From rhelbig at california.com Mon May 1 05:45:41 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 03:45:41 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: [DU Information List] Mission acomplished, - by Felicity Arbuthnot Message-ID: <002a01c66d0c$66f4eb40$5d425142@roger1> Note how they build on the web of lies, starting with Busby's false claim of finding DU in England 9 days after the beginning of the initial bombing of Iraq in 2003 during which no DU munitions were used. DU would not have been used until attacks were being made on armored units, either by the A-10 aircraft's 30mm gun or by US/UK tanks and armored vehicles firing DU armor penetrating projectiles. There are no aerial bombs containing DU and aerial bombs were used in the initial "shock and awe" campaign against Baghdad. A-10 aircraft did not participate in that initial attack. Roger Helbig http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75774 Mission Accomplished' By Felicity Arbuthnot Most of us have woken in the witching hours and wondered: 'why did I ever say that ...' and known it would return to haunt. Most of us too, can spot the instant a public figure does the same. 'Watch my lips' no more tax rises, said George Bush Snr. Doomsday was sure to follow. 'I feel the hand of history on my shoulder' said Prime Minister Blair in Northern Ireland. The country's Parliament went into meltdown and remains a political Chernobyl sarcophagus. 'Mission accomplished', declared by George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st 2003 may prove to be the Mother of all Blunders. The only small blessing is that he wasn't flying the plane which delivered him on the deck at one hundred and fifty miles an hour, given unfortunate encounters with quad bikes, ordinary bikes (near totalling a policeman at Gleneagles) and Pretzels. The ruins of lives, homes, towns, villages in Afghanistan and Iraq, the pollution of the region and the entire planet (Dr Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk found that radiation from weapons used in Iraq, travelled and quadrupled radiation readings in Europe in just nine days)* the ongoing destruction and estimation of as many as three hundred thousand subsequent violent deaths in Iraq, up to ninety five percent possibly at the hands of and certainly under the watch of, occupying forces or their cohorts and employees, the drip drip of dodgier and dodgier dossiers (there'll surely be more) to justify an entirely unjustifiable and illegal invasion; the disappearance of an entire sovereign government, up to thirty thousand people held in Iraq without trial. Hidden detention centres and disappeared flown around the globe to be tortured, un-named and untraced, denied all the legalities that painstaking, if imperfect, international Treaties and Conventions have committed to, built over generations. Missing $billions of sovereign moneys, squatted sovereign buildings, imposed puppet governments and no end in sight, on to Iran, the road to Damascus in an 'endless war' which, says the 'Pretzelly' challenged President, could last generations. We may, in fact not have the luxury of generations for war or even peace. I am indebted to Irving Wesley Hall of www.notinkansas.us for meticulous, referenced addition to the Depleted Uranium debate. They have army sources unavailable to most, a chilling inside track. The lie to the spin. Two stories of enormity which they have uncovered perhaps demonstrate the historically incomparable mess we are in. Bearing in mind that it is estimated that two thirds of those who served in the 1991 Gulf war are sick or on disability benefits, thought to be linked to DU and or untested inoculations and destruction of toxic sites, orders of magnitude more of DU has been used and continues to be used in Iraq. This time round though, no meaningful figures regarding DU contamination are obtainable. 'Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan have been threatened with ten thousand dollar fines and jail, if they talk about the soldier or their medical problems', states Hall. 'Reporters have been prevented access to more than fourteen thousand medical evacuees, flown nightly ... to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington DC. What is the DoD hiding?' He asks. Hall relates the sad, salutary tale which perhaps answers his own question. Sergeant Michael Lee Tosto, possibly 'first American victim of 2003's "Shock and Awe" ..' He died in Baghdad on June 17th 2003, aged twenty four. In common with a number of deaths reported at that time, he died, said the army, of pulmonary edema, or cardiac failure after showing flu like symptoms. His family said he was A1 fit and had never suffered any major illness. Dr Garth Nicholson of the Institute of Molecular Medicine, Huntingdon Beach, California and an expert of DU poisoning told Hall: 'We are witnessing the same symptoms of radioactive poisoning today as fifteen years ago. We are hearing the same denials of reality from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence ...' Michael's father wondered why his son was wearing white gloves, when his son was delivered for the funeral by the army. Michael's wife, Stephanie, reached under one glove and found his wedding ring was missing, queried, the army replied that it may have been 'contaminated'. Rather than send back his identifying 'dog tags', they sent back brand new ones. Were his, too, contaminated? Major Richard J, McNorton, specially charged by US Central Command to assist bloggers in obtaining accurate information has been remarkably reticent in replying to Hall's requests regarding the following US Army Central Command communique (June 2005.) It stated that ' ... soldiers of .. 62nd Quartermaster Company from Fort Hood, Texas', had been supplying water for showers to, ironically, 'Camp Forward Danger' in Iraq to men and women of the New York National Guard, with water from the Tigris river, untested for radiation. 'Our men and women just spent six months taking radioactive showers in a depleted uranium broth ... washing open wounds ... eating more than five hundred meals with food, plates, cutlery washed in hot water - in two senses of the word ..' An enraged soldier contacted Hall: 'I am sick and probably dying ... this was a suicide mission ..Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld .. are no better than Bin Laden (we are on a ) suicide mission to murder innocent people (and) volunteering unwittingly to be nuked by DU.' Nuked Iraqis have additional to contend with. A letter from an Iraqi doctor, received yesterday, states in part : We are living in a complicated risky horrible deteriorating miserable unhappy life. Nobody dare to get out of house after sun set. No patient is able to go to a hospital at night even if this means dying at home. Our daily talk is who, and how many lives were ended by violence. Imagine, only in our street 10 people were killed ... If you want the mangnitude in our locality, the number probably exceeds 150. ... theft, darkness in view of interupted electricity, and sounds of explosions and gunfire at night .... life ending business is becoming the most profitable job these days. The forensic medicine dept receives an estimated number of three thousands bodies terminated by firearms per month in Baghdad only . The reasons cant be explained in this letter .... all are intended consequences in an invaded (sorry liberated) country. My neighbor, a young man (just like my son), was attacked by two bullets in his head just 200 meters away from our house at noon time when ... (my 8 years daughter) was back from school. When I returned Safia rushed with a hysterical smile: Daddy, daddy, you know our neighbor, Mr ...was dead after 2 shots in his brain. What shocked me is that she is smiling, not sad, not crying. Soon after this, Safia had difficulty in sleep ... and now she usually cant sleep alone unless in my bed holding me with her arms. The US Administration still hasn't bought that history of modern Iraq and failed foreign adventures there. Condoleeza (I've an oil tanker named after me) Rice and Donald Rumsfeld went to instruct the new 'Prime Minister' last week (having temporarily buried the hatchet not in each others heads.) His name is Nuri al Maliki. The last puppet Prime Minister was imposed by the British. His name too was Nuri ( Sa'ad.) He was murdered and dragged round the streets until he was referred to as Shish Kebab. Not much left. 'Mission accomplished'? * www.llrc.org.uk --------------------------------- Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 13:09:48 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' In-Reply-To: <44528641.9060701@icx.net> Message-ID: <20060501180948.13814.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 1 13:20:47 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:20:47 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jimm at WPI.EDU Mon May 1 13:41:22 2006 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:41:22 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E5DF@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Sandy et al., See below: "Lethal and Leaking" Regards, Jim Muckerheide ==================== > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of > Sandy Perle > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:21 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night > > This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I > know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final > product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State > Governor and others interviewed. > > Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our > Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? > > ------------------------------------- > Sandy Perle Lethal And Leaking April 30, 2006 CBS News Produced By Rich Bonin http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1553896.shtml Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, that's what critics accuse the U.S. Department of Energy of: making the same mistakes over and over in a project that has already squandered billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. But the risk here is far greater than financial, since it involves highly toxic nuclear waste. At stake are millions of gallons of radioactive liquid waste left over from the making of nuclear bombs, including the one that was dropped on Nagasaki. This waste has been sitting in underground tanks in Hanford, Wash., ever since, while the government tries to figure out how to clean it up. As correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, the waste is so lethal that a small cup of it would kill everyone in a crowded restaurant, in minutes. 60 Minutes recently visited Hanford, where the witches' brew is being stored. Hanford, located along the Columbia River, is home to the most contaminated piece of real estate in the world outside of Russia. It is contaminated by waste left over from the production of nuclear weapons. There are 53 million gallons of highly radioactive liquid waste stored in underground tanks that are now so old they have leaked one million gallons of the stuff. Some of it leaked into the groundwater, and it's heading right for the river. With a million people downstream, there's a sense of urgency about cleaning up the site, which is huge. It takes up 586 square miles in southeastern Washington. But for the Energy Department, which runs the project, it's been a case of easier said than done. In the nearly 16 years 60 Minutes has been covering this story, it's been one foul up after the next. Charles Anderson, the Energy Department's official overseeing nuclear clean up, gave Stahl a tour of what has been built so far at Hanford, starting with a replica of the underground tanks. "This is a model of tanks that are already built that have waste in them. Be careful with your head here as we go in," Anderson told Stahl during the tour. The tank can hold 750,000 gallons of waste. Many of the tanks, built for the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear weapons, are more than 60 years old. Anderson explains there are a total of 177 tanks holding "high-level" waste at this site. The plan is to pump the waste out of the tanks and route it through miles of pipes to a yet-to-be-completed pre-treatment facility. The idea is to convert the radioactive waste into glass logs. "This is where the radioactive waste will come from the tank farms, will come from those tanks and will come in here and be treated in different chemical processes and be turned into glass logs for final disposition to be disposed of in a landfill," Anderson explains. Stahl last visited the area in 2001, when the site was just a field. Anderson says significant progress has been made. "The plant's 35 percent complete in regard to construction," he says. But the place is a total ghost town. What happened? What happened here is that after three years of welding, pouring cement and laying miles of pipes and tons of steel, construction came to a screeching halt in 2005 because the Energy Department underestimated by 40 percent how strong the building must be to withstand an earthquake. We're talking about a building that would be full of radioactive liquid. "In a building like this, you need to build it to ensure that it withstands whatever an earthquake may pose - if there is one - because we absolutely do not want a breech of this radioactive material in the atmosphere," says Gene Aloise of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative arm. But here's what 60 Minutes has learned: that the Energy Department and the contractor, Bechtel, went ahead with the plant knowing their seismic standard might be off. Just as construction was about to begin in July 2002, an independent safety board sent a letter, warning the department. "Energy debated with the safety board for almost two years over the standards," says Aloise. "Ok, let me understand this. This is brought up as an issue in 2002. Instead of going back right then, they debate until 2005, during which time they're building the building?" Stahl asked Aloise. "They're building the building," he replied. They were building it using the wrong seismic standard. Because they did factor in some margin of safety, the contractor, Bechtel, has told the Energy Department there is no restructuring required on the foundation or the walls. But Aloise says what they do have to fix are the internal components of the building. "Hangers, piping, vessel supports, all of this interior of the building, where the technology's going to rest. That all has to be re-engineered," he explains. "They have to re-do tens of thousands of designs." The seismic miscalculation is costing at least $800 million and a two- to four-year delay in completing the building. This practice of pushing ahead with construction before the engineering is complete is known as "fast track." "The people in the state of Washington who are living with this thing, they don't want it to slow down, they want it to speed up," Stahl remarked. "But it doesn't work in our view on complex, technical nuclear facilities like the ones in Hanford," Aloise replied. Asked what he would tell the people of Washington, Aloise said, "That we need to do it right." Fast track was singled out as a major problem five years ago when 60 Minutes last reported on the cleanup. Gary Jones, a GAO investigator in 2001, told 60 Minutes that they had rushed ahead with construction of this building at a similar site in Idaho before the designs were finished. We asked about it back then. "You're saying they went ahead and built the building and then when they were finished making all the changes, the equipment wouldn't fit in the building?" Stahl asked Jones in the report five years ago. "The equipment for this particular process would not fit into the building as designed," Jones replied. Five years ago, 60 Minutes was assured the government had learned from its mistakes and things were finally under control. And yet, since then, costs have gone through the roof, up more than 150 percent, and the start date for making those glass logs has slipped seven years, to 2018. The seismic error was only one of several snafus. Tom Carpenter of the watchdog group called Government Accountability Project got hold of internal Energy Department and Bechtel documents which reveal a series of problems with a special tank for processing or scrubbing the nuclear waste. The problems began when Bechtel hired an outside vendor to build it. "They gave the wrong design specs to the manufacturer," says Carpenter. ... "They gave them a less strict nuclear design." According to the documents, when the tank arrived at Hanford it had "cracked stay welds." They were fixed. But then "different types of weld defects" were discovered. And yet Bechtel went ahead and installed the scrubber tank anyway. "They still said, 'We can fix those when the tank's installed.' So they went ahead and installed it with defects, all right?" Carpenter says. "Knowing it, okay. So at this point they, Bechtel, demanded and then received a $15 million bonus for meeting a milestone." Bechtel wouldn't give 60 Minutes an on-camera interview, but did say that the $15 million wasn't a "bonus," it was a fee. In any event, after they got the money, a "new deficiency was discovered" by "independent inspectors for Washington state." This new deficiency, says Carpenter, was discovered after the tank was installed. Carpenter says, "The red flag goes up and a full inspection is then ordered on the tank. Well, the full inspection should've been done at the factory where they built the tank." Asked whether this inspection was part of the contract, Carpenter says, "Sure." The full inspection finally led Bechtel to realize the tank was not up to specification. But Carpenter says that's not all. "The design flaws that led to this tank being deficient applied to 66 other vessels," Carpenter explains. "Seven of which had already been built.... And they had to go and redesign the ones that had not been built, and fix the ones that had been built. It really raises a big question about, well, what have they not caught out there? What other equipment or tools, or machine, is installed maybe under feet of concrete that these programs failed to catch? Because their programs failed. The contractor failed. The Department of Energy failed. It took an independent inspector to find new deficiencies. Where is the adult supervision here? We're talking a nuclear facility handling some of the worst waste in the world, and they're fast tracking it? Excuse me." 60 Minutes asked Charles Anderson of the Department of Energy about this. "When you hear they gave the wrong design specifications - you almost can't believe it - on one piece of equipment, and then when you hear it's been repeated over and over, I mean, that doesn't sound like the Department of Energy is managing the situation very well," Stahl said. "There's a number of those issues that have occurred. Those issues have been identified and corrected but there's also a large, large percentage of equipment where the specs have been correctly given, the equipment's been purchased correctly," Anderson replied. "But there shouldn't be mistakes like that in a plant like this, should there?" Stahl asked. "Well, Lesley, in a large complex facility, a project like this, you do have mistakes," he replied. Anderson acknowledged they are big mistakes. "I would agree that there are big mistakes here that we are taking control of and we're correcting," he says. "You know, I'm getting a little deja vu here because when we were here in 2001 it was the same thing. 'We figured it out. It's better now. No problem any more.' Do you think, being candid with us, that the department's up to this?" Stahl asked. "Well here's what's different now. We've taken steps to provide increased oversight, to reach out for increased external reviews," Anderson replied. "To complete this important work of disposing of, stabilizing and then disposing of this waste." Anderson says that the leaking tanks have been stabilized and that there's virtually no chance of further seepage. But Christine Gregoire, the governor of Washington State, who has worked on this issue from the beginning, doesn't believe that for one minute. "Let me tell you the story. 1989: They told me there was zero chance that there would be any leakage and ground water contamination. Sixteen years later, we have confirmed 67 leakers, groundwater contamination. I told them then, 'Gravity works like this.' And I'll tell them again today: gravity means we are very vulnerable to the groundwater contamination and a plume that we now have moving towards the Columbia River, which is the lifeline of our Pacific Northwest," Gov. Gregoire says. Asked what she meant by a "plume," the governor said, "We've got an area that is contaminated in the groundwater and is migrating towards the Columbia River. And if it gets there, Lesley, we have an absolute disaster on our hands." She's worried about a move in Congress to cut the budget for the Hanford clean-up. "I can understand the frustration in Congress," the governor says. "Frankly, they are no more frustrated than me. But the last thing we need is to send a message to this country that it's OK to walk away. It is not. The chances of a catastrophic event over there are real. Time is not on our side. We need to get going." From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 14:32:53 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Unpublicized Radiation Protection Story In-Reply-To: <20060429172512.12322.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060501193253.79464.qmail@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, I am not sure if there are "hundreds" on Jim's Web site, and Jim should be able to give you a number. Many of the studies listed in this site were published in the open literature. Many are historical. Even the NCRP, UNSCEAR and BEIR committee reports note the existance of such work as the nuclear shipyard reports and others. You should also read their comments. There is no censorship. Of course, if you are looking for a conspiracy, you will find it. It is just difficult for you to accept the fact that everyone does not agree with you. --- howard long wrote: > Hundreds of studies showing support for this are > compiled at James Muckerheide . > > They are not published much, John J, because the > editors have a relationship with you bureaucrats who > keep jobs only by perpetuating the myth of LNT. > > Your "peer review" requirement is just censorship. > > Howard Long > > "Scott, Bobby" wrote: > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:44:47 -0600 > From: "Scott, Bobby" > To: > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Untold Radiation Protection > Story > > I thought readers of the Radsafe Digest may find the > radiation > protection story that follows to be of interest. Our > research relates > to stochastic biological effects of exposure of > mammalian cellular > communities to low doses of ionizing radiation. > These effects include > induced genomic instability, mutation, neoplastic > transformation, and > cancer in organisms. What we have learned about > exposure to low doses > and dose rates of low-LET radiations such as X and > gamma rays is that > doses above varying thresholds (for different > individuals) appear to > activate a system of transient protective processes > that include high > fidelity (efficiency) DNA repair, an auxiliary > selective apoptosis > process (called the PAM process), and the immune > system. The high > fidelity repair when activated likely includes > repair of spontaneously > occurring DNA double-strand breaks and competes with > normal apoptosis > (cell suicide, when severely damaged). The > abbreviation PAM stands for > "protective apoptosis mediated". The PAM process, > which involves an > auxiliary apoptosis mechanism, when activated > removes existing > genomically unstable cells (spontaneous and other) > that arise from > misrepair of DNA damage (e.g., mutant and > neoplastically transformed > cells). +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Dickdubiel at msn.com Mon May 1 18:18:22 2006 From: Dickdubiel at msn.com (Dick Dubiel) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 16:18:22 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes Feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: I did not see the 60 Minutes feature on Hanford, but read with skepticism the messages posted on Radsafe. Having lived through 60 Minutes features (I was the RPM at Three Mile Island during the accident) as well as other media productions, I understand their approach. Truth and reasonableness are not the objective of the news magazine reports that are developed. The objective, or the message that is targeted, is pre-defined. Interviews are conducted with both audio and video of the interviewer and interviewee, but rarely together. Sound bites from the interviewer can be used anywhere in the final footage. Typically an answer to the interviewer's question is shown without the original question, but following a question posed differently to an "expert" with an alarmist's attitude. The result is a program that gets across the message intended by the producers while intelligent, dedicated and competent scientists and engineers are made to look foolish. I haven't watched a TV news magazine program from any network since 1980. I have reason to disbelieve every story that is produced. I have recently taken the time to be interviewed for a documentary on TMI that was originally presented as an unbiased documentary. Following the interview, I was asked to sign a release form. I specified that the network (PBS) could use footage only if I had the opportunity to review it before it was aired. None of my four hour interview was ever used. If any of you remember the program from a few years back, it was simply another alarmist presentation on the evils of nuclear power. Mike Nichols (I think that was his name), the author of the "China Syndrome", got the most air time. Without seeing the program, I can still feel for the management and staff at Hanford for the way they are portrayed in the write up. I can imagine it was no better on TV. Richard W. Dubiel, CHP Millennium Services, Inc. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 15:50:42 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060501205042.82008.