA is
for me not surprising: How many non-US-persons are on RADSAFE? As soon as
somebody makes a comment which is not in line with official US politics,
they are flamed. This survey might probably be expanded to other lists like
the RADCHEM list. Even better would be to contact ICRP on that question.
Best regards,
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von A Karam
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2005 21:44
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl; amrso at mcw.edu
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
>
> OK - we have had about 130 replies thus far. Here is how things are
> looking right now (just numbers, no analysis yet):
>
> Threshold 42
> LNT 12
> Hormesis 59
> Linear-quadratic 10
> Other 5
>
> Government 42
> Academia 28
> Nuclear Power 10
> Environmental 3
> Medical 20
> Consulting 14
> Other 13
>
> HP 95
> Rad Biologist 6
> Regulator 1
> Med - rad 3
> Med - non rad 3
> Science - non rad 15
> Other 8
>
> N. America 115
> W. Europe 6
> Russia 1
> Asia (not Japan) 1
> Middle East 1
> Australia/NZ 4
> Latin America 0
> E. Europe/FSU 0
> Other 1
>
>
> If you wish to participate, the survey is at this URL:
> http://lnt.tgi-sci.com <http://lnt.tgi-sci.com>
>
> I'm really surprised that so few outside of North America have
> participated - it would be nice to hear from more of you elsewhere in
> the world.
>
> To be honest with you, the number of people speaking up on behalf of
> hormesis surprises me, but this could be due to self-selection (i.e.
> there might be a tendency to speak up on behalf of a hypothesis that you
> feel to be under attack than on behalf of one that seems fairly solid)
>
> Anyhow - keep logging in (only once per customer!), and we'll keep
> updating you.
>
> Andy
>
> P. Andrew Karam, Ph.D., CHP
> Research Assistant Professor
> Rochester Institute of Technology
> 85 Lomb Memorial Drive
> Rochester, NY 14623
> (585) 475-6432 (voice)
> (585) 247-4510 (fax)
> paksbi at rit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:08:09 -0400
From: "Glenn R. Marshall" <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>
Subject: RE: RE : [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
To: "Jean-Francois, Stephane" <stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com>,
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID:
<5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F07A7B7 at tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Is that C or F (or K)?
Glenn Marshall
Kind regards from Canada (more then 27 degrees almost each day since
June in
Montreal...)
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] BOOK REVIEWED: - Nuclear Renaissance:
Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power
To: radsafe <radsafe at radlab.nl>, know_nukes at yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <20050729183348.268.qmail at web54303.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>From Nature 436, 461-462 (28 July 2005).
No, I have not read the book myself.
-------------------
Power and the people
Michael Golay(1)
Abstract: A wide-ranging look at the future of the
nuclear power industry.
BOOK REVIEWED
- Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for
the Future of Nuclear Power
by William Nuttall
Institute of Physics Publishing: 2004. 334 pp. £45,
$65
Nuclear Renaissance provides a welcome addition to the
literature on nuclear power. It is an unusual book,
covering the history of nuclear power but also
reflecting on recent policy and technological
developments - all presented in the clear voice of the
author, William Nuttall. The book covers the broad
scope of factors important for the future of nuclear
power, while avoiding the pitfalls of either
cheerleading or simplistic criticism, both of which
have characterized much of the nuclear-power
literature during recent decades.
Nuttall provides an accurate and concise survey of the
important aspects of light- and heavy-water reactors,
gas-cooled reactors and liquid metal-cooled reactors.
Some of the other technologies he describes, such as
actinide transmutation-focused accelerators and
reactors, and the DUPIC concept - using spent fuel
from light-water reactors in heavy-water reactors -
are less likely to play a future role, but are
nonetheless interesting. He correctly observes that
reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel is unlikely to
be economically justified or technologically important
for several decades, as are reactor designs that
depend on this practice.
Whereas most discussions of nuclear power focus on the
hardware - as if it were used in a socioeconomic
vacuum - Nuclear Renaissance covers the full scope of
the nuclear-power scene, from the hardware to national
energy policies, schemes for economic deregulation and
competition from non-nuclear technologies, and the
social factors affecting the acceptability and
economics of this energy source.