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Sandy, I saw the story. I think the real issue was government's wasteful spending and lack of contract oversight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford > clean-up process. I > know how 60 Minutes can skew information and > manipulate the final > product. However, there were DOE Management, > Washington State > Governor and others interviewed. > > Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is > the take from our > Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? > > ------------------------------------- > Sandy Perle > Senior Vice President, Technical Operations > Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. > 2652 McGaw Avenue > Irvine, CA 92614 > > Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 > Fax:(949) 296-1144 > > E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com > E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net > > Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ > Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 15:53:32 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E5DF@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <20060501205332.27659.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> You really have to read beyond this first page to appreciate the fine work of DOE. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > Sandy et al., > > See below: "Lethal and Leaking" > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ==================== > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of > > Sandy Perle > > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:21 PM > > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford > last night > > > > This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford > clean-up process. I > > know how 60 Minutes can skew information and > manipulate the final > > product. However, there were DOE Management, > Washington State > > Governor and others interviewed. > > > > Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what > is the take from our > > Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Sandy Perle > > > Lethal And Leaking > > April 30, 2006 > CBS News > Produced By Rich Bonin > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1553896.shtml > > Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the > same thing over and over > again and expecting different results. Well, that's > what critics accuse the > U.S. Department of Energy of: making the same > mistakes over and over in a > project that has already squandered billions of > dollars in taxpayers' money. > But the risk here is far greater than financial, > since it involves highly > toxic nuclear waste. > > At stake are millions of gallons of radioactive > liquid waste left over from > the making of nuclear bombs, including the one that > was dropped on Nagasaki. > This waste has been sitting in underground tanks in > Hanford, Wash., ever > since, while the government tries to figure out how > to clean it up. As > correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, the waste is so > lethal that a small cup > of it would kill everyone in a crowded restaurant, > in minutes. > > > 60 Minutes recently visited Hanford, where the > witches' brew is being stored. > Hanford, located along the Columbia River, is home > to the most contaminated > piece of real estate in the world outside of Russia. > > It is contaminated by waste left over from the > production of nuclear weapons. > There are 53 million gallons of highly radioactive > liquid waste stored in > underground tanks that are now so old they have > leaked one million gallons of > the stuff. > > Some of it leaked into the groundwater, and it's > heading right for the river. > With a million people downstream, there's a sense of > urgency about cleaning > up the site, which is huge. It takes up 586 square > miles in southeastern > Washington. > > But for the Energy Department, which runs the > project, it's been a case of > easier said than done. In the nearly 16 years 60 > Minutes has been covering > this story, it's been one foul up after the next. > > Charles Anderson, the Energy Department's official > overseeing nuclear clean > up, gave Stahl a tour of what has been built so far > at Hanford, starting with > a replica of the underground tanks. > > "This is a model of tanks that are already built > that have waste in them. Be > careful with your head here as we go in," Anderson > told Stahl during the > tour. > > The tank can hold 750,000 gallons of waste. Many of > the tanks, built for the > Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear > weapons, are more than 60 > years old. > > Anderson explains there are a total of 177 tanks > holding "high-level" waste > at this site. > > The plan is to pump the waste out of the tanks and > route it through miles of > pipes to a yet-to-be-completed pre-treatment > facility. The idea is to convert > the radioactive waste into glass logs. > > "This is where the radioactive waste will come from > the tank farms, will come > from those tanks and will come in here and be > treated in different chemical > processes and be turned into glass logs for final > disposition to be disposed > of in a landfill," Anderson explains. > > Stahl last visited the area in 2001, when the site > was just a field. Anderson > says significant progress has been made. "The > plant's 35 percent complete in > regard to construction," he says. > > But the place is a total ghost town. What happened? > > What happened here is that after three years of > welding, pouring cement and > laying miles of pipes and tons of steel, > construction came to a screeching > halt in 2005 because the Energy Department > underestimated by 40 percent how > strong the building must be to withstand an > earthquake. We're talking about a > building that would be full of radioactive liquid. > > > "In a building like this, you need to build it to > ensure that it withstands > whatever an earthquake may pose - if there is one - > because we absolutely do > not want a breech of this radioactive material in > the atmosphere," says Gene > Aloise of the Government Accountability Office > (GAO), Congress' investigative > arm. > > But here's what 60 Minutes has learned: that the > Energy Department and the > contractor, Bechtel, went ahead with the plant > knowing their seismic standard > might be off. Just as construction was about to > begin in July 2002, an > independent safety board sent a letter, warning the > department. > > "Energy debated with the safety board for almost two > years over the > standards," says Aloise. > > "Ok, let me understand this. This is brought up as > an issue in 2002. Instead > of going back right then, they debate until 2005, > during which time they're > building the building?" Stahl asked Aloise. > > "They're building the building," he replied. > > They were building it using the wrong seismic > standard. Because they did > factor in some margin of safety, the contractor, > Bechtel, has told the Energy > Department there is no restructuring required on the > foundation or the walls. > > But Aloise says what they do have to fix are the > internal components of the > building. "Hangers, piping, vessel supports, all of > this interior of the > building, where the technology's going to rest. That > all has to be > re-engineered," he explains. "They have to re-do > tens of thousands of > designs." > > The seismic miscalculation is costing at least $800 > million and a two- to > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 1 16:02:48 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:02:48 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <20060501205042.82008.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <44561508.16619.180F0E7@sandyfl.earthlink.net> On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > I think the real issue was > government's wasteful spending and lack of contract oversight. John, That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" specifications and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with construction. I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From loc at icx.net Mon May 1 17:09:49 2006 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 18:09:49 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RadTown Message-ID: <4456872D.6030907@icx.net> Pretty cool toy. --Susan Gawarecki New Interactive Web Site is Totally Rad (Washington, D.C. ? May 1, 2006) From seeing a stadium laser light show to receiving an x-ray, radiation is part of our lives. That's why EPA is launching RadTown USA, a new web site that uses an animated town to provide basic information on radiation in the environment. RadTown USA is a virtual community showing the wide variety of radiation sources commonly encountered in everyday life. The RadTown site features houses, a school, stadium, construction site, flying plane, moving train and much more to highlight and explain the many common sources of radiation. The information is organized in a series of easy-to-understand fact sheets, with links to additional information resources. Every fact sheet includes the types of radiation sources at the location, the important roles that federal, state and local governments play in protection and control, and normal steps that individuals can take to protect themselves, such as applying sun block or installing radon detectors in homes. Discover RadTown USA: http://www.epa.gov/radtown Contact: Roxanne Smith, (202) 564-4355 / smith.roxanne at epa.gov From jimm at WPI.EDU Mon May 1 17:53:05 2006 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:53:05 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E673@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Sandy, John, et al. I sent the 60 minutes piece because it was the subject. We all know here that the pejorative crap is typical media staging, especially by the TV newsmags. Here's another cut at the info, also rather biased. But this and other recent info/reports indicate that this seems to be yet another DOE project boondoggle. DOE hasn't shown any substantial engineering and project management ability since before Clinch River and ERDA. See full article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html Regards, Jim Muckerheide ==================== SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if Congress will pay Monday, May 1, 2006 By LISA STIFFLER AND CHARLES POPE P-I REPORTERS It's costing Americans $1.4 million a day to build a facility to safely treat millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste stored in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's leak-prone underground tanks. [Related article - Evidence of new leaks, group reports] When the project is completed, the bill could total $38 for every man, woman and child in the nation -- that's if the $11.3 billion price tag doesn't swell even further. It has nearly tripled in less than six years, making it a massive taxpayer burden. This is a critical time for the project. An increasingly impatient Congress is now deciding how much money to contribute to the effort -- considered the most important step in the cleanup of the sprawling desert site on the Columbia River. Some fear lawmakers could simply wash their hands of it and walk away. "The whole house of cards is ready to collapse," said Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group. ? [Photo File ?These double-walled tanks at Hanford each hold 1 million gallons of highly radioactive nuclear waste from bomb making. Built in 1984, they were later covered with 5 feet of dirt. The liquid waste that's inside them is slated to be pumped out and turned into glass. The challenge of safely disposing of 53 million gallons of deadly waste left over from decades of plutonium production has caused the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors to stumble repeatedly.] Weak -- even negligent -- management has pushed the project's completion from 2011 back to 2017 or later and driven costs up by billions, according to reports from government agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and watchdog groups. At the same time, environmental and health risks are mounting. The corrosive waste weakens the walls of the tanks and the risk of leaks keeps growing, regulators admit. The federal officials running the Hanford cleanup and their contractors apologize for the delays and errors in cost calculations. They promise to do better. "Everything that I do on this project each day is to identify with certainty what the costs and schedule basis is, and to restore confidence and credibility in this project," said John Eschenberg, the Energy Department's manager for the project. Construction is under way on the massive "vitrification" project, which one day would turn the waste into a glassy compound that will trap the radioactive material for safe storage. But the department's contractor -- construction giant Bechtel National Inc. -- has had to put the brakes on most of the building due to safety and technical problems. Countless additional factors have helped drive up costs. They include the initial miscalculation of the amount and cost of materials needed for the project and underestimation of the technical and regulatory hurdles facing the facility. In March, a team of experts identified more than two dozen issues that could prevent the plant from working as planned. The plant was expected to operate for nearly two decades. The mounting setbacks have sent state leaders recently to Washington, D.C., to beseech lawmakers to keep funding the costly endeavor near Richland. Next week government officials will come to Seattle to explain publicly how much money is needed to support the Hanford cleanup, including the vitrification project, and to get feedback on where it's being spent. The case is getting harder to make. Some worry Congress or the Energy Department could scrap the vitrification project, perhaps opting to build new storage tanks and putting the waste there. Another option is using a cheaper, but less safe, technology for treating the waste plaguing Hanford -- a key player in World War II's Manhattan Project. Comments at an April 6 congressional hearing examining Hanford's problems heightened that fear. "I'm convinced now that after learning about the failures of project management, the neglect of nuclear safety quality assurances and the uncontrollable costs we will hear about today that this project is on a fast road to failure," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. Hobson's dark opinion is important because he chairs the subcommittee providing money for cleaning up Hanford and other Energy Department plants. Everyone agrees the project is challenging. In the decades since Hanford fired up the first reactor in 1944, a mishmash of waste has been dumped into 177 tanks in the quest for weapons-grade plutonium. The tanks -- which some say may have leaked recently -- store millions of gallons of chemically complex liquids, sludge and chunky salt cake. Those responsible for problems with the vitrification project frequently put much of the blame on its unique nature. "After all, it was a first of a kind, never been built anywhere in the world, much less in the United States," Tom Hash, Bechtel's president of systems and infrastructure, told Hobson's subcommittee. That statement, however, was not entirely accurate. Savannah River echoes Hanford isn't the Energy Department's only radioactive headache. South Carolina's Savannah River Site was established in the early 1950s to produce plutonium and radioactive hydrogen to arm nuclear weapons. In 1983, the department began the process of building a vitrification plant there to treat 37 million gallons of dangerous waste that also had been stored in buried, leak-prone tanks. At Savannah River, just as at Hanford, Bechtel was a prime partner in building the facility. And just as at Hanford, the project was beset by major cost overruns, poor management and technical problems. In a 1992 report that is similar in tone and findings to recent reviews of the Hanford project, the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) itemized the problems. The cost, the GAO said, had soared from an estimated $2.1 billion to $4 billion. The project fell behind schedule. Ineffective management "has been a principal factor contributing to the tremendous cost growth of the (waste facility) program and the schedule delays," reported the government investigators. "Other factors, such as system testing that identified technical problems and equipment and design deficiencies" also affected the program's cost and schedule, the GAO said. As with Hanford, DOE officials and the contractors repented and vowed to do better. The plant finally opened in 1996 -- three years late. It has produced 2,200 canisters of glassified waste since then, but lingering technical problems have limited its effectiveness, allowing the capture of only small amounts of radioactive material per canister. DOE estimates the plant will finish the job in 2026. Savannah River has struggled to develop a process that separates high-level waste from less lethal, low-level waste. Once the process works, it will speed cleanup because only the worst waste will be sent to the vitrification plant. A citizens advisory board said last month that the delay could add $1 billion to cleanup costs. While concerns raised about the operations are disturbingly similar, some say comparisons between Hanford and Savannah River are unfair because the Washington operation is much larger and more complicated. John Britton, spokesman for Bechtel's Hanford project, said of Savannah: "It's a very small plant in comparison." 'Ready, shoot, aim' Not long before the first drop of concrete was poured at Hanford's vitrification plant in the summer of 2002, the desert site was flush with optimism. "This really is a watershed year," said Harry Boston, the Energy Department's manager for the project at the time. "A lot of hard work has been done over many years and now we are in a position to reap the rewards." Today, construction essentially has stopped on two of the vitrification project's three main facilities. While 1,700 builders bustled there a year ago, that number has withered to about 375. The project has embraced a "design-build" strategy in which chunks of the facility are engineered and construction starts before the overall blueprint is completed. Critics call it the "ready, shoot, aim" approach, but supporters say it's a smart, accepted practice. Engineering problems have plagued the effort over the years. Last year, the government finally heeded earthquake-related concerns raised in 2002 by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board -- the independent government board charged with monitoring DOE programs. That again forced Bechtel engineers to review their plans to make sure the facility could withstand a potential temblor. Construction already had started, but because the plans were "conservative," Britton said, "we haven't had to tear anything down or do anything over." But fixes to some of the equipment may be necessary, said A.J. Eggenberger, the board's chairman. And more information about the area's earthquake potential is still needed, he said at last month's subcommittee hearing, resulting in "continued uncertainty." That keeps the cost estimates and timelines for completion on shaky ground. Bechtel's original contract was for a $4.3 billion project -- a figure that has ballooned since 2000, topping $11.3 billion. The causes for the price inflation and delays are many. First, the initial cost estimates were too low. Bechtel officials admit they overestimated the potential productivity of workers and engineers, failing to account for the decades that had passed since a large-scale, U.S. nuclear project was launched. The cost of concrete and steel shot up globally since the effort started. Original expectations for the amount of materials needed also were too low. The project underestimated technical challenges. The list goes on. To help correct for the setbacks, watchdogs are calling for more outside oversight, such as bringing in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- the national agency responsible for nuclear safety. There are calls to back off the design-build approach so that plans are closer to completion before the hammering begins. The GAO recommends that plans are 90 percent finished before building happens. Currently, they're 65 percent complete. Clearly, something needs to happen to keep Congress on board. At the April hearing, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said Congress was frustrated with Hanford's slow progress, usually driven "after we whack them in some way." "There's a lot of taxpayer money out here ...," he said. "In the private sector, we're concerned about timeliness, waste of money." In response to those concerns, Washington state lawmakers and Gov. Christine Gregoire have launched an aggressive charm campaign to calm the nerves of those holding the purse strings. This summer, another analysis is due from the Army Corps that will more definitely set the costs and timing for the project. Many folks are not expecting good news. "What we can't afford is another cut" in the vitrification plant budget, Gregoire said last week after meeting with Senate leaders and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "Every one of these delays costs us time, money and hurts the environment." ABOUT THE TANKS Single-shell * There are 149 single-shell storage tanks at Hanford. * They were built between 1943 and 1964. * They are at least 30 years past their life expectancy. * All liquid that can be pumped out has been transferred to double-shell tanks. * 67 tanks have leaked. * 30 million gallons of waste remain in the tanks Double-Shell * There are 28 double-shell tanks at Hanford. * They were built between 1968 and 1986. * Designed to last 25-50 years, the oldest are past their life expectancy. * None is known to have leaked. * 23 million gallons of waste remain in the tanks. HANFORD CLEANUP The public can comment on Hanford's planned in two ways: * Attend a public hearing May 9 at the Talaris Conference Center, 4000 N.E. 41st St. (near University Village). Open house at 6 p.m., discussion at 7 p.m. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/budget.htm">See an agenda. * Submit written comments to: The Department of Energy, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99352, or Theodore_E_Erik_Olds at orp.doe.gov or Karen_Lutz at rl.gov. ________________________________________ P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler at seattlepi.com. See the P-I's environment blog at www.datelineearth.com. ? 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon May 1 19:45:58 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:45:58 -0500 Subject: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] MILINET: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWkiyEA Message-ID: <002301c66d81$c73cd7e0$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> There are actually two "Stars and Stripes" newspapers. One is the overseas version and one is based in DC and has a distinct activist bent on a lot of issues. This is probably the DC based organization. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 5:56 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] MILINET: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA See how bad science spreads; now it has made Stars and Stripes, which has generally steered clear of the anti-DU crusaders nonsense. The science in question does not show that depleted uranium can damage DNA, but now that it is approaching a mainstream source to the troops, plenty will follow. Roger Helbig ----- Original Message ----- From: MAJUSMCRET at aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients: Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:43 AM Subject: MILINET: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA Mideast Stars and Stripes April 15, 2006 Study: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA DOD officials say exposure not a health risk to troops By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes WASHINGTON - Depleted uranium, used to harden vehicles and armor-piercing munitions, might cause damage to DNA in ways previously not understood by health officials, according to a recently released study from Northern Arizona University. The research could again raise questions about the military's use of depleted uranium, a practice Defense Department officials insist does not present health risks to troops. The dense metal is a by-product of the nuclear fuel enrichment process. Theories connecting Gulf War Syndrome to radiation exposure from uranium-laced battlefields have persisted for years. Defense Department studies show no lingering exposure danger, officials said. A 2004 study by the Defense Department concluded that the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are "very low" in combat situations. But the new study, conducted by biochemist Diane Stearns shows that, separate from any radiation risks, cells exposed to uranium can bond with the heavy metal particles. That biochemical reaction can cause genetic mutations, which in turn can curtail cell growth and potentially cause cancer. Stearns said the research is too preliminary to prove that uranium-treated ammunition can cause harmful side effects. "But it does raise the question of whether we're testing for the right things when we look at the health effects," she said. "If we're not seeing radioactivity in people being tested, maybe that's not what we should be looking for." If bullets coated with DU are used on a battlefield, their impact on a target could potentially send miniature metal fragments into the air. Stearns said her work shows the long-term effects on what those particles could do to the human cellular system have not been fully researched. A statement from the Defense Department on Friday said the department has investigated the toxic properties of uranium as a heavy metal, and that no evidence exists to show that that Gulf War veterans have suffered any chromosomal or genetic damage from DU exposure. "(Stearns') studies add another piece to the puzzle, but there is already a lot of information in this area," the statement said. Past studies reviewed by the Pentagon have shown that uranium at high levels can cause kidney damage in animal experiments, but have not shown a link between the lower levels of exposure from DU munitions and veterans' health. A Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center research team has been tracking 80 soldiers from the first Gulf War whose vehicles were peppered with DU rounds during combat, all of whom had some inhalation exposure to the heavy metal. Officials said that, to date, none of them has developed kidney problems or uranium-related cancers. In addition, the group has fathered 68 children, none of whom has birth defects. Still, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has been petitioning for more extensive testing on DU for more than a year, and recently called on Congress to renew discussions on the issue at a rally featuring Physicians for Social Responsibility and the punk-rock group Anti-Flag. "All I'm really asking for is an independent study," he said in an interview earlier this month. "It's clear this issue about the health effects is out there and floating around. But it's also clear the Pentagon does not want to study it." Last summer, McDermott introduced legislation which would mandate a series of research projects on the material's effects on troops, civilians and the environment. The bill hasn't moved since then. A Defense Department spokeswoman said a number of independent groups - including the United Nations, researchers from the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Rand Corporation - have all published studies in recent years supporting the Pentagon's conclusion that depleted uranium munitions are not a health risk for U.S. troops. Misinformation about the supposed dangers continues to be a problem, the spokesman said, despite the department's own extensive testing of troops. Since May 2003, 2,122 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who may have been exposed to DU have undergone radiation screenings. Only eight showed elevated levels, all of whom were still within prescribed health standards, and all of them had munitions fragments in their body at the time. Defense officials said they have no plans to phasing out the use of DU munitions or a ban on its use. _______________________________________________ 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/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon May 1 20:45:21 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 20:45:21 -0500 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, WashingtonState Se... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXktiEA Message-ID: <002801c66d8a$12f5c950$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I believe that most of the people pushing this are trying to do what they believe is best. They hear a clamoring from the anti-DU activists and they hear the other side and the middle-ground, the safe-ground seems to be what is proposed, but it is not. The one issue that needs to be considered is the very real harm caused by this unjustified and non-scientific focus on DU. This type of monitoring should not be done because of the very real harm this kind of unwarranted monitoring causes. First and foremost is the impact on the soldier and family. I have heard first-hand how the false claims that form the rationale for this monitoring impact these good people in real, measurable and treatable ways. Second, this constant drumbeat is diverting state and federal funds, resources and legislative energy from those projects that would actually improve the health and well-being of our soldiers and their families. These are very real and to my mind unacceptable costs. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP Colonel, USA(Ret) From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Mon May 1 22:56:19 2006 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 20:56:19 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> References: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20060501205253.02fe91b0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 11:20 AM 5/1/2006, Sandy Perle wrote: >This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I >know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final >product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State >Governor and others interviewed. ****************************************** May 1, 2006 My personal experience with "60-Minutes" has led me to believe that probably they first write their inflammatory story, and then they collect and select sound and picture bites to support their pre-planned thesis. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment University of California One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From ellison1 at localnet.com Tue May 2 04:14:04 2006 From: ellison1 at localnet.com (Karl Ellison) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray Exposure ? Message-ID: Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis treatments that began a year ago? (below) | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a prophylactic | hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this purpose; | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. | | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these prophylactic | hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. | | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings were 2.0 | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. We | exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd intercostal | space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these AP exposures were | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine required 165 | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. | | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can calculate the | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After the | exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light workout) for | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. | | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low dose | radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone which he sees | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He would like | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list of | references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. | | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial generated, | settings for the machine. | Best wishes, | Jay Caplan From krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil Tue May 2 07:53:33 2006 From: krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil (Krzesniak, Michael F) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 07:53:33 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma Irradiation Costs Message-ID: Radsafe, I am trying to find approximate costs charged for gamma irradiation, especially cobalt-60. Am mostly interested in US facilities and costs per hour or per dose. I was able to find on-line food sterilization costs as low as $1.00/kg. That seemed very low. thank you Michael Krzesniak Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter Code 6054 Bldg. 3059 300 Highway 361 Crane, IN 47522-5001 Ph: 812.854.6086 Fax: 812.854.3008 Email: krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Tue May 2 11:06:13 2006 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] How to clean-up Hanford in 60 minutes. Message-ID: <20060502160613.9908.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Sandy, First time, I have heard about Hanford from my professor in early 80's, he visited it in early 60's. My self, I have not been in Hanford but...I think that CH2M and a bunch of Bartlett techs ;-) would do the job and clean that place up in no time. How do I know? :-) Well, it was done in Rocky Flats, it took 4 years and under the cost (period) Lessons learned: Incentives is the motivation. Good day for everyone. Emil. Message: 11 Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:20:47 -0700 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50 at sandyfl.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Tue May 2 11:23:13 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 09:23:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: How to clean-up Hanford in 60 minutes. In-Reply-To: <20060502160613.9908.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44572501.22807.5A6FAFB@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Thanks Emil, One of the major problems has to do with the construction of new high level waste for storage, pumping the waste from degrading tanks to the new facilities. The new facilities have, for some of the work, been discontinued due to erroneous assumptions for the structure, erroneous specifications. I've been to Rocky Flats and their clean-up project was a scope significantly less than Hanford. Different issues, different solutions. While DOE spokes-person Andersen acknowledged errors, whether or not the 60 Minutes piece was slated, totally or partially, remains unanswered. Regards, Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Tue May 2 13:03:16 2006 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:03:16 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night References: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Sandy Perle wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Mon 5/1/2006 11:20 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ===================== I did not see the 60 minutes piece, having quit watching it and network news, in general, about 25 years ago, when CBS illustrated TMI with a graphic of a containment dome with a pan of water with a fire under it inside the dome and complemented that by introducing Ernest Sternglass as an expert commentator. Sternglass commented, "Run for the hills, you're all going to die", or words to that effect. The cause for the Vit plant stop work was new seismic information that suggested that parts of the plant might not designed (and in some cases already built) to rigorous enough seismic standards. Older Hanford buildings wera all built to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 2 standards. Hanford was generally considered a low seismic area, with an instrumental record of fairly frequent small (Richter 3 and change) onsite quakes and a Richter 5+ quake a few decades ago about 50 miles north at Smyrna on the other side of the Saddle Mountains anticline. An extended period of seismicity perhaps 5 to 15 million years ago is reflected in two separate families of anticlines/synclines, one East-West trending and the other Northwest-Southeast trending. Pretty quiet now, though. An interesting question mark on Hanford seismicity is the Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, a seismic feature that runs from the Olympic Peninsula, directly underneath the middle of the Seattle area, over Snoqualmie Pass (and, in all probability, the reason for the existence of Snoqualmie Pass), down through the upper Yakima River Valley, under several East-West trending anticlines, directly in front of Rattlesnake Mountain (on the Hanford site(, and on southeast under the Blue Mountains in Oregon, ending at the Wallowa Mountains in norhteastern Oregon. If you want to see geologists collectively scratching their heads, google "Olympic Wallowa Lineament". Nobody knows whether it will support current seismicity. I have placed my bets by building a house a couple hundred yards from the OWL. I haven't followed the details of the Vit plant seismic reanalysis, so I did a little digging. The most plausible description of the problem I found was in the minutes of the 14 April 2005 meeting of the Tank Waste Committee of the Hanford Advisory Board. The HAB is an interesting critter -- a collection of stakeholders comprising anti-nuclear activitists, Hanford site employees, and representatives of interested governmental and non-governmental organizations, including at least one RADSAFE contributor. The HAB committee reports are available at . Quoting from the HAB committee report: "Lew Miller, DOE-ORP, updated the committee on the seismic report for the WTP. He provided the context for seismic concerns, and explained how improvements in computer measuring techniques for measuring how earthquakes in other areas could impact the WTP have created the need for further analysis. The initial seismic study tried to model the 200 East and 200 West areas, using an assumption of 500 feet of sand and gravel beneath the sites. There is actually closer to 600 feet of sand and gravel under the WTP, which has an absorbing effect on earthquake impacts. Underneath the sand and gravel there are layers of basalt bedrock, with interspersed layers of mudstone and siltstone. The bedrock layers have an attenuating effect on earthquake impacts, however, no measurements were taken of seismic wave movements through these layers in the initial study. In 1996, the assumptions was that the layers are more like soldi bedrock; with the identified layers of mudstone and siltstone, the area of bedrock is now actually believed to attenuate earthquake impacts less. The new seismic report used models that accounted for the layers attenuating less, which amounts to a 40% increas in impacts where buildings are most sensitive." "Lew explained how DOE plans to utilize the new data in the design of the WTP to meet new seismic standards. Depending on what state the design is in determines what type of corrective action needs to be taken. Most design work that has been done is robust enough to account for new seismic data, so few changes need to be made in those areas." "A dynamic analysis will be coming out soon, which will model the entire building to show how an earthquake would impact the entire building. Modeling can also be done component by component to assess seismic impacts." Subsequent HAB committee meetings have focussed more on the budget and schedule impact of the seismic reanalysis. A comment on the rather trashy coverage by our local big-city newspapers and comments by our governor (who I voted for and rather like). Christine Gregoire sounds the alarm about tank waste in the groundwater and moving -- gasp -- toward the Columbia River. This is not science (well, perhaps, political science). The flow of the Columbia River is three to four orders of magnitude greater than the flow of Hanford groundwater into the Columbia. During all the years of Hanford contamination of the Columbia, radionuclide contamination has never been above EPA drinking water standards and will not be in the future. Hanford radionuclide contributions to the Columbia are in the noise of the natural radionuclides coming down out of the mountains. I am on a well now, but drank Columbia River water (downstream from Hanford) for 25 years. You should all have such nice water. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Tue May 2 13:31:29 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 14:31:29 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: Sandy, Jim et al. Same situation at Savannah River Site (SRS) ... the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) raised seismic issues re: the design and construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) at SRS ... resulting in at least a 2-year delay in facility startup, and an increase in life-cycle cost of more than $1 billion. Of particular interest to us are DOE's plans to implement a program called "Interim Salt Processing" to remove some of the lower activity salt-waste from HLW tanks, treat it so that it meets the concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and dispose of it on-site as grout inside near-surface vaults. I'm aware that DOE is working to revise plans ... the last numbers I saw indicated that 3,000,000 - 5,000,000 Ci of Cs-137 might be disposed on-site until the startup of SWPF. My $0.02 worth ... Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Dukelow, James S Jr" 5/2/2006 14:03:16 >>> Sandy Perle wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Mon 5/1/2006 11:20 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ===================== I did not see the 60 minutes piece, having quit watching it and network news, in general, about 25 years ago, when CBS illustrated TMI with a graphic of a containment dome with a pan of water with a fire under it inside the dome and complemented that by introducing Ernest Sternglass as an expert commentator. Sternglass commented, "Run for the hills, you're all going to die", or words to that effect. The cause for the Vit plant stop work was new seismic information that suggested that parts of the plant might not designed (and in some cases already built) to rigorous enough seismic standards. Older Hanford buildings wera all built to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 2 standards. Hanford was generally considered a low seismic area, with an instrumental record of fairly frequent small (Richter 3 and change) onsite quakes and a Richter 5+ quake a few decades ago about 50 miles north at Smyrna on the other side of the Saddle Mountains anticline. An extended period of seismicity perhaps 5 to 15 million years ago is reflected in two separate families of anticlines/synclines, one East-West trending and the other Northwest-Southeast trending. Pretty quiet now, though. An interesting question mark on Hanford seismicity is the Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, a seismic feature that runs from the Olympic Peninsula, directly underneath the middle of the Seattle area, over Snoqualmie Pass (and, in all probability, the reason for the existence of Snoqualmie Pass), down through the upper Yakima River Valley, under several East-West trending anticlines, directly in front of Rattlesnake Mountain (on the Hanford site(, and on southeast under the Blue Mountains in Oregon, ending at the Wallowa Mountains in norhteastern Oregon. If you want to see geologists collectively scratching their heads, google "Olympic Wallowa Lineament". Nobody knows whether it will support current seismicity. I have placed my bets by building a house a couple hundred yards from the OWL. I haven't followed the details of the Vit plant seismic reanalysis, so I did a little digging. The most plausible description of the problem I found was in the minutes of the 14 April 2005 meeting of the Tank Waste Committee of the Hanford Advisory Board. The HAB is an interesting critter -- a collection of stakeholders comprising anti-nuclear activitists, Hanford site employees, and representatives of interested governmental and non-governmental organizations, including at least one RADSAFE contributor. The HAB committee reports are available at . Quoting from the HAB committee report: "Lew Miller, DOE-ORP, updated the committee on the seismic report for the WTP. He provided the context for seismic concerns, and explained how improvements in computer measuring techniques for measuring how earthquakes in other areas could impact the WTP have created the need for further analysis. The initial seismic study tried to model the 200 East and 200 West areas, using an assumption of 500 feet of sand and gravel beneath the sites. There is actually closer to 600 feet of sand and gravel under the WTP, which has an absorbing effect on earthquake impacts. Underneath the sand and gravel there are layers of basalt bedrock, with interspersed layers of mudstone and siltstone. The bedrock layers have an attenuating effect on earthquake impacts, however, no measurements were taken of seismic wave movements through these layers in the initial study. In 1996, the assumptions was that the layers are more like soldi bedrock; with the identified layers of mudstone and siltstone, the area of bedrock is now actually believed to attenuate earthquake impacts less. The new seismic report used models that accounted for the layers attenuating less, which amounts to a 40% increas in impacts where buildings are most sensitive." "Lew explained how DOE plans to utilize the new data in the design of the WTP to meet new seismic standards. Depending on what state the design is in determines what type of corrective action needs to be taken. Most design work that has been done is robust enough to account for new seismic data, so few changes need to be made in those areas." "A dynamic analysis will be coming out soon, which will model the entire building to show how an earthquake would impact the entire building. Modeling can also be done component by component to assess seismic impacts." Subsequent HAB committee meetings have focussed more on the budget and schedule impact of the seismic reanalysis. A comment on the rather trashy coverage by our local big-city newspapers and comments by our governor (who I voted for and rather like). Christine Gregoire sounds the alarm about tank waste in the groundwater and moving -- gasp -- toward the Columbia River. This is not science (well, perhaps, political science). The flow of the Columbia River is three to four orders of magnitude greater than the flow of Hanford groundwater into the Columbia. During all the years of Hanford contamination of the Columbia, radionuclide contamination has never been above EPA drinking water standards and will not be in the future. Hanford radionuclide contributions to the Columbia are in the noise of the natural radionuclides coming down out of the mountains. I am on a well now, but drank Columbia River water (downstream from Hanford) for 25 years. You should all have such nice water. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV Tue May 2 13:57:13 2006 From: Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV (Conklin, Al (DOH)) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:57:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB247@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Jim covered the seismic issues well, and I didn't see the 60 minutes thing either, mostly for the same reasons Jim didn't. I do, however license the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant for radioactive air emissions (we regulate their controls and monitoring systems), having given them a construction authorization, which has been modified several times to accommodate changing design. We will ultimately issue an operational license (hopefully in my lifetime). I stay out of the politics, since I work for them here in Washington, but I can at least comment on the contractor (Bechtel National). I don't know if they've made seismic related design mistakes or not, but my dealings with them have been very positive. They are very proactive in getting design changes to us and working closely with us to keep the project going. They have been very professional and excellent to work with. We also work closely with the Department of Energy's Office of River Protection, who we also work closely with, and who seems to me to be trying to do the right thing the right way. I should also add that not all tank wastes will go through this plant. Some of the wastes are TRU and will be retrieved and go to WIPP. Some are low level wastes, which will go through supplemental technology. There are no plans to do anything with what has already leaked into the ground, but, as Jim said, once it hits the river, its so dilute, it can't be seen down stream. Plus most of the waste is tied up in the vadose zone below the tanks, so I question whether most of it will ever reach the river. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dukelow, James S Jr Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 11:03 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy Perle wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Mon 5/1/2006 11:20 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ===================== I did not see the 60 minutes piece, having quit watching it and network news, in general, about 25 years ago, when CBS illustrated TMI with a graphic of a containment dome with a pan of water with a fire under it inside the dome and complemented that by introducing Ernest Sternglass as an expert commentator. Sternglass commented, "Run for the hills, you're all going to die", or words to that effect. The cause for the Vit plant stop work was new seismic information that suggested that parts of the plant might not designed (and in some cases already built) to rigorous enough seismic standards. Older Hanford buildings wera all built to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 2 standards. Hanford was generally considered a low seismic area, with an instrumental record of fairly frequent small (Richter 3 and change) onsite quakes and a Richter 5+ quake a few decades ago about 50 miles north at Smyrna on the other side of the Saddle Mountains anticline. An extended period of seismicity perhaps 5 to 15 million years ago is reflected in two separate families of anticlines/synclines, one East-West trending and the other Northwest-Southeast trending. Pretty quiet now, though. An interesting question mark on Hanford seismicity is the Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, a seismic feature that runs from the Olympic Peninsula, directly underneath the middle of the Seattle area, over Snoqualmie Pass (and, in all probability, the reason for the existence of Snoqualmie Pass), down through the upper Yakima River Valley, under several East-West trending anticlines, directly in front of Rattlesnake Mountain (on the Hanford site(, and on southeast under the Blue Mountains in Oregon, ending at the Wallowa Mountains in norhteastern Oregon. If you want to see geologists collectively scratching their heads, google "Olympic Wallowa Lineament". Nobody knows whether it will support current seismicity. I have placed my bets by building a house a couple hundred yards from the OWL. I haven't followed the details of the Vit plant seismic reanalysis, so I did a little digging. The most plausible description of the problem I found was in the minutes of the 14 April 2005 meeting of the Tank Waste Committee of the Hanford Advisory Board. The HAB is an interesting critter -- a collection of stakeholders comprising anti-nuclear activitists, Hanford site employees, and representatives of interested governmental and non-governmental organizations, including at least one RADSAFE contributor. The HAB committee reports are available at . Quoting from the HAB committee report: "Lew Miller, DOE-ORP, updated the committee on the seismic report for the WTP. He provided the context for seismic concerns, and explained how improvements in computer measuring techniques for measuring how earthquakes in other areas could impact the WTP have created the need for further analysis. The initial seismic study tried to model the 200 East and 200 West areas, using an assumption of 500 feet of sand and gravel beneath the sites. There is actually closer to 600 feet of sand and gravel under the WTP, which has an absorbing effect on earthquake impacts. Underneath the sand and gravel there are layers of basalt bedrock, with interspersed layers of mudstone and siltstone. The bedrock layers have an attenuating effect on earthquake impacts, however, no measurements were taken of seismic wave movements through these layers in the initial study. In 1996, the assumptions was that the layers are more like soldi bedrock; with the identified layers of mudstone and siltstone, the area of bedrock is now actually believed to attenuate earthquake impacts less. The new seismic report used models that accounted for the layers attenuating less, which amounts to a 40% increas in impacts where buildings are most sensitive." "Lew explained how DOE plans to utilize the new data in the design of the WTP to meet new seismic standards. Depending on what state the design is in determines what type of corrective action needs to be taken. Most design work that has been done is robust enough to account for new seismic data, so few changes need to be made in those areas." "A dynamic analysis will be coming out soon, which will model the entire building to show how an earthquake would impact the entire building. Modeling can also be done component by component to assess seismic impacts." Subsequent HAB committee meetings have focussed more on the budget and schedule impact of the seismic reanalysis. A comment on the rather trashy coverage by our local big-city newspapers and comments by our governor (who I voted for and rather like). Christine Gregoire sounds the alarm about tank waste in the groundwater and moving -- gasp -- toward the Columbia River. This is not science (well, perhaps, political science). The flow of the Columbia River is three to four orders of magnitude greater than the flow of Hanford groundwater into the Columbia. During all the years of Hanford contamination of the Columbia, radionuclide contamination has never been above EPA drinking water standards and will not be in the future. Hanford radionuclide contributions to the Columbia are in the noise of the natural radionuclides coming down out of the mountains. I am on a well now, but drank Columbia River water (downstream from Hanford) for 25 years. You should all have such nice water. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue May 2 14:44:27 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E673@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <20060502194427.34462.qmail@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > Sandy, John, et al. > > I sent the 60 minutes piece because it was the > subject. We all know here that > the pejorative crap is typical media staging, > especially by the TV newsmags. > > > Here's another cut at the info, also rather biased. > But this and other > recent info/reports indicate that this seems to be > yet another DOE project > boondoggle. DOE hasn't shown any substantial > engineering and project > management ability since before Clinch River and > ERDA. > > See full article at: > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ==================== > > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html > > Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if > Congress will pay > Monday, May 1, 2006 > By LISA STIFFLER AND CHARLES POPE > P-I REPORTERS > > It's costing Americans $1.4 million a day to build a > facility to safely treat > millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste > stored in the Hanford > Nuclear Reservation's leak-prone underground tanks. > > [Related article > - Evidence of new leaks, group reports] > > > When the project is completed, the bill could total > $38 for every man, woman > and child in the nation -- that's if the $11.3 > billion price tag doesn't > swell even further. It has nearly tripled in less > than six years, making it a > massive taxpayer burden. > > This is a critical time for the project. An > increasingly impatient Congress > is now deciding how much money to contribute to the > effort -- considered the > most important step in the cleanup of the sprawling > desert site on the > Columbia River. Some fear lawmakers could simply > wash their hands of it and > walk away. > > "The whole house of cards is ready to collapse," > said Gerald Pollet, director > of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog > group. > ? > > [Photo File > ?These double-walled tanks at Hanford each hold 1 > million gallons of highly > radioactive nuclear waste from bomb making. Built in > 1984, they were later > covered with 5 feet of dirt. The liquid waste that's > inside them is slated to > be pumped out and turned into glass. > The challenge of safely disposing of 53 million > gallons of deadly waste left > over from decades of plutonium production has caused > the U.S. Department of > Energy and its contractors to stumble repeatedly.] > > > Weak -- even negligent -- management has pushed the > project's completion from > 2011 back to 2017 or later and driven costs up by > billions, according to > reports from government agencies, the Army Corps of > Engineers and watchdog > groups. > > At the same time, environmental and health risks are > mounting. The corrosive > waste weakens the walls of the tanks and the risk of > leaks keeps growing, > regulators admit. > > The federal officials running the Hanford cleanup > and their contractors > apologize for the delays and errors in cost > calculations. They promise to do > better. > > "Everything that I do on this project each day is to > identify with certainty > what the costs and schedule basis is, and to restore > confidence and > credibility in this project," said John Eschenberg, > the Energy Department's > manager for the project. > > Construction is under way on the massive > "vitrification" project, which one > day would turn the waste into a glassy compound that > will trap the > radioactive material for safe storage. But the > department's contractor -- > construction giant Bechtel National Inc. -- has had > to put the brakes on most > of the building due to safety and technical > problems. > > Countless additional factors have helped drive up > costs. They include the > initial miscalculation of the amount and cost of > materials needed for the > project and underestimation of the technical and > regulatory hurdles facing > the facility. In March, a team of experts identified > more than two dozen > issues that could prevent the plant from working as > planned. The plant was > expected to operate for nearly two decades. > > The mounting setbacks have sent state leaders > recently to Washington, D.C., > to beseech lawmakers to keep funding the costly > endeavor near Richland. > > Next week government officials will come to Seattle > to explain publicly how > much money is needed to support the Hanford cleanup, > including the > vitrification project, and to get feedback on where > it's being spent. > > The case is getting harder to make. Some worry > Congress or the Energy > Department could scrap the vitrification project, > perhaps opting to build new > storage tanks and putting the waste there. Another > option is using a cheaper, > but less safe, technology for treating the waste > plaguing Hanford -- a key > player in World War II's Manhattan Project. > Comments at an April 6 congressional hearing > examining Hanford's problems > heightened that fear. > > "I'm convinced now that after learning about the > failures of project > management, the neglect of nuclear safety quality > assurances and the > uncontrollable costs we will hear about today that > this project is on a fast > road to failure," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. > > Hobson's dark opinion is important because he chairs > the subcommittee > providing money for cleaning up Hanford and other > Energy Department plants. > > Everyone agrees the project is challenging. In the > decades since Hanford > fired up the first reactor in 1944, a mishmash of > waste has been dumped into > 177 tanks in the quest for weapons-grade plutonium. > The tanks -- which some > say may have leaked recently -- store millions of > gallons of chemically > complex liquids, sludge and chunky salt cake. > > Those responsible for problems with the > vitrification project frequently put > much of the blame on its unique nature. > > "After all, it was a first of a kind, never been > built anywhere in the world, > much less in the United States," Tom Hash, Bechtel's > president of systems and > infrastructure, told Hobson's subcommittee. > > That statement, however, was not entirely accurate. > > Savannah River echoes > > Hanford isn't the Energy Department's only > radioactive headache. > South Carolina's Savannah River Site was established > in the early 1950s to > produce plutonium and radioactive hydrogen to arm > nuclear weapons. > > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From uniqueproducts at comcast.net Tue May 2 15:28:31 2006 From: uniqueproducts at comcast.net (Jay Caplan) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:28:31 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 Message-ID: <19e301c66e26$faa46c10$6401a8c0@JAY> Dr. Ellison, Thank you for your inquiry. I have had calculations re this first exposure that it was approximately 4 R. Later smaller exposures I have used three times about 2 months apart beginning in the early fall were on a smaller machine at a more convenient location at a lower dosage, these were 70 kVP, 10 mA, 10 seconds, 90 cm from torso. I have been in perfect health without illness this entire year period. Anecdotally, I suspect immune function has been increased as there were two occasions over the year where I had low grade fevers in the evening for 2-3 days that never progressed into any illness or flu, almost like the fever had pre-empted the illness. Additionally, a bruise injury to the thigh generated a lot more swelling and a small evening fever for several days, when this type of injury never would have reacted this much pre-radiation. Best wishes, Jay Caplan > Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 > From: "Karl Ellison" > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray > Exposure ? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis > treatments that began a year ago? (below) > > | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a prophylactic > | hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I > | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this > purpose; > | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. > | > | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months > | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my > | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin > | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these prophylactic > | hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. > | > | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings were 2.0 > | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. We > | exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd intercostal > | space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these AP exposures were > | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine required > 165 > | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. > | > | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can calculate the > | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After the > | exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light workout) for > | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. > | > | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low dose > | radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone which he sees > | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He would like > | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list of > | references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I > | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. > | > | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial > generated, > | settings for the machine. > | Best wishes, > | Jay Caplan From sandyfl at earthlink.net Tue May 2 15:34:30 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:34:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB247@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <44575FE6.24682.68D1372@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Thanks Jim and Al. It was refreshing to see a another perspective, from those who also have access to real evidence. I was particularly interested Jim's comments regarding the Columbia and potential adverse effects for future generation's drinking water, as stated by Governor Christine Gregoire. It's too bad, but not unexpected, to not see both sides of an argument, based on data, and not just speculation. I've learned a lot, and I expect other have as well, and that is one of the purposes of Radsafe, to educate. Thanks again! Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Tue May 2 15:57:30 2006 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:57:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: John Jacobus wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. ================== What John says about the public might be true, but only because the public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk fashion, responding to the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and DOE. I am puzzled to be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly criticized for a number of sins of omission and commission over the years, but, if you look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number of worthwhile cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, ahead of schedule and under budget. To a certain extent they have been picking the low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- clean out of K-Basins, completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste through the Vit Plant, and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the Vit Plant -- will be significantly more difficult. The general approach, however, strikes me as reasonable. John, can you suggest a significant form of societal waste that has been better sequestered and has had LESS public health and environmental impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet Union, at least, which had a horrendous radwaste accident several decades ago? Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From loc at icx.net Tue May 2 16:25:22 2006 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:22 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED Message-ID: <4457CE42.6060909@icx.net> A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED on April 24. Called the CASEnergy Coalition, the group is cochaired by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. CASEnergy (short for "clean and safe energy") describes itself as a "large, diverse group that will work to unite consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations, business groups, professional organizations, family advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders who support nuclear energy's ability to enhance America's energy security, attain cleaner air, and improve the quality of life, health, and economic well-being for all Americans." More information is available at the organization's Web site, . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News From loc at icx.net Tue May 2 16:30:50 2006 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit Message-ID: <4457CF8A.4090402@icx.net> Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 3 01:04:30 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED Message-ID: <004f01c66e79$8ff2f3c0$61405142@roger1> California introduces legislation encouraging moratorium on use of DU, probably not worth the paper it might be printed on, but totally infused with false premises. I became aware of it thanks to Steve Sugarman, Executive Director of umbrella non-profit International Humanities Center which provides funding to the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund which claims that Afghani children have birth defects due to US use of DU munitions and from the "multi-pronged remedial containment" at the end of this blurb that solicits donations really seems to just be a scam. http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html (what munition is depicted in the photo on this page .. does it even contain DU?) - it looks like some sort of laser guided smart bomb. Afghan DU & Recovery Fund is established to clean DU (depleted uranium) from areas in Afghanistan bombed by the US-UK forces. Our goal is to establish monitoring stations for monitoring uranium dust in Afghanistan and pave the way for ameliorative actions amounting to cleanup. We have formulated a strategy that would constitute a new approach to the 'cleanup' of such disasters. In fact, the word 'cleanup' has no operational value in this scenario; hence, we call our approach a Multi-Prong Remedial Containment. : www.afghandufund.org Roger Helbig http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104_introduced.html From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 3 07:41:42 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <44561508.16619.180F0E7@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060503124142.80691.qmail@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE > spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you > have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that > they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years > added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still > continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I > saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know > more of the > intimate details. I am sure that this episode will > attract more > negative media attention, also considering the > Chernobyl 20th > Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov Mon May 1 13:30:04 2006 From: edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:30:04 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDB96@orsnewea002.fda.gov> I believe the only impairment is from people using them while driving. They are concentrating on their calls and not the road. FDA has done studies on the cell phone and found no effects. I agree with Susan Gawarecki on the risks. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:10 PM To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 3 07:48:20 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503124820.97624.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, >From the prespective of a tax paying citizen, I have not impressed with milestones. I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. As a health physicist, I recognize that the risks are small. Nevertheless, as a health physicist I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. (These comments are mine. My employer and spouse have no idea what I am up to.) --- "Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote: > > John Jacobus wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Jim, > I would say it is hard to convince people that we > know how to handle > nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. > > ================== > > What John says about the public might be true, but > only because the > public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk > fashion, responding to > the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and > DOE. I am puzzled to > be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly > criticized for a > number of sins of omission and commission over the > years, but, if you > look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number > of worthwhile > cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, > ahead of schedule and > under budget. To a certain extent they have been > picking the > low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- > clean out of K-Basins, > completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste > through the Vit Plant, > and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the > Vit Plant -- will be > significantly more difficult. The general approach, > however, strikes me > as reasonable. > > John, can you suggest a significant form of societal > waste that has been > better sequestered and has had LESS public health > and environmental > impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet > Union, at least, > which had a horrendous radwaste accident several > decades ago? > > Best regards. > > Jim Dukelow > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory > Richland, WA > Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed > and/or approved by my > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV Wed May 3 09:56:33 2006 From: Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV (Conklin, Al (DOH)) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:56:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ From Danb at DNFSB.GOV Wed May 3 11:15:38 2006 From: Danb at DNFSB.GOV (Dan Burnfield) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:15:38 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <44589EEA.0EE1.00C8.0@DNFSB.GOV> I would agree with Al, Environmentally things are improving at Hanford. It is slow progress but there is progress. There is a much bigger more insidious problem lurking here. Looking at the major nuclear construction projects that have been scheduled over the past several years, most have experienced significant safety related problems. Many of these problems seem to be caused by a lack of an adequate nuclear construction contractor base. If we are having trouble building chemical plants to treat waste, experimental laboratories, and warehouses, we better be ready to put significant technical oversight into reactor plant construction. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov >>> "Conklin, Al (DOH)" 5/3/2006 10:56:33 am >>> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ From hflong at pacbell.net Wed May 3 14:23:00 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit In-Reply-To: <4457CF8A.4090402@icx.net> Message-ID: <20060503192300.3396.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Fear of nuclear annialhation - then and now- motivates actions to prevent worse problems. Preventive medicine is not as much appreciated as pain relief. Cleaning up Hanford or Iraq or Iran is likely less than evils prevented. Howard Long Susan Gawarecki wrote: Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 3 14:38:18 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <20060503193818.42908.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Al, Thanks for personal prespective and updating. --- "Conklin, Al (DOH)" wrote: > The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they > used to be. While > DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat > haphazardly over > much of Hanford's history since World War II, things > are no longer as > bad as they once were. > > 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The > standing liquids have > been removed so further leakage will be minor until > the waste can be > removed. > > Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 > tanks have been > pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks > also. As funding > improves, they have plans in place to do them big > time, running the > waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and > store in double shell > tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They > may have to build a > few additional tanks). > > Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch > list, for explosive > levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other > constituents that > made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. > That has been > resolved. > > Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of > the waste close to the > Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in > the middle of the site > in lined trenches. > > TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped > to WIPP. > > I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a > position of defending > DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I > regulate them (and > used to work for them). They used to be absolutely > dismal in the 70s and > 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, > most are anyway). > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM > To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Sandy, > What I consider important is that after X number of > years, we still have > the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in > sight. > > --- Sandy Perle wrote: > > > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > > > I think the real issue was > > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > > contract oversight. > > > > John, > > > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE > spokes-person didn't > > do himself any favours when he stated that when > you have these large > > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that > they were talking > > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 > years added on after > > scrapping most of the work due to lack of > "correct" > > specifications > > and non-approval of the construction, while still > continuing with > > construction. > > > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what > I saw. THere are > > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know > more of the intimate > > > details. I am sure that this episode will attract > more negative media > > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th > Anniversary. > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to > live in New York City." > ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay > College of Criminal > Justice, on murder trends in the city. > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed May 3 15:57:37 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:57:37 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated Message-ID: <4458B6D1.20709.BC8CF99@sandyfl.earthlink.net> The most current agenda for the upcoming 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference is now posted at: http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Draft%20Agenda.htm ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed May 3 16:02:52 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:02:52 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CORRECTED LINK: 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated In-Reply-To: <4458B6D1.20709.BC8CF99@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4458B80C.29123.BCD9D6A@sandyfl.earthlink.net> http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Agenda.htm ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From stanford at stanforddosimetry.com Wed May 3 16:15:29 2006 From: stanford at stanforddosimetry.com (Neill Stanford) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:15:29 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium andNational Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated In-Reply-To: <4458B6D1.20709.BC8CF99@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <014401c66ef6$b6646200$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> I think that this link works better: http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Agenda.htm Neill Stanford, CHP ----------------------------------------------------- Stanford Dosimetry, LLC NEW ADDRESS Feb 27 2315 Electric Ave. Bellingham, WA 98229 www.stanforddosimetry.com 360 527-2627 (voice) 360 715 1982 (fax) 360 770-7778 (cell) ------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:58 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium andNational Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated The most current agenda for the upcoming 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference is now posted at: http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Draft%20Agenda.htm ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From srh at esper.com Wed May 3 19:04:56 2006 From: srh at esper.com (Shawn Hughes (Road2)) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:04:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 Message-ID: Did you do that with photoshop??? If you composited the images, they are EXCELLENT. If you stuck a gnome in your field, then its' just funny. If either the gnome or the field wasn't yours, then it was cool. Extra points for nudity..... You should consider a series two where miniG pokes the gnome with a rifle or something! -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl Sent: None To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 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. Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 (Jay Caplan) 2. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Sandy Perle) 3. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dukelow, James S Jr) 4. A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED (Susan Gawarecki) 5. More on Hanford - GAO audit (Susan Gawarecki) 6. AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED (Roger Helbig) 7. Re: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 8. RE: Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' (Baratta, Edmond J) 9. Re: On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... (James Salsman) 10. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 11. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Conklin, Al (DOH)) 12. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dan Burnfield) 13. Re: More on Hanford - GAO audit (howard long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:28:31 -0500 From: "Jay Caplan" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 To: , Message-ID: <19e301c66e26$faa46c10$6401a8c0 at JAY> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dr. Ellison, Thank you for your inquiry. I have had calculations re this first exposure that it was approximately 4 R. Later smaller exposures I have used three times about 2 months apart beginning in the early fall were on a smaller machine at a more convenient location at a lower dosage, these were 70 kVP, 10 mA, 10 seconds, 90 cm from torso. I have been in perfect health without illness this entire year period. Anecdotally, I suspect immune function has been increased as there were two occasions over the year where I had low grade fevers in the evening for 2-3 days that never progressed into any illness or flu, almost like the fever had pre-empted the illness. Additionally, a bruise injury to the thigh generated a lot more swelling and a small evening fever for several days, when this type of injury never would have reacted this much pre-radiation. Best wishes, Jay Caplan > Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 > From: "Karl Ellison" > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray > Exposure ? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis > treatments that began a year ago? (below) > > | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a > | prophylactic hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I > | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this > purpose; > | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. > | > | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months > | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my > | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin > | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these > | prophylactic hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. > | > | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings > | were 2.0 > | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. > | We exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd > | intercostal space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these > | AP exposures were > | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine > | required > 165 > | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. > | > | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can > | calculate the > | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After > | the exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light > | workout) for > | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. > | > | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low > | dose radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone > | which he sees > | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He > | would like > | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list > | of references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I > | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. > | > | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial > generated, > | settings for the machine. > | Best wishes, > | Jay Caplan ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:34:30 -0700 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" , , "Conklin, Al \DDOH\"" Message-ID: <44575FE6.24682.68D1372 at sandyfl.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Thanks Jim and Al. It was refreshing to see a another perspective, from those who also have access to real evidence. I was particularly interested Jim's comments regarding the Columbia and potential adverse effects for future generation's drinking water, as stated by Governor Christine Gregoire. It's too bad, but not unexpected, to not see both sides of an argument, based on data, and not just speculation. I've learned a lot, and I expect other have as well, and that is one of the purposes of Radsafe, to educate. Thanks again! Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:57:30 -0700 From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: John Jacobus , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii John Jacobus wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. ================== What John says about the public might be true, but only because the public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk fashion, responding to the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and DOE. I am puzzled to be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly criticized for a number of sins of omission and commission over the years, but, if you look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number of worthwhile cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, ahead of schedule and under budget. To a certain extent they have been picking the low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- clean out of K-Basins, completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste through the Vit Plant, and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the Vit Plant -- will be significantly more difficult. The general approach, however, strikes me as reasonable. John, can you suggest a significant form of societal waste that has been better sequestered and has had LESS public health and environmental impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet Union, at least, which had a horrendous radwaste accident several decades ago? Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:22 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CE42.6060909 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED on April 24. Called the CASEnergy Coalition, the group is cochaired by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. CASEnergy (short for "clean and safe energy") describes itself as a "large, diverse group that will work to unite consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations, business groups, professional organizations, family advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders who support nuclear energy's ability to enhance America's energy security, attain cleaner air, and improve the quality of life, health, and economic well-being for all Americans." More information is available at the organization's Web site, . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CF8A.4090402 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700 From: "Roger Helbig" Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED To: "radsafelist" Message-ID: <004f01c66e79$8ff2f3c0$61405142 at roger1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" California introduces legislation encouraging moratorium on use of DU, probably not worth the paper it might be printed on, but totally infused with false premises. I became aware of it thanks to Steve Sugarman, Executive Director of umbrella non-profit International Humanities Center which provides funding to the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund which claims that Afghani children have birth defects due to US use of DU munitions and from the "multi-pronged remedial containment" at the end of this blurb that solicits donations really seems to just be a scam. http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html (what munition is depicted in the photo on this page .. does it even contain DU?) - it looks like some sort of laser guided smart bomb. Afghan DU & Recovery Fund is established to clean DU (depleted uranium) from areas in Afghanistan bombed by the US-UK forces. Our goal is to establish monitoring stations for monitoring uranium dust in Afghanistan and pave the way for ameliorative actions amounting to cleanup. We have formulated a strategy that would constitute a new approach to the 'cleanup' of such disasters. In fact, the word 'cleanup' has no operational value in this scenario; hence, we call our approach a Multi-Prong Remedial Containment. : www.afghandufund.org Roger Helbig http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104_int roduced.html ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: Sandy Perle , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124142.80691.qmail at web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE > spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you > have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that > they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years > added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still > continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I > saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know > more of the > intimate details. I am sure that this episode will > attract more > negative media attention, also considering the > Chernobyl 20th > Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:30:04 -0400 From: "Baratta, Edmond J" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' To: "'John Jacobus'" , "Susan Gawarecki" , "RADSAFE" Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDB96 at orsnewea002.fda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain I believe the only impairment is from people using them while driving. They are concentrating on their calls and not the road. FDA has done studies on the cell phone and found no effects. I agree with Susan Gawarecki on the risks. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:10 PM To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 9 Date: 29 Apr 2006 21:06:31 -0000 From: James Salsman Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060429210631.92772.qmail at bovik.org> > if they are asymptomatic, what treatment would you give them? A good first step would be to stop assuming that aerosol dusts are the only route of uranium oxide exposure, and start testing for signs and symptoms of uranyl oxide gas, which disperses further and in very different patterns than the aerosol. In the opinion of uranium oxidation expert Carl Alexander, who has been publishing scientific studies of uranium trioxide gas since 1960, the UO3 gas is the most likely combustion product, stable, and likely toxic. We won't know until the authorities consider the possibility -- why haven't they after all these decades? Sincerely, James Salsman ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124820.97624.qmail at web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Jim, >From the prespective of a tax paying citizen, I have not impressed with milestones. I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. As a health physicist, I recognize that the risks are small. Nevertheless, as a health physicist I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. (These comments are mine. My employer and spouse have no idea what I am up to.) --- "Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote: > > John Jacobus wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Jim, > I would say it is hard to convince people that we > know how to handle > nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. > > ================== > > What John says about the public might be true, but > only because the > public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk > fashion, responding to > the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and > DOE. I am puzzled to > be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly > criticized for a > number of sins of omission and commission over the > years, but, if you > look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number > of worthwhile > cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, > ahead of schedule and > under budget. To a certain extent they have been > picking the > low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- > clean out of K-Basins, > completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste > through the Vit Plant, > and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the > Vit Plant -- will be > significantly more difficult. The general approach, > however, strikes me > as reasonable. > > John, can you suggest a significant form of societal > waste that has been > better sequestered and has had LESS public health > and environmental > impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet > Union, at least, > which had a horrendous radwaste accident several > decades ago? > > Best regards. > > Jim Dukelow > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory > Richland, WA > Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed > and/or approved by my > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:56:33 -0700 From: "Conklin, Al \(DOH\)" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "John Jacobus" , "Sandy Perle" , Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 12 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:15:38 -0400 From: "Dan Burnfield" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Al Conklin" , Message-ID: <44589EEA.0EE1.00C8.0 at DNFSB.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I would agree with Al, Environmentally things are improving at Hanford. It is slow progress but there is progress. There is a much bigger more insidious problem lurking here. Looking at the major nuclear construction projects that have been scheduled over the past several years, most have experienced significant safety related problems. Many of these problems seem to be caused by a lack of an adequate nuclear construction contractor base. If we are having trouble building chemical plants to treat waste, experimental laboratories, and warehouses, we better be ready to put significant technical oversight into reactor plant construction. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov >>> "Conklin, Al (DOH)" 5/3/2006 10:56:33 am >>> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: howard long Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: Susan Gawarecki , RADSAFE Message-ID: <20060503192300.3396.qmail at web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Fear of nuclear annialhation - then and now- motivates actions to prevent worse problems. Preventive medicine is not as much appreciated as pain relief. Cleaning up Hanford or Iraq or Iran is likely less than evils prevented. Howard Long Susan Gawarecki wrote: Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 ************************************** From lmatthews at isoray.com Thu May 4 16:05:04 2006 From: lmatthews at isoray.com (Lemuel Matthews) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:05:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <22CDE3A23A396645BDBCEC163D92E38221371A@isomail1.isoray.net> Hello; I spent seven years on the site under 2 different contractors and am now thankfully private sector. I did not see the report but there are two facts that are germain. 1. No news program will say something that will cause their audience to change channels regardless of any inconveniences like the truth. 2. DOE is purely a politically based beauracrocy. To say DOE is inefficient would be extremly kind. I could not sleep at night towards the end of my stay due to pangs of conscience both as a health physics professional and as a taxpayer. Based purely on what I imagine a waste of time like 60 minutes would say about DOE I would imagine %99 of it to be correct. Hanford cleanup is not without its accomplishments such as stabilization of the discharge ponds and reactor entombment. I will not venture to guess what the future health effects of workers will be or the multiple that would describe the inflated costs. Anyone detect a note of bitterness? Lemuel Matthews From kulpjb at wsu.edu Thu May 4 17:33:54 2006 From: kulpjb at wsu.edu (Kulp, Jeffrey B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:33:54 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Glove box qualification Message-ID: All, The institution I work for has a user of radioactive materials who wants to use transuranic isotopes in highly concentrated acid in a glove box. Does anyone out there have any suggestions for where I might go to find specifications for testing the glove box (i.e. vacuum drop test, or hydrostatic test)? What materials should be avoided due to the acidic environment? Are there any other things I should be aware of? Thanks, Jeff Kulp Health Physicist Washington State University Radiation Safety Office Pullman, WA 99164 (509) 335-8175 From dgranber at net-link.net Thu May 4 20:38:38 2006 From: dgranber at net-link.net (Dick Granberg) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 21:38:38 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition Message-ID: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> I was contacted by a retired Air Force pilot looking for some help in trying to make a case for getting his emphysema-related condition recognized as service-connected (he is a non-smoker). He suspects that radiation exposure from his duties in the 1960's as a pilot on atmospheric test plume sampling missions contributed to the condition. He stated that they were not provided film badges or other monitors, but did have a meter of some sort in the cockpit so they knew when they were in the plume. He said he was turned down once, and is looking for some technical support from the HP community. From what he told me, I don't think he's going to be successful in relating the condition to radiation exposure, but weapons testing hasn't been one of my areas. I wonder if there is someone in Radsafe land who is either familiar enough with his specific exposure situation to help him resolve this in his mind, or knows of a specific individual or office that he should be in contact with? I'd like to give him some type of helpful feedback. Thanks, Dick Granberg dgranber at net-link.net From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Thu May 4 20:59:56 2006 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 21:59:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition In-Reply-To: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> References: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> Message-ID: <445AB19C.7040008@chartertn.net> Dick Granberg wrote: >I was contacted by a retired Air Force pilot looking for some help in trying to make a case for getting his emphysema-related condition recognized as service-connected (he is a non-smoker). He suspects that radiation exposure from his duties in the 1960's as a pilot on atmospheric test plume sampling missions contributed to the condition. He stated that they were not provided film badges or other monitors, but did have a meter of some sort in the cockpit so they knew when they were in the plume. > >He said he was turned down once, and is looking for some technical support from the HP community. From what he told me, I don't think he's going to be successful in relating the condition to radiation exposure, but weapons testing hasn't been one of my areas. I wonder if there is someone in Radsafe land who is either familiar enough with his specific exposure situation to help him resolve this in his mind, or knows of a specific individual or office that he should be in contact with? I'd like to give him some type of helpful feedback. > >Thanks, > >Dick Granberg >dgranber at net-link.net >_______________________________________________ >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/ > > > Based on my experience measuring filters from sampling missions in the late 50's, I would guess that since he was the pilot and not the guy switching filters and marking and labeling and storing, then carrying them to the analytical lab, he got very little exposure. Those doing the filter changing were badged as I recall. It also depends on where he was stationed and what type of sampling he was doing. For my part, I never saw samples that were hot enough to cause a radiation area to be posted. Some were very interesting, though. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From edaxon at satx.rr.com Thu May 4 21:23:46 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 21:23:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWkyCEA Message-ID: <000001c66fea$effe5210$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Compensation is a VA issue. The DoD is required to provide the VA with the information concerning exposure so the VA can make a determination of service related or not using probability of causation. He qualifies as an atomic veteran and should contact the Defense Threat Reduction Agency http://www.dtra.mil/ and they will enroll him in their program and will reconstruct his dose. The VA is very lenient on how it uses PC tables but this one is unlikely because, the last time I checked an emphysema-related condition is not radiogenic. Eric Daxon From Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au Thu May 4 22:25:18 2006 From: Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au (Rogers Brent) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:25:18 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: experts debate economic viability of new nuclear power plants Message-ID: The following is public domain, published by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Links to the first two articles in the series are posted under "See also:" at the bottom of the piece. No need to reply to me, I'm merely passing it on... Regards Brent Rogers Manager Radiation Operations Unit NSW Environment Protection Authority Department of Environment and Conservation *+61 2 9995 5986 *+61 2 9995 6603 * PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 WASHINGTON FILE U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs 04 May 2006 Experts Debate Economic Viability of New Nuclear Power Plants Proponents of nuclear energy argue for initial government subsidies By Andrzej Zwaniecki Washington File Staff Writer This is the third in a series of articles on nuclear energy. Washington -- As the nuclear power industry moves forward with plans to expand its reach into the U.S. energy market, a debate on whether the new plants will be viable economically continues. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy industry group, nuclear power plants planned for construction in the next decade will be competitive with other electricity sources. "Once we get past the uncertainties and some of the hurdles associated with first-of-a-kind construction, nuclear can be seen as a very competitive technology," Steve Kerekes, a NEI spokesman said in a March 23 interview. Many experts support the industry's view. A 2004 study by the University of Chicago concluded that new nuclear power plants are economically competitive with other types of large-scale electricity generation once initial engineering costs are absorbed, construction experience gained and other near-term financing issues resolved. CAPITAL COSTS AND PUBLIC GOOD Those opposed to nuclear energy, however, question whether the industry will ever be competitive because of high construction costs. "I don't think there will be a lot of capacity added because of [high capital] costs," Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a separate March interview. These costs range from $1,400 to $2,000 per kilowatt (kW), according to various sources. Thus, building a 1,000 megawatt (MW) plant would require at least $1.4 billion-$2.0 billion in initial costs. With multiple orders for nuclear reactors, however, capital costs can be brought down to $1,100-$1,200 per kW, Kerekes said. By comparison, capital costs for coal-fired plants are around $1,300 per kW and those of gas-fired plants around $600 per kW, according to industries' sources. Kerekes said nuclear power capital costs are comparable with those of clean-coal technology designed to produce electricity with few harmful emissions. (Nuclear power produces no harmful emissions.) The investors and utilities that order new plants also consider production costs, which for nuclear power, mostly due to lower fuel costs, are a bit below those of coal-fired plants and roughly about one-third of gas-fired plants, he said. Industry analyses indicate that in the United States nuclear power can be competitive with electricity generated from natural gas when gas prices go over $5 - $6 per million British thermal units (Btu). In recent months, these prices have consistently exceeded $7 per million Btu. A 2005 study by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency concluded that in countries that consider commissioning new nuclear plants by 2010-2015, nuclear electricity is the cheapest potential energy source nearly everywhere. Andrew Paterson, an Energy Department policy analyst, says another factor should be added to cost analysis. In an April 20 interview, he argued that public good created by nuclear power in the form of reduced air pollution should be priced and included in cost estimates to make comparisons among energy sources genuinely fair. Financial markets, which for a long time have ignored nuclear power, have been showing more enthusiasm for the industry since it consolidated and became competitive. Stocks of leading nuclear-energy companies such as Exelon and Entergy have been rising, and some financial analyses view the industry's expansion as inevitable. "It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear plants," Fitch Ratings Ltd., a leading global credit rating agency, said in a March report. "Now, the discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and when." CASE FOR SUBSIDIES Some environmental groups argue, however, that the industry is in a position to grow only because the federal government, by providing subsidies, distorts market forces and gives it an unfair competitive edge over clean-energy rivals. "The [energy] companies recognize that if they make no commitment to build a new [nuclear] plant, the administration will continue to feed them with an ever-increasing sum of taxpayer-supported largesse," Cochran said in 2005 remarks. Amory Lovins, the head of Rocky Mountain Institute, said in a 2005 commentary that these subsidies amount to a government "bail-out" of a "failed but still powerful industry." But James Muckerheide, a nuclear engineer and professor at the Worchester Polytechnical Institute in Massachusetts, argues that the U.S. government heavily was involved in large infrastructure projects before, including The Tennessee Valley Authority, which in the 1930s brought electricity to thousands of mostly rural residents. Paterson said government financing for the first few new reactors is necessary to help the industry address the risks regulated by the government such as commissioning and regulatory uncertainties. He said other forms of energy development also are subsidized, some of them heavily, including oil exploration and renewable energy. The U.S. government has invested billions of dollars in solar research since the 1970s and offered production tax credits for wind power since 1992. See also "Nuclear Gaining Favor as Clean Energy Source for World" http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/May/03-382182.html and "U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Sees Expansion in Near Future" http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/May/03-212802.html. For additional information, see Energy Policy http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/global_issues/energy_policy.html. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). From cwbecker at umich.edu Thu May 4 23:07:39 2006 From: cwbecker at umich.edu (Christopher W. Becker) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 00:07:39 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Looking for Type A Package for Liquids (Tritium) Message-ID: <000001c66ff9$7bcb2ad0$6501a8c0@Office> All, Looking in the US for a Type A package or overpack for 55 gallon drums of tritium loaded heavy water. Any suggestions on a "off the shelf product" or Type A overpack. All assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Respectfully, Christopher W. Becker Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Manager University of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor - Phoenix Memorial Laboratory Ann Arbor, Michigan Phone: 734.764.6224 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 5 07:29:33 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition In-Reply-To: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> Message-ID: <20060505122933.63818.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Dick, Here is some information that may help. http://www.va.gov/pressrel/radfs02.htm Of couse, there are other risk factors for developing emphysema. http://www.lung.ca/diseases-maladies/a-z/emphysema-emphyseme/index_e.php http://www.emedicinehealth.com/emphysema/page2_em.htm http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/e/emphysema/causes.htm --- Dick Granberg wrote: > I was contacted by a retired Air Force pilot looking > for some help in trying to make a case for getting > his emphysema-related condition recognized as > service-connected (he is a non-smoker). He suspects > that radiation exposure from his duties in the > 1960's as a pilot on atmospheric test plume sampling > missions contributed to the condition. He stated > that they were not provided film badges or other > monitors, but did have a meter of some sort in the > cockpit so they knew when they were in the plume. > > He said he was turned down once, and is looking for > some technical support from the HP community. From > what he told me, I don't think he's going to be > successful in relating the condition to radiation > exposure, but weapons testing hasn't been one of my > areas. I wonder if there is someone in Radsafe land > who is either familiar enough with his specific > exposure situation to help him resolve this in his > mind, or knows of a specific individual or office > that he should be in contact with? I'd like to give > him some type of helpful feedback. > > Thanks, > > Dick Granberg > dgranber at net-link.net > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Douglas.Minnema at nnsa.doe.gov Fri May 5 08:31:32 2006 From: Douglas.Minnema at nnsa.doe.gov (Minnema, Douglas) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:31:32 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Glove box qualification Message-ID: <38982F237333D5119E6100508BB0CC6D0CA76F93@nsgtnexch1.ns.doe.gov> Jeff, I haven't seen it discussed much here on RADSAFE, but there is an organization that I'm sure can help you - the American Glovebox Society (AGS). Try http://www.gloveboxsociety.org/. They develop industry consensus standards (I'm on the committee) for both radiological and non-rad glovebox applications, have a very broad international membership including vendors, and are happy to provide any assistance they can. In your case, they are working on testing standards, but they also have a guideline book that provides all sorts of information that will be helpful to you. Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP NNSA US DOE -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Kulp, Jeffrey B Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:34 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Glove box qualification All, The institution I work for has a user of radioactive materials who wants to use transuranic isotopes in highly concentrated acid in a glove box. Does anyone out there have any suggestions for where I might go to find specifications for testing the glove box (i.e. vacuum drop test, or hydrostatic test)? What materials should be avoided due to the acidic environment? Are there any other things I should be aware of? Thanks, Jeff Kulp Health Physicist Washington State University Radiation Safety Office Pullman, WA 99164 (509) 335-8175 _______________________________________________ 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/ From roseb at gdls.com Fri May 5 08:42:36 2006 From: roseb at gdls.com (roseb at gdls.com) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:42:36 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Question about a service-connected condition - Ext. vs Int. Expose Meas. Message-ID: 05/04/2006 09:59 PM John Andrews wrote: >Based on my experience measuring filters from sampling missions in the late 50's, I would guess that since he was the pilot and not the guy switching filters and marking and labeling and storing, then carrying them to the analytical lab, he got very little exposure. Those doing the filter changing were badged as I recall. >It also depends on where he was stationed and what type of sampling he was doing. For my part, I never saw samples that were hot enough to cause a radiation area to be posted. Some were very interesting, though. John: The pilot as a member of the flight crew flying through the plume under study, could have been exposed to airborne concentrations of radioactive contaminant. Pressurization and breathing air is supplied to the aircraft (assuming the aircraft was pressurized) from the compressor stage of a jet engine, or the supercharger of a reciprocating engine. Either means of air supply to the aircraft would have drawn and concentrated contaminated air from the plume. It would seem that whatever the sampling filters collected, the flight crews would be exposed to the same contamination collected by the sample filters. Although flight crews and support personnel might have been "badged" with either film badges, sealed ionization chambers (pocket dosimeters), or other dosimeters, or a "radiation meter" for external radiation exposure, such dosimeters would not have necessarily been effective in accounting for internal exposures. Other than obtain dosimeter readings for the flight crews, did the Air Force, Army, Navy, or other agencies that were doing similar plume sampling conduct any post-mission contamination surveys of the aircraft (cabin or exterior), the crew air masks, or, were any internal dosimetry studies of aircrews involved in collecting plume samples performed? (Obviously, I have not done a search of the literature on this subject!) A sample would not necessarily have to be "... hot enough to cause a radiation area to be posted...." to preclude individuals breathing in air from the plume from receiving intakes and uptakes of contamination from the plume. Henry Rose Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist Corporate Radiation Safety Officer General Dynamics Land Systems 38500 Mound Road Mail Zone 436-10-75 Sterling Heights, MI 48310-3269 Tel: 586 825 4503 Fax: 586 825 4015 E-mail: roseb at gdls.com This is an e-mail from General Dynamics Land Systems. It is for the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and privileged information. No one else may read, print, store, copy, forward or act in reliance on it or its attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, please return this message to the sender and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Your cooperation is appreciated. From srh at esper.com Fri May 5 10:17:11 2006 From: srh at esper.com (Shawn Hughes (Road2)) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:17:11 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: gnome pictures Message-ID: Ah, Apparently, this email somehow got sent to all of you. I apologize for the comments, and hope I haven't interrupted everyone's day too much. I've seen where others have done this, and always thought it amusing. Now I have the right to laugh at them.... Apologies all, and returning to lurking. -Shawn Hello Shawn, I'm curious as to what pictures you are referring to? You've peaked my interest. Thanks, xxx -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Shawn Hughes (Road2) Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 8:05 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 Did you do that with photoshop??? If you composited the images, they are EXCELLENT. If you stuck a gnome in your field, then its' just funny. If either the gnome or the field wasn't yours, then it was cool. Extra points for nudity..... You should consider a series two where miniG pokes the gnome with a rifle or something! -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl Sent: None To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 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. Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 (Jay Caplan) 2. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Sandy Perle) 3. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dukelow, James S Jr) 4. A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED (Susan Gawarecki) 5. More on Hanford - GAO audit (Susan Gawarecki) 6. AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED (Roger Helbig) 7. Re: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 8. RE: Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' (Baratta, Edmond J) 9. Re: On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... (James Salsman) 10. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 11. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Conklin, Al (DOH)) 12. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dan Burnfield) 13. Re: More on Hanford - GAO audit (howard long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:28:31 -0500 From: "Jay Caplan" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 To: , Message-ID: <19e301c66e26$faa46c10$6401a8c0 at JAY> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dr. Ellison, Thank you for your inquiry. I have had calculations re this first exposure that it was approximately 4 R. Later smaller exposures I have used three times about 2 months apart beginning in the early fall were on a smaller machine at a more convenient location at a lower dosage, these were 70 kVP, 10 mA, 10 seconds, 90 cm from torso. I have been in perfect health without illness this entire year period. Anecdotally, I suspect immune function has been increased as there were two occasions over the year where I had low grade fevers in the evening for 2-3 days that never progressed into any illness or flu, almost like the fever had pre-empted the illness. Additionally, a bruise injury to the thigh generated a lot more swelling and a small evening fever for several days, when this type of injury never would have reacted this much pre-radiation. Best wishes, Jay Caplan > Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 > From: "Karl Ellison" > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray > Exposure ? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis > treatments that began a year ago? (below) > > | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a > | prophylactic hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I > | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this > purpose; > | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. > | > | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months > | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my > | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin > | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these > | prophylactic hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. > | > | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings > | were 2.0 > | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. > | We exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd > | intercostal space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these > | AP exposures were > | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine > | required > 165 > | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. > | > | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can > | calculate the > | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After > | the exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light > | workout) for > | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. > | > | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low > | dose radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone > | which he sees > | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He > | would like > | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list > | of references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I > | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. > | > | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial > generated, > | settings for the machine. > | Best wishes, > | Jay Caplan ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:34:30 -0700 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" , , "Conklin, Al \DDOH\"" Message-ID: <44575FE6.24682.68D1372 at sandyfl.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Thanks Jim and Al. It was refreshing to see a another perspective, from those who also have access to real evidence. I was particularly interested Jim's comments regarding the Columbia and potential adverse effects for future generation's drinking water, as stated by Governor Christine Gregoire. It's too bad, but not unexpected, to not see both sides of an argument, based on data, and not just speculation. I've learned a lot, and I expect other have as well, and that is one of the purposes of Radsafe, to educate. Thanks again! Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:57:30 -0700 From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: John Jacobus , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii John Jacobus wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. ================== What John says about the public might be true, but only because the public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk fashion, responding to the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and DOE. I am puzzled to be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly criticized for a number of sins of omission and commission over the years, but, if you look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number of worthwhile cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, ahead of schedule and under budget. To a certain extent they have been picking the low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- clean out of K-Basins, completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste through the Vit Plant, and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the Vit Plant -- will be significantly more difficult. The general approach, however, strikes me as reasonable. John, can you suggest a significant form of societal waste that has been better sequestered and has had LESS public health and environmental impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet Union, at least, which had a horrendous radwaste accident several decades ago? Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:22 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CE42.6060909 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED on April 24. Called the CASEnergy Coalition, the group is cochaired by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. CASEnergy (short for "clean and safe energy") describes itself as a "large, diverse group that will work to unite consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations, business groups, professional organizations, family advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders who support nuclear energy's ability to enhance America's energy security, attain cleaner air, and improve the quality of life, health, and economic well-being for all Americans." More information is available at the organization's Web site, . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CF8A.4090402 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700 From: "Roger Helbig" Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED To: "radsafelist" Message-ID: <004f01c66e79$8ff2f3c0$61405142 at roger1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" California introduces legislation encouraging moratorium on use of DU, probably not worth the paper it might be printed on, but totally infused with false premises. I became aware of it thanks to Steve Sugarman, Executive Director of umbrella non-profit International Humanities Center which provides funding to the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund which claims that Afghani children have birth defects due to US use of DU munitions and from the "multi-pronged remedial containment" at the end of this blurb that solicits donations really seems to just be a scam. http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html (what munition is depicted in the photo on this page .. does it even contain DU?) - it looks like some sort of laser guided smart bomb. Afghan DU & Recovery Fund is established to clean DU (depleted uranium) from areas in Afghanistan bombed by the US-UK forces. Our goal is to establish monitoring stations for monitoring uranium dust in Afghanistan and pave the way for ameliorative actions amounting to cleanup. We have formulated a strategy that would constitute a new approach to the 'cleanup' of such disasters. In fact, the word 'cleanup' has no operational value in this scenario; hence, we call our approach a Multi-Prong Remedial Containment. : www.afghandufund.org Roger Helbig http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104 _int roduced.html ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: Sandy Perle , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124142.80691.qmail at web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:30:04 -0400 From: "Baratta, Edmond J" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' To: "'John Jacobus'" , "Susan Gawarecki" , "RADSAFE" Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDB96 at orsnewea002.fda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain I believe the only impairment is from people using them while driving. They are concentrating on their calls and not the road. FDA has done studies on the cell phone and found no effects. I agree with Susan Gawarecki on the risks. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:10 PM To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 9 Date: 29 Apr 2006 21:06:31 -0000 From: James Salsman Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060429210631.92772.qmail at bovik.org> > if they are asymptomatic, what treatment would you give them? A good first step would be to stop assuming that aerosol dusts are the only route of uranium oxide exposure, and start testing for signs and symptoms of uranyl oxide gas, which disperses further and in very different patterns than the aerosol. In the opinion of uranium oxidation expert Carl Alexander, who has been publishing scientific studies of uranium trioxide gas since 1960, the UO3 gas is the most likely combustion product, stable, and likely toxic. We won't know until the authorities consider the possibility -- why haven't they after all these decades? Sincerely, James Salsman ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124820.97624.qmail at web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Jim, >From the prespective of a tax paying citizen, I have not impressed with milestones. I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. As a health physicist, I recognize that the risks are small. Nevertheless, as a health physicist I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. (These comments are mine. My employer and spouse have no idea what I am up to.) --- "Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote: > > John Jacobus wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Jim, > I would say it is hard to convince people that we > know how to handle > nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. > > ================== > > What John says about the public might be true, but > only because the > public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk > fashion, responding to > the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and > DOE. I am puzzled to > be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly > criticized for a > number of sins of omission and commission over the > years, but, if you > look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number > of worthwhile > cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, > ahead of schedule and > under budget. To a certain extent they have been > picking the > low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- > clean out of K-Basins, > completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste > through the Vit Plant, > and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the > Vit Plant -- will be > significantly more difficult. The general approach, > however, strikes me > as reasonable. > > John, can you suggest a significant form of societal > waste that has been > better sequestered and has had LESS public health > and environmental > impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet > Union, at least, > which had a horrendous radwaste accident several > decades ago? > > Best regards. > > Jim Dukelow > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory > Richland, WA > Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed > and/or approved by my > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:56:33 -0700 From: "Conklin, Al \(DOH\)" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "John Jacobus" , "Sandy Perle" , Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 12 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:15:38 -0400 From: "Dan Burnfield" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Al Conklin" , Message-ID: <44589EEA.0EE1.00C8.0 at DNFSB.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I would agree with Al, Environmentally things are improving at Hanford. It is slow progress but there is progress. There is a much bigger more insidious problem lurking here. Looking at the major nuclear construction projects that have been scheduled over the past several years, most have experienced significant safety related problems. Many of these problems seem to be caused by a lack of an adequate nuclear construction contractor base. If we are having trouble building chemical plants to treat waste, experimental laboratories, and warehouses, we better be ready to put significant technical oversight into reactor plant construction. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov >>> "Conklin, Al (DOH)" 5/3/2006 10:56:33 am >>> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: howard long Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: Susan Gawarecki , RADSAFE Message-ID: <20060503192300.3396.qmail at web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Fear of nuclear annialhation - then and now- motivates actions to prevent worse problems. Preventive medicine is not as much appreciated as pain relief. Cleaning up Hanford or Iraq or Iran is likely less than evils prevented. Howard Long Susan Gawarecki wrote: Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 ************************************** _______________________________________________ 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/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Fri May 5 11:05:26 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:05:26 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] =?windows-1255?q?Nuclear_accident_exercise_reveals_?= =?windows-1255?q?=91fatal_flaws=92?= Message-ID: <000201c670c5$fa4a7650$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> SUNDAY HERALD Nuclear accident exercise reveals ?fatal flaws? By Rob Edwards Environment Editor MISTAKES made during a major nuclear accident exercise held in Edinburgh last year would have left real casualties trapped in vehicles and spread deadly radioactive contamination, an official report has revealed. http://www.sundayherald.com/55448 Jose Julio Rozental joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel From hflong at pacbell.net Sat May 6 13:29:46 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 11:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Message-ID: <20060506182946.37430.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ALARA kills! 100,000 + abortions were caused by Chernobyl fear- mongering. Why else would data like this be suppressed than to preserve jobs, John J? " - the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not to the flesh, but to the minds." Howard Long Jerry Cuttler wrote: From: "Jerry Cuttler" To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" , "ANS Member Exchange Listserv" , "RAD-SCI-L" Subject: Op-ed article on Chernobyl accident by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:27:46 -0400 It seems this article could not get published in the "media". Not politically correct. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHERNOBYL: THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN Zbigniew Jaworowski Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland For twenty years the drama of the Chernobyl accident at the end of April 1986 has persisted. Vivid worldwide in the memory of the public, even now it affects millions in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. On the night of 25-26 April 1986, an enormous quantity of radioactive dust was released into the air from the melting reactor core of the badly-built and poorly-maintained Soviet reactor at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine. It put out as much radioactivity as 0.5% of all previous 543 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. The Chernobyl dust covered all Europe and Northern Hemisphere. It penetrated up into the lower stratosphere and fell even at the South Pole. Nothing worse could happen with a power reactor: a total meltdown of its core, and a ten days free release of radioactive material into the open air. Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not to the flesh, but to the minds. In terms of human losses (31 early deaths), the accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was a minor event compared with many other man-made catastrophes. In 1984, about 15,000 died from the eruption of a fertilizer factory in Bhopal in India; the collapse of a Chinese dam on the Banqiao river in 1975 caused some 230,000 fatalities. Counted per electricity units produced, which is the only practical comparison, fatalities in Chernobyl were lower than from most other energy sources: three times lower than oil-fired power stations, 13 times lower than liquefied gas, and 15 times lower than hydroelectric stations. But the political, economic, social and psychological impact of Chernobyl was enormous. Let us have a look at what happened, starting with my personal experience. About 9 a.m. on Monday 28 April 1986 at the entrance to my institute in Warsaw I was greeted by a colleague saying: "Look, at 07:00h we received a telex from a monitoring station in northern Poland saying that the radioactivity of air there is 550,000 times higher than a day before. A similar increase I found in the air filter from the station in our backyard, and the pavement here is highly radioactive". This was a terrible shock. It is curious that all my attention was concentrated on this enormous rise of "total beta activity" used to detect radioactivity, although I knew that the actual dose rate of external radiation penetrating our bodies was only three times higher than the day before and was similar to the average natural radiation dose which we all receive from the ground and cosmic radiation. This "Chernobyl" dose was more than 100 times lower than the natural radiation level in some other areas of the world, where no adverse health effects among inhabitants have ever been observed. But in 1986 the impact of a dramatic increase in atmospheric radioactivity dominated the thinking of me and everybody else. This state of mind led to immediate consequences. First there were various hectic actions, such as ad hoc setting of different limits for radiation in food, water etc. These limits varied between countries by a factor of many thousands, reflecting the emotional state of decision-makers and political and mercenary factors. For example, Sweden allowed for 30 times more radioactivity in imported vegetables than in domestic ones and Israel allowed less radioactivity in food from Eastern than from Western Europe. The limit of cesium-137 concentration in vegetables imposed in the Philippines was 8,600 times lower than in the more pragmatic United Kingdom. Most of these restrictions were meaningless from the point of view of human health but their costs were enormous. As an example, Norwegian authorities introduced a limit for cesium-137 concentration in reindeer meat and game that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose in some regions of Norway. The costs of this false protection climbed to over US$51 million. Other countries were no better. Professor Klaus Becker from the German Institute for Standards estimated recently that this kind of practice, together with its consequences for nuclear industry, meant that the costs of the Chernobyl accident in Western Europe probably exceed US$100 billion. The most nonsensical action, however, was the evacuation of 336,000 people from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union, where the radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about twice the natural dose. Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below the natural level and was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central Station in New York. "Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level of radioactive cesium-137 in the ground ten times lower than the level of natural radioactive matter in the soil. The evacuation caused great harm to the populations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. It led to mass psychosomatic disturbances, great economic losses and traumatic social consequences. According to Academician Leonid A. Ilyin, the leading Russian authority on radiation protection, the mass relocation was implemented by the Soviet government under the pressure of populists, ecologists and self-appointed "specialists", against the advice of the best Soviet scientists. Besides the 28 fatalities among rescue workers and the employees of the power station due to extremely high doses of radiation, and three immediate deaths due to other reasons (the UN's Chernobyl Forum gives "less than 50" by adding in some later deaths from causes not related to radiation, such as lung tuberculosis, fat thrombosis, car accident, suicide etc. In fact, the mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation sickness, at 1.09%, was much lower than the mortality rates for the whole population of Belarus of 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%), the only real adverse health consequence of the Chernobyl catastrophe among about five million people living in the contaminated regions is the epidemic of psychosomatic diseases. These diseases were not due to irradiation with Chernobyl fallout but were caused by "radiophobia", an irrational fear of radiation, aggravated by wrong administrative decisions. These decisions made several million people believe that they are "victims of Chernobyl", although the average dose they receive from Chernobyl radiation is only about one third of the average dose from Nature. This was the main factor behind the economic losses caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe, estimated to have reached US$148 billion by 2000 for the Ukraine, and to reach US$235 billion by 2016 for Belarus. Psychological factors, and neglect of radiological protection in the curriculum of medical students, led to some 100,000 to 200,000 wanted pregnancies aborted soon after the accident in Western Europe, where physicians wrongly advised patients that Chernobyl radiation posed a health risk to unborn children. In 2000 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the most authoritative body in these matters, and in 2006 also the UN Chernobyl Forum, stated that, except for thyroid cancers, in the highly contaminated areas no increase in the incidence of solid cancers and leukemia was observed. As for the thyroid cancers, I believe that the increased discovery is due to a screening effect. In normal populations there is a very high incidence of "occult" thyroid cancers (with no clinical symptoms), which is up to 28% in Japan and 35% in Finland, and a hundred to a thousand times higher than the incidence of "Chernobyl" cancers. After the accident more than 90% of children in contaminated areas started to be tested for thyroid cancers every year. It is obvious that such vast screening resulted in finding the normally undetected occult cancers. What is really surprising, however, is that data collected by UNSCEAR and the Forum show 15% to 30% fewer cancer deaths among the Chernobyl emergency workers and about 5% lower solid cancer incidence among the people in the Bryansk district (the most contaminated in Russia) in comparison with the general population. In most irradiated group of these people (mean dose of 40 mSv) the deficit of cancer incidence was 17%. Nor did the incidence of hereditary disorders increase. These epidemiological data should be used as a proper basis for realistic projection of the future health of millions of people officially labeled "victims of Chernobyl", rather than an assumption (LNT) on linear no-threshold relationship between irradiation and medical effect. This assumption tells that even near zero radiation dose can lead no cancer death and hereditary disorders. LNT assumption was used by Chernobyl Forum to estimate 4000 to 9336 future cancer deaths among people who received low radiation doses, lower than lifetime natural doses in many regions of the world. Greenpeace had less hesitations and in its report of April 2006 calculated six million cancer deaths due to Chernobyl event. Dr. Lauriston Taylor, the late president of the U.S. National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements deemed such practice to be "a deeply immoral use of our scientific heritage". UNSCEAR's sober conclusion is that the people living in "contaminated regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine "need not live in fear of serious health consequences", and forecasts that "generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail." In centuries to come, the catastrophe will be remembered as a proof that nuclear power is a safe means of energy production. ------------------------- Zbigniew Jaworowski MD PhD DSc is a Professor Emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw and former Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Zbigniew Jaworowski To: Ludwig E. Feinendegen ; Marjorie Hecht ; Sergiey Igumnov ; Leonid A. Ilyin ; Andre Prof. Maisseu ; Donald T. Oakley dom ; Oakley, Donald T ; Peiser, Benny ; Myron Pollycove ; Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker ; Per Wethe ; Maurice Tubiana ; Gunnar Walinder ; Sergey Rovny ; Ted Rockwell ; Jerry Cuttler ; Jim Muckerheide ; Muckerheide, James ; Muckerheide Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:18 AM Subject: Fw: Dear Friends, IPN asked me to write an op-ed on Chernobyl, which they hoped to place in a few leading western journals. I sent them the text in February, they posed an embargo on disseminating the draft, and they finished editing it only few days ago, too late. You may use it as you like. Best wishes, Zbigniew From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sat May 6 13:44:38 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:44:38 -0500 Subject: =?us-ascii?Q?RE:_=5B_RadSafe_=5D_Nuclear_accident_exercise_reveals_'fatal?= =?us-ascii?Q?_flaws'?= In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVkzCEA Message-ID: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I read the article and could not really assess how bad the exercise was or was not but I did find a statement that really says it all about the standard used to assess risk of the incident and how they came up with the adjective - deadly. <"Many thousands of people would be put at risk," said Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire. "If they get a speck of plutonium in their lungs, the probability is fatal lung cancer."> The statement could be parsed to be accurate but the message to the non-health physicist is clear. These kinds of statements actually increase the risk and the harm caused by a real incident. Many on this list have had "specks" of plutonium. Eric Daxon From chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za Sat May 6 15:44:36 2006 From: chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za (Chris Hofmeyr) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear accident exercise reveals 'fatal flaws' In-Reply-To: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Eric, The question is, what is the spec of a speck? (I couldn't resist). I suspect Dr B. subscribes to the one-photon brigade. Chris.Hofmeyr at webmail.co.za On Sat, 6 May 2006 13:44:38 -0500 "Eric D" wrote: >I read the article and could not really assess how bad the >exercise was or >was not but I did find a statement that really says it all >about the >standard used to assess risk of the incident and how they >came up with the >adjective - deadly. > ><"Many thousands of people would be put at risk," said Dr >Frank Barnaby, a >nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons >Establishment at >Aldermaston in Berkshire. "If they get a speck of >plutonium in their lungs, >the probability is fatal lung cancer."> > >The statement could be parsed to be accurate but the >message to the >non-health physicist is clear. These kinds of statements >actually increase >the risk and the harm caused by a real incident. Many on >this list have had >"specks" of plutonium. > >Eric Daxon > >_______________________________________________ >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/ ___________________________________________________________________ For super low premiums, click here http://www.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service From fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk Sat May 6 16:51:41 2006 From: fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:51:41 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear accident exercise reveals 'fatal flaws' References: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <002d01c67157$423b16e0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> You should look at the Senator exercise report at the following link http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/Reports/OtherPublications/DSC/ExerciseSenatorAllAgencyReport.htm http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D67C3E5-AF31-4115-ACF3-BAF2DF802E56/0/Ex_Senator_All_Agency_Report.pdf Fred Dawson New Malden Surrey. KT3 5BP England My Blog http://freds-take-on-the-world.blogspot.com/ My web pages http://www.fred-dawson.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric D" To: "'Jose Julio Rozental'" ; "'Radsafe'" Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear accident exercise reveals 'fatal flaws' >I read the article and could not really assess how bad the exercise was or > was not but I did find a statement that really says it all about the > standard used to assess risk of the incident and how they came up with the > adjective - deadly. > > <"Many thousands of people would be put at risk," said Dr Frank Barnaby, a > nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at > Aldermaston in Berkshire. "If they get a speck of plutonium in their > lungs, > the probability is fatal lung cancer."> > > The statement could be parsed to be accurate but the message to the > non-health physicist is clear. These kinds of statements actually > increase > the risk and the harm caused by a real incident. Many on this list have > had > "specks" of plutonium. > > Eric Daxon > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au Sun May 7 21:29:41 2006 From: Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au (Rogers Brent) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:29:41 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 4th in the series of US State Department articles on nuclear ener gy Message-ID: This series is public domanin Regards Brent Rogers Manager Radiation Operations Unit NSW Environment Protection Authority Department of Environment and Conservation *+61 2 9995 5986 *+61 2 9995 6603 * PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 WASHINGTON FILE U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs 05 May 2006 U.S. Public More Friendly Toward Nuclear Power Despite Risks Clean-air, energy benefits seen as outweighing safety concerns By Andrzej Zwaniecki Washington File Staff Writer This is the fourth in a series of articles on nuclear energy. Washington -- Growing concerns about global warming and more favorable public views of nuclear energy are bolstering U.S. efforts to revitalize nuclear power as a reliable source of large-scale and clean electricity. Various public opinion polls conducted over the last several years indicate that 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear power. Among those living near nuclear plants the share is even higher. "Even more significant is the widening gap between those who strongly favor and strongly oppose nuclear energy," according to a May 2005 report by Bisconti Research Inc. "Those who strongly favor (32 percent) nuclear energy outnumber those who are strongly opposed (10 percent) by a three-to-one margin." Concerns about meeting rising energy demands and worries about the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that contribute to global warming have been weakening the once-formidable sway of nuclear energy opponents, according to officials and experts. For example, public resistance to renewal of licenses for 16 existing reactors in seven states, expected by many market observers a few years ago, has never materialized. Coal-fired plants are a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Nuclear plants emit no pollution. A number of prominent environmentalists, such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and former Rocky Mountain Institute director Peter Schwartz, have broken ranks with their colleagues and embraced nuclear energy as the best solution to global warming. Even though U.S. and Asian publics seem primed to move forward with nuclear, continued public opposition in some other parts of the world continues to hamper expansion of nuclear energy, says Luis Ech?varri, the head of the Nuclear Energy Agency in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "Addressing social concerns about nuclear energy remains an important goal for the industry stakeholders and governmental bodies," he told a 2005 international conference. So far no major environmental organization has embraced nuclear energy without reservations. NUCLEAR VERSUS RENEWABLES The Rocky Mountain Institute and some other environmental groups claim that the U.S. government has skewed competition among different forms of clean-electricity by lavishing hefty subsidies on nuclear power. Institute Director Amory Lovins has argued that conservation, use of renewable sources and cogeneration can together curb the growth of greenhouse emissions faster and at a lower cost than nuclear power. Cogeneration is electricity production combined with utilization of waste heat. U.S. officials and the industry say, however, that renewables and cogeneration are not substitutes for nuclear power. Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy industry group, says attributes of nuclear power make it suitable for providing a large-scale, steady and dependable energy supply all year round. "You cannot run the subway system in New York City or chemical plants on renewable energy," he said in a March 23 interview. NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense say that, in principle, they are not opposed to nuclear energy and will support it as part of the clean energy portfolio if the industry and the government address major uncertainties, including weapons proliferation and safety. These risks are being addressed, officials and the industry say. For example, half of the nuclear fuel used by the U.S. nuclear power industry comes from Soviet nuclear warheads dismantled as a result of strategic arms treaties, Andrew Paterson, an Energy Department policy analyst, says. "If this does not reduce the proliferation risk, then I don't know what does," he said in an April 20 interview. The industry says its safety record speaks for itself. No one has ever died as a result of an accident at a U.S. nuclear plant, and new reactors will be even safer, according to the NEI. Most experts believe that a Chernobyl-type accident could have never happened in the United States because U.S. plant construction and operational procedures as safer than those use at Chernobyl. Even Thomas Cochran of the NRDC acknowledged in a March 23 interview that safety of the U.S. nuclear industry has improved "somewhat" since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. More recently, some experts and groups have expressed concern about potential terrorists attacks on nuclear plants. Patrick Moore, now the head of an environmental consulting firm, said the thick concrete containment structure protects the reactor well. "Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode," he recently told The Washington Post. WASTE STORAGE AND EXPANSION Neither the industry nor environmentalists are happy with the progress of a governmental plan for permanent storage for U.S. nuclear waste and spent fuel that has been beset by delays and tied up in litigation since it was launched in the 1980s. The Yucca Mountain underground repository in Nevada was initially scheduled to open in 1998. But the project has not proceeded '"at the pace that we in the industry would like to see," Kerekes said. Some experts and at least one industry executive, John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon, have expressed fear that a lack of safe permanent storage may complicate the industry's expansion in the future. In April, the Bush administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal that it said would speed the process of opening the Yucca Mountain facility by removing a number of legal and regulatory barriers. See also "Nuclear Gaining Favor as Clean Energy Source for World" http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/May/03-382182.html, "U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Sees Expansion in Near Future" http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/May/03-212802.html, and "Experts Debate Economic Viability of New Nuclear Power Plants" http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=M ay&x=20060504161639SAikceinawz0.41737&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html. For additional information, see Energy Policy Message-ID: <20060508144025.3110.qmail@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> I just love this convoluted accident scenarios. --- Jose Julio Rozental wrote: > SUNDAY HERALD > Nuclear accident exercise reveals ?fatal flaws? > By Rob Edwards > Environment Editor > > MISTAKES made during a major nuclear accident > exercise held in Edinburgh > last year would have left real casualties trapped in > vehicles and spread > deadly radioactive contamination, an official report > has revealed. > > http://www.sundayherald.com/55448 > > > Jose Julio Rozental > joseroze at netvision.net.il > Israel > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 8 10:26:44 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski In-Reply-To: <20060506182946.37430.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060508152644.53240.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, I am quite secure in my job. I do not have to use "fear-mongering." I hope that your comments are not a personal indictment against what I say. The accident at Chernobyl is not related to the issue of ALARA. The response to accidents is quite different as personnel would be expected in their response to get higher, but not lethal, doses. Of course, since you are not a professional in radiation safety and health, I would not expect you to know the difference. Personally, I think that the claims of over 100,000 abortions were performed in Europe as a result of Chernobyl are an exaggeration. ------------ See, for example: Biomed Pharmacother. 