Chapter 1 alone, which surveys the more important
social and policy factors affecting nuclear power in
the United States and Britain, is worth the price of
the book. It also recognizes that the acceptance of
nuclear power has been affected by non-technological
factors, such as the cold war, and the failures and
frustrations of the Vietnam war - opposition to
nuclear power was an effective vehicle for opposition
to the establishment that imposed the war on them.
Accidents at nuclear power plants, which have tended
to be viewed differently in sociopolitical terms over
the years, are another factor. There is also a good
discussion of the trends and causes of changes in UK
nuclear policy.
Crucially, Nuclear Renaissance recognizes the
importance of the role of public trust in providing
conditions favourable to the success of nuclear power.
Compared with most European states, this factor is in
short supply in Britain and the United States, and
this partly explains why the nuclear power industry is
more successful in France and Finland.
However, despite the book's many merits, I have a few
quibbles. The unforgiving nature of nuclear power when
mistakes occur is not noted in the book, yet this is
the primary reason that the technology is so difficult
to use successfully. The socially and financially
punishing nature of such accidents is also relevant
here. These factors create high barriers to the entry
of new concepts in nuclear technology, especially in
the absence of abundant financial resources for coping
with mistakes. Safety regulatory agencies effectively
'lock in' the technologies that are already licensed,
to the exclusion of new entrants. This factor is
especially acute in the United States, where efforts
to remedy this effective bias are proceeding too
slowly to allow the adoption of new technologies.
Nuclear Renaissance provides enthusiastic support for
the US Department of Energy's Generation IV programme,
which aims to foster technologies for improving the
sustainability, safety and economic viability of the
next generation of nuclear power plants. However,
Nuttall seems too ready to accept the claims and hopes
of the initiative's proponents. He is also too kind to
the developers of gas-cooled reactors in Britain,
France, the United States and Germany, claiming that
the failures of these reactors were due to their being
ahead of the times, rather than faulty engineering and
management.
The book's greatest omission is that it gives no
attention to the goal of 'user friendliness' in
nuclear technology - in other words, achieving ease of
operation, low maintenance burdens and low corrosion
rates. Yet these are some of the greatest problems of
the current generation of reactors.
The existence of the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO) in the United States, and the World
Association of Nuclear Operators, which were created
following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
accidents respectively, are not acknowledged, much
less discussed. This is despite the consensus that the
INPO has been largely responsible for improvements in
the performance of the nuclear power industry in the
United States over the past 25 years.
The need for nuclear technologies capable of
mitigating global warming - for example, with greater
power capacity and fuel breeding - is also not
recognized as an essential goal.
Technological subtleties such as uncertainties over
future economic performance, the trade-offs between
passive and active safety features and the role of
human error are at the heart of debates over the best
paths for technological development, but Nuclear
Renaissance does not examine these issues in any
depth.
It does discuss economic deregulation, but fails to
explore the role of Britain's more compact
transmission and distribution structure in the greater
success of deregulation compared with the United
States. Despite this advantage, nuclear power has been
less successful in the United Kingdom than other forms
of power generation. BNFL, Britain's nationalized
nuclear-power company, currently survives on subsidies
from the government. This example raises the question
of whether nuclear power plants, with their need for
cash even when not operating, are suitable for use in
economically deregulated markets.
At the same time, Nuclear Renaissance is far too kind
to the opponents of nuclear power, claiming that they
have supported the interim storage of nuclear waste at
monitored surface sites where terrestrial disposal -
as at Yucca Mountain in the United States - is
unavailable. This may be true in Britain, but in the
United States, anti-nuclear pressure groups have
insisted on perfect and immediate solutions to the
problem of nuclear-waste disposal. The US nuclear
industry has foolishly accepted this impossible
challenge.
Finally, Nuttall asserts that greater public knowledge
about nuclear power and debate of the issues will help
to win acceptance, but I'm not convinced. He does not
recognize the alternative hypothesis that the public's
approval of nuclear power may depend more on the
industry being the three Bs - beneficial, boring and
banal - than on intellectual appeals. This hypothesis
seems to explain how the public has come to accept
other hazardous and previously feared technologies,
such as lifts, steam engines and electricity. These
opposing hypotheses for public acceptance are worth
exploring: knowing which is closer to the truth may be
at least as important as developing better hardware.
The book is essential reading for anyone who is
interested in the relationship between energy, society
and the environment. The author's observations are
thought-provoking, and his knowledge of the current
energy scene, particularly in Britain, is deep and
subtle. So, despite the few warts noted here, this
book is a valuable contribution to the debate about
nuclear power. You should read it.
(1)Michael Golay is professor of nuclear engineering
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA.
+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:38:13 +0300
From: " Dimiter Popoff " <didi at tgi-sci.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: LNT polling - initial results
To: "Glenn R. Marshall" <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>,
"Jean-Francois, Stephane" <stephane_jeanfrancois at merck.com>,
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <20050729183813.32069.qmail at server318.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-5"
Hmm, here is a US originating question :-).
I feel nostalgic for summers like that they have in Montreal,
we used to have them routinely here in Sofia until 3-4 years ago.
This year, the summer came last week... (last year it did not come at all).
Now we have > 25 - again C, of course :-) - sometimes it gets even hot (about
33, noting really dramatic like 40 which we have had once or twice that I remember).
Dimiter
------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments
http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
-------Original Message-------
> From: Glenn R. Marshall <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>
> Subject: RE: RE : [ RadSafe ] LNT polling - initial results
> Sent: Jul 29 '05 21:08
>
> Is that C or F (or K)?
>
>
> Glenn Marshall
>
> Kind regards from Canada (more then 27 degrees almost each day since
> June in
> Montreal...)
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:54:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: breast cancer least with 1-9 rads
To: howard long <hflong at pacbell.net>, radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <20050729195406.78508.qmail at web54309.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Have you read both papers? Yes or No.
--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> "Controls", as much as possible after a bomb, were
> very carefully sought and showed the model-predicted
> increase in breast cancer at over 10 rads. That
> gives more confidence that the finding of LESS
> breast cancer at 1-9 rad than without radiation was
> properly controlled, ("expected").
>
> These data cannot be influenced by the 1977 paper
> pooling low dose data to hide the unwelcome fact
> that low dose radiation prevents cancer, as low dose
> sunshine prevents rickets. Radiation is essential
> for best health, like vitamins or iodine. All can be
> overdosed.
>
> Howard Long
>
> John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again, you do not comment on the 1977 report which
> shows an increase based on real data. The 1979 paper
> expected is only an estimated risk. I cannot
> understand why you cannot understand the difference.
>
> Of course, you may be deliberately avoiding the
> results of the 1977 paper because it goes against
> your
> beliefs. It is easier to avoid admitting you are
> wrong by playing dumb.
>
> --- howard long wrote:
>
> > 34 breast cancers where 42.3 expected (control)
> for
> > 1-9 rad bomb exposure,
> > with MORE b ca than expected at higher and lower
> > exposures, tends to refute a "linear" hypothesis.
> > (Land and McGregor J Natl Cancer Inst 62:1 Jan
> 1979,
> > table 2).
> >
> > I have repeatedly heard and read my classmate
> > Pollycove and assure radsafers that his original
> > laboratory work on animals and cells does fit
> > thousands of epidemiologic and biologic
> > studies. His and Feinendigan's thesis is that
> > biologic defenses are stimulated by LDR
> >
> > It is understood by the mind-boggling billions of
> > times as frequent disruptions from normal
> oxidation,
> > as by radiation. That is not a model, but
> > confirmation of epidemiologic data by biologic
> data
> >
> > Howard Long
> >
> > John Jacobus wrote:
> > Howard,
> > Unlike some on this list, I have work to do and
> have
> > not had time to review the articles cited. I
> usually
> > try to respond after reading all of the
> information.
> >
> > I do not like to parrot other peoples work. In
> case
> > you do not understand, the ideas of Pollycove,
> > Feinendegen, are only models, as is the LNT.
> >
> > As usual, what does do you comments about iodine
> and
> > UV have to do with the discussion. TRY AND STAY ON
> > TOPIC.
> >
> > As you your attachment, we had discussed this
> before
> > and you did not ever respond to my question. Why
> did
> > the McGregor report of 1977 show an increase of
> > breast
> > cancers at low doses? You chose to ignore this
> > report, but keep citing the 1979 report. Why do
> you
> > ignore my question? Is it too difficult? It does
> not
> > fit your beliefs? Someone did not give you the
> > answer?
> >
> > --- howard long wrote:
> >
> > > John,
> > > You do not answer Ranier's point that BEIR VII
> > > POOLED (hid the low dose benefit)!
> > >
> > > Iodine (skull and crossbones on bottle) is added
> > to
> > > salt to prevent goiter, deafness, cretinism and
> > > mental deficiency from Iodine deficient soil in
> > > parts of Mexico, Himalaya foothills and USA
> Great
> > > Lakes area. Epidemiology at work.
> > >
> > > Likewise, radiation deficiency (UV and shorter
> > wave
> > > length) can give terrible disease. The breast
> > cancer
> > > - bomb studies Ranier references (I can attach
> for
> > > those requesting)
> > > showed only 34 cases where 42.3 were expected at
> > 1-9
> > > rad dose.
> > > This was hidden by BEIR VII pooling.
> > >
> > > About $1 trillion for "clean-up" that injures?
> > > Theft. Injury. Fraud.
> > >
> > > Howard Long
>
+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:53:39 +0200
From: <kali1 at zahav.net.il>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] PET-CT room shielding
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <000801c59487$fe89d9b0$7e2019ac at user>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-8-i"
Radsafers,
I would much appreciate your advice and experience as to the viewing window in the control room of a
PET-CT unit. Using a 3 mm lead equivalent of leaded glass, for example, is not very effective for 511 keV gamma rays.
Yehoshua Kalish
Cosultant
Hod-Hasharon, Israel
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:08:05 +0300
From: "Khalid Aleissa" <kaleissa at kacst.edu.sa>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] IEEE C95.1(1999)
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <000001c595d0$f626a0b0$9501810a at TNS6ZGXJ3L7OU5>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Does anyone have comments or know any argument or discussion concerning
IEEE C95.1 (Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz)?
Please send me any information about that.
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:19:17 +0900
From: Jungkwon Son <samjokoh at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] ORE data during overhaul period due to AOA(axial
offset anomaly)
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <49ef4d91050801011929a8ca07 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Dear Radsafers;
I want ORE data during overhaul period after and before AOA(Axial
Offset Anomaly) has been occurred. Especially I want to konow the
change of ORE due to AOA for following NPPs;Callaway, Diablo Canyon,
Braidwood 1, Parlo Verde, Arkansas Nuclear 2.
Thanks in advance.
Jungkwon Son
Nuclear Environment Technology Institute
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:16:37 -0400
From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj at aecl.ca>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] " DOE will use dedicated trains "
To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F707C3A4E5 at sps13.aecl.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
NuclearFuel AUGUST 1, 2005
DOE will use dedicated trains
DOE announced last month that it will use dedicated trains to move utility
spent and high-level waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. when that
facility becomes operational. The use of dedicated trains-that is, trains
that would only ship that material-would give the department better control
shipping schedules and routing, DOE said. It added that repository
operational resources could be better managed by taking advantage of more
predictable shipment and receipt schedules. "Repository operational
resources could be better managed by taking advantage of more predictable
shipment and receipt schedules," DOE said in a policy statement issued last
month. It added that past and current spent fuel shipments to DOE
facilities, including spent fuel from the West Valley Demonstration Project,
Three Miles Island, and foreign research reactors have involved the use of
dedicated trains.
=========================
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl
http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of radsafe Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
*************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list