1991;45(6):225-8. Incidence of legal abortion in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident. Odlind V, Ericson A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Uppsala, Academic Hospital, Sweden. The number of legal abortions in Sweden increased around the time of the Chernobyl accident, . . . However, seen over a longer time perspective, the increase in the number of abortions started before and continued far beyond the time of the accident. . . . Therefore, it seems unlikely that fear of the consequences of radioactive fall-out after the Chernobyl accident resulted in any substantial increase of the number of legal abortions in Sweden. ------------- As noted at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1986USSR1.html " . . . studies suggest about 100 excess abortions in Italy and 400 excess abortions in Denmark in the months following the accident. . . ." [My comment is that this is certainly not thousands! It also contradicts the previous paper.] --------------- See Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct;167(4 Pt 1):1025-31. Related Articles, Links The influence of the post-Chernobyl fallout on birth defects and abortion rates in Austria. Haeusler MC, Berghold A, Schoell W, Hofer P, Schaffer M. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria. OBJECTIVES: We analyzed the influence of the radioactive fallout after the Chernobyl disaster on the rate and regional distribution of birth defects and abortion rates in southern Austria. . . .RESULTS: No significant changes in the incidence of birth defects, abortion rate, or counseling rate at pregnancy termination clinics were observed. . . . -------------- Dr. Long, do you have any proof that the claim of +100,000 abortions were due to Chernobyl is true? Please TRY to get your facts straight. --- howard long wrote: > ALARA kills! > 100,000 + abortions were caused by Chernobyl fear- > mongering. > Why else would data like this be suppressed than > to preserve jobs, John J? > > " - the worst harm was caused not by radiation, > and not to the flesh, but to the minds." > > Howard Long > > Jerry Cuttler wrote: > From: "Jerry Cuttler" > To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" > , > "ANS Member Exchange Listserv" > , > "RAD-SCI-L" > Subject: Op-ed article on Chernobyl accident by Dr. > Zbigniew Jaworowski > Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:27:46 -0400 > > It seems this article could not get published in the > "media". > Not politically correct. > > Jerry > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > CHERNOBYL: THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN > Zbigniew Jaworowski > Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, > Warsaw, Poland > > > For twenty years the drama of the Chernobyl accident > at the end of April > 1986 has persisted. Vivid worldwide in the memory of > the public, even now it > affects millions in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. > > On the night of 25-26 April 1986, an enormous > quantity of radioactive dust > was released into the air from the melting reactor > core of the badly-built > and poorly-maintained Soviet reactor at Chernobyl, > in the Ukraine. It put > out as much radioactivity as 0.5% of all previous > 543 nuclear explosions in > the atmosphere. The Chernobyl dust covered all > Europe and Northern > Hemisphere. It penetrated up into the lower > stratosphere and fell even at > the South Pole. Nothing worse could happen with a > power reactor: a total > meltdown of its core, and a ten days free release of > radioactive material > into the open air. > > Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not > by radiation, and not > to the flesh, but to the minds. > > In terms of human losses (31 early deaths), the > accident in the Chernobyl > nuclear power plant was a minor event compared with > many other man-made > catastrophes. In 1984, about 15,000 died from the > eruption of a fertilizer > factory in Bhopal in India; the collapse of a > Chinese dam on the Banqiao > river in 1975 caused some 230,000 fatalities. > Counted per electricity units > produced, which is the only practical comparison, > fatalities in Chernobyl > were lower than from most other energy sources: > three times lower than > oil-fired power stations, 13 times lower than > liquefied gas, and 15 times > lower than hydroelectric stations. But the > political, economic, social and > psychological impact of Chernobyl was enormous. Let > us have a look at what > happened, starting with my personal experience. > > About 9 a.m. on Monday 28 April 1986 at the entrance > to my institute in > Warsaw I was greeted by a colleague saying: "Look, > at 07:00h we received a > telex from a monitoring station in northern Poland > saying that the > radioactivity of air there is 550,000 times higher > than a day before. A > similar increase I found in the air filter from the > station in our backyard, > and the pavement here is highly radioactive". > > This was a terrible shock. It is curious that all my > attention was > concentrated on this enormous rise of "total beta > activity" used to detect > radioactivity, although I knew that the actual dose > rate of external > radiation penetrating our bodies was only three > times higher than the day > before and was similar to the average natural > radiation dose which we all > receive from the ground and cosmic radiation. This > "Chernobyl" dose was more > than 100 times lower than the natural radiation > level in some other areas of > the world, where no adverse health effects among > inhabitants have ever been > observed. > > But in 1986 the impact of a dramatic increase in > atmospheric radioactivity > dominated the thinking of me and everybody else. > This state of mind led to > immediate consequences. First there were various > hectic actions, such as ad > hoc setting of different limits for radiation in > food, water etc. These > limits varied between countries by a factor of many > thousands, reflecting > the emotional state of decision-makers and political > and mercenary factors. > For example, Sweden allowed for 30 times more > radioactivity in imported > vegetables than in domestic ones and Israel allowed > less radioactivity in > food from Eastern than from Western Europe. The > limit of cesium-137 > concentration in vegetables imposed in the > Philippines was 8,600 times lower > than in the more pragmatic United Kingdom. > > Most of these restrictions were meaningless from the > point of view of human > health but their costs were enormous. As an example, > Norwegian authorities > introduced a limit for cesium-137 concentration in > reindeer meat and game > that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose > in some regions of > Norway. The costs of this false protection climbed > to over US$51 million. > > Other countries were no better. Professor Klaus > Becker from the German > Institute for Standards estimated recently that this > kind of practice, > together with its consequences for nuclear industry, > meant that the costs of > the Chernobyl accident in Western Europe probably > exceed US$100 billion. > > The most nonsensical action, however, was the > evacuation of 336,000 people > from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet > Union, where the > radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about > twice the natural dose. > Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below > the natural level and > was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central > Station in New York. > "Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level > of radioactive cesium-137 > in the ground ten times lower than the level of > natural radioactive matter > in the soil. The evacuation caused great harm to the > populations of Belarus, > Russia and Ukraine. It led to mass psychosomatic > disturbances, great > economic losses and traumatic social consequences. > According to Academician > Leonid A. Ilyin, the leading Russian authority on > radiation protection, the > mass relocation was implemented by the Soviet > government under the pressure > of populists, ecologists and self-appointed > "specialists", against the > advice of the best Soviet scientists. > > Besides the 28 fatalities among rescue workers and > the employees of the > power station due to extremely high doses of > radiation, and three immediate > deaths due to other reasons (the UN's Chernobyl > Forum gives "less than 50" > by adding in some later deaths from causes not > related to radiation, such as > lung tuberculosis, fat thrombosis, car accident, > suicide etc. In fact, the > mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation > sickness, at 1.09%, was > much lower than the mortality rates for the whole > population of Belarus of > 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%), the only > real adverse health > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 8 10:49:33 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: The Untold Story of Israel's Bomb Message-ID: <20060508154933.17571.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> With all the discussions about Iran and nuclear weapon development, I thought that this would be of interest. It is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801326.html ------------------ The Untold Story of Israel's Bomb By Avner Cohen and William Burr Sunday, April 30, 2006; B01 On Sept. 9, 1969, a big brown envelope was delivered to the Oval Office on behalf of CIA Director Richard M. Helms. On it he had written, "For and to be opened only by: The President, The White House." The precise contents of the envelope are still unknown, but it was the latest intelligence on one of Washington's most secretive foreign policy matters: Israel's nuclear program. The material was so sensitive that the nation's spymaster was unwilling to share it with anybody but President Richard M. Nixon himself. The now-empty envelope is inside a two-folder set labeled "NSSM 40," held by the Nixon Presidential Materials Project at the National Archives. (NSSM is the acronym for National Security Study Memorandum, a series of policy studies produced by the national security bureaucracy for the Nixon White House.) The NSSM 40 files are almost bare because most of their documents remain classified. With the aid of With the aid ofrecently declassified documents , we now know that NSSM 40 was the Nixon administration's effort to grapple with the policy implications of a nuclear-armed Israel. These documents offer unprecedented insight into the tense deliberations in the White House in 1969 -- a crucial time in which international ratification of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was uncertain and U.S. policymakers feared that a Middle Eastern conflagration could lead to superpower conflict. Nearly four decades later, as the world struggles with nuclear ambitions in Iran, India and elsewhere, the ramifications of this hidden history are still felt. Israel's nuclear program began more than 10 years before Helms's envelope landed on Nixon's desk. In 1958, Israel secretly initiated work at what was to become the Dimona nuclear research site. Only about 15 years after the Holocaust, nuclear nonproliferation norms did not yet exist, and Israel's founders believed they had a compelling case for acquiring nuclear weapons. In 1961, the CIA estimated that Israel could produce nuclear weapons within the decade. The discovery presented a difficult challenge for U.S. policymakers. From their perspective, Israel was a small, friendly state -- albeit one outside the boundaries of U.S. security guarantees -- surrounded by larger enemies vowing to destroy it. Yet government officials also saw the Israeli nuclear program as a potential threat to U.S. interests. President John F. Kennedy feared that without decisive international action to curb nuclear proliferation, a world of 20 to 30 nuclear-armed nations would be inevitable within a decade or two. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations fashioned a complex scheme of annual visits to Dimona to ensure that Israel would not develop nuclear weapons. But the Israelis were adept at concealing their activities. By late 1966, Israel had reached the nuclear threshold, although it decided not to conduct an atomic test. By the time Prime Minister Levi Eshkol visited President Lyndon B. Johnson in January 1968, the official State Department view was that despite Israel's growing nuclear weapons potential, it had "not embarked on a program to produce a nuclear weapon." That assessment, however, eroded in the months ahead. By the fall, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul C. Warnke concluded that Israel had already acquired the bomb when Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin explained to him how he interpreted Israel's pledge not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. According to Rabin, for nuclear weapons to be introduced, they needed to be tested and publicly declared. Implicitly, then, Israel could possess the bomb without "introducing" it. The question of what to do about the Israeli bomb would fall to Nixon. Unlike his Democratic predecessors, he and his national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, were initially skeptical about the effectiveness of the NPT. And though they may have been inclined to accommodate Israel's nuclear ambitions, they would have to manage senior State Department and Pentagon officials whose perspectives differed. Documents prepared between February and April 1969 reveal a great sense of urgency and alarm among senior officials about Israel's nuclear progress. As Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird wrote in March 1969, these "developments were not in the United States' interests and should, if at all possible, be stopped." Above all, the Nixon administration was concerned that Israel would publicly display its nuclear capabilities. Apparently prompted by those high-level concerns, Kissinger issued NSSM 40 -- titled Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program -- on April 11, 1969. In it he asked the national security bureaucracy for a review of policy options toward Israel's nuclear program. In the weeks that followed, the issue was taken up by a senior review group (SRG), chaired by Kissinger, that included Helms, Undersecretary of State Elliot Richardson, Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard and Joint Chiefs Chairman Earle Wheeler. The one available report of an SRG meeting on NSSM 40 suggests that the bureaucracy was interested in pressuring Israel to halt its nuclear program. How much pressure to exert remained open. Kissinger wanted to "avoid direct confrontation," while Richardson was willing to apply pressure if an investigation to determine Israel's intentions showed that some key assurances would not be forthcoming. In such circumstances, the United States could tell the Israelis that scheduled deliveries of F-4 Phantom jets to Israel would have to be reconsidered. By mid-July 1969, Nixon had let it be known that he was leery of using the Phantoms as leverage, so when Richardson and Packard summoned Rabin on July 29 to discuss the nuclear issue, the idea of a probe that involved pressure had been torpedoed. Although Richardson and Packard emphasized the seriousness with which they viewed the nuclear problem, they had no threat to back up their rhetoric. Richardson posed three issues for Rabin to respond to: the status of Israel's NPT deliberations; assurances that "non-introduction" meant "non-possession" of nuclear weapons; and assurances that Israel would not produce or deploy the Jericho ballistic missile. Rabin, however, was unresponsive except to say that the NPT was still "under study." Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir would have to address the nuclear issue when they met in late September. Perhaps the most fateful event of this tale was Nixon's one-on-one meeting with Meir in the Oval Office on Sept. 26, 1969. In the days before Meir's visit, the State Department produced background papers suggesting that the horse was already out of the barn: "Israel might very well now have a nuclear bomb" and certainly "already had the technical ability and material resources to produce weapon-grade material for a number of weapons." If that was true, it meant that events had overtaken the NSSM 40 exercise. In later years, Meir never discussed the substance of her private conversation with Nixon, saying only, "I could not quote him then, and I will not quote him now." Yet, according to declassified Israeli documents, since the early 1960s, Meir had been convinced that "Israel should tell the United States the truth [about the nuclear issue] and explain why." Even without the record of this meeting, informed speculation is possible. It is likely that Nixon started with a plea for openness. Meir, in turn, probably acknowledged -- tacitly or explicitly -- that Israel had reached a weapons capability, but probably pledged extreme caution. (Years later, Nixon told CNN's Larry King that he knew for certain that Israel had the bomb, but he wouldn't reveal his source.) Meir may have assured Nixon that Israel thought of nuclear weapons as a last-resort option, a way to provide her Holocaust-haunted nation with a psychological sense of existential deterrence. Subsequent memorandums from Kissinger to Nixon provide a limited sense of what the national security adviser understood happened at the meeting. Kissinger noted that the president had emphasized to Meir that "our primary concern was that the Israeli [government] make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program." Thus, Israel would be committed to conducting its nuclear affairs cautiously and secretly; their status would remain uncertain and unannounced. On Feb. 23, 1970, Rabin told Kissinger privately that he wanted the president to know that, in light of the Meir-Nixon conversation, "Israel has no intention to sign the NPT." Rabin, Kissinger wrote, "wanted also to make sure there was no misapprehension at the White House about Israel's current intentions." Kissinger informed Nixon that he told Rabin that he would notify the president. And with that, the decade-long U.S. effort to curb Israel's nuclear program ended. That enterprise was replaced by understandings negotiated at the highest level, between the respective heads of state, that have governed Israel's nuclear conduct ever since. That so little is known today about the tale of NSSM 40 is not surprising. Dealing with Israel's nuclear ambitions was thornier for the Nixon administration than for its predecessors because it was forced to deal with the problem at the critical time when Israel appeared to be crossing the nuclear threshold. Yet, even as Nixon and Kissinger enabled Israel to flout the NPT, NSSM 40 allowed them to create a defensible record. As was his typical modus operandi, Kissinger used NSSM 40 to maintain control over key officials who wanted to take action on the problem. Politically, the Nixon-Meir agreement allowed both leaders to continue with their old public policies without being forced to openly acknowledge the new reality. As long as Israel kept the bomb invisible -- no test, declaration, or any other act displaying nuclear capability -- the United States could live with it. Over time, the tentative Nixon-Meir understanding became the foundation for a remarkable U.S.-Israeli deal, accompanied by a tacit but strict code of behavior to which both nations closely adhered. Even during its darkest hours in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was cautious not to make any public display of its nuclear capability. Yet set against contemporary values of transparency and accountability, the Nixon-Meir deal of 1969 now stands as a striking and burdensome anomaly. Israel's nuclear posture is inconsistent with the tenets of a modern liberal democracy. The deal is also burdensome for the United States, provoking claims about double standards in U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy. It is especially striking to compare the Nixon administration's stance toward Israel in 1969 with the way Washington is trying to accommodate India in 2006. As problematic as the proposed nuclear pact with New Delhi is, it at least represents an effort to deal openly with the issue. Unlike the case of Iran today -- where a nation is publicly violating its NPT obligations and where the United States and the international community are acting in the open -- the White House in 1969 addressed the Israeli weapons program in a highly secretive fashion. That kind of deal-making would be impossible now. Without open acknowledgment of Israel's nuclear status, such ideas as a nuclear-free Middle East, or even the inclusion of Israel in an updated NPT regime, cannot be discussed properly. It is time for a new deal to replace the Nixon-Meir understandings of 1969, with Israel telling the truth and finally normalizing its nuclear affairs. cohenavner at msn.com mailto:%20nsarchiv at gwu.edu Avner Cohen is a senior research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland and author of "Israel and the Bomb" (Columbia University Press). William Burr is a senior analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. A longer version of this article appears in the May/June issue of theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists. ? 2006 The Washington Post Company +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rreif at whoi.edu Mon May 8 12:20:53 2006 From: rreif at whoi.edu (Ron Reif) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:20:53 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080@admin.whoi.edu> Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. ----- Ron Reif, P.E.,CHP,CIH EH&S Manager Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://ehs.whoi.edu p:508-289-3788 f:508-457-2015 From lewis at radonmine.com Mon May 8 13:37:31 2006 From: lewis at radonmine.com (Patricia Lewis) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:37:31 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another radonmine anecdote Message-ID: <001601c672ce$77784d00$b700a8c0@FEM> For those interested, A gal's personal account of her recent adventure to the Radon Mine (Boulder Montana USA), nicely done and entertaining - visit: http://h20girladventures.blogspot.com/ Don't forget to watch ABC's 20/20 special on Friday, May 18 at 10pm. In part, myths dispelled, by host John Stossel, about exposures to small amounts of radiation. Pat @the.radon.mine.in.question.... From LNMolino at aol.com Mon May 8 13:53:44 2006 From: LNMolino at aol.com (LNMolino at aol.com) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:53:44 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: <23d.b101bda.3190edb8@aol.com> Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 8 14:05:24 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:05:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? In-Reply-To: <23d.b101bda.3190edb8@aol.com> Message-ID: <445F3404.31247.1245A4E@sandyfl.earthlink.net> On 8 May 2006 at 14:53, LNMolino at aol.com wrote: > Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today > (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of > the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis, I found the following, KVOA, Tuscon SELIGMAN, Ariz. A tractor-trailer carrying low-level radioactive items rolled over today on Interstate 40 near this northern Arizona community after it rear-ended another vehicle. The Arizona Department of Public Safety says the accident wasn't threatening public health. The accident killed 55-year-old Jasper Brown of Missouri. The man he was traveling with, 25-year-old Tim Harig of Missouri, was critically injured and flown to a nearby hospital. No other injuries were reported. D-P-S says the truck was carrying protective clothing, towels, tools and other items used in processing radioactive material. The items, which contained low-levels of radioactive solid metal oxide, was on its way to Madison, were on their way to Madison, Pennsylvania to be destroyed. An eastbound section of the interstate was reopened. If the vehicle had been carrying radioactive waste, D-P-S says authorities would have shut down traffic in both directions. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 8 14:10:58 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:10:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? In-Reply-To: <23d.b101bda.3190edb8@aol.com> Message-ID: <445F3552.15900.12975E3@sandyfl.earthlink.net> More: May 7, 2006, 9:53PM Truck With Radioactive Material Rolls Over SELIGMAN, Ariz. - A tractor-trailer carrying low-level radioactive items rolled over Sunday on Interstate 40 near this northern Arizona community when it rear-ended another vehicle. The accident killed Jasper Brown, 55, of Conway, Mo., and critically injured Tim Harig, 25, of Springfield, Mo. Both were traveling together in the tractor trailer; Brown had been in a sleeping compartment of the vehicle. Harig was in critical condition at Kingman Regional Medical Center Sunday evening. The accident was not threatening public health, said Officer Tim Mason, spokesman for the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The truck was carrying protective clothing, towels, tools and other items used in processing radioactive material. The items, which contained low-levels of radioactive solid metal oxide, were scheduled to continue their journey from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in Avila Beach, Calif., to a Westinghouse Electric Co. service center in Madison, Pa., Mason said. =============== Truck with radioactive material overturns, I-40 closed May. 7, 2006 Getting across northern Arizona could be difficult for quite some time. The Arizona Department of Public Safety reports a tractor-trailer carrying radioactive material was traveling eastbound on Interstate 40 between Ash Fork and Seligman when it overturned Sunday morning. The driver was killed in the accident. Because of its cargo, a 75-foot perimeter has been established around the wreck. The highway has been closed eastbound and could remain closed until Monday morning. Traffic has been diverted to old route 66. The westbound lanes remain open. The accident scene is at milepost 131, a desolate area of Yavapai County near Picacho Butte. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From mpatterson at canberra.com Mon May 8 14:14:21 2006 From: mpatterson at canberra.com (PATTERSON Melissa) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:14:21 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: <70CE86C4CAFC894DAA8533F64783DE6A0968DF@AUSMERIMX01.adom.ad.corp> Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 8 14:21:36 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:21:36 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? In-Reply-To: <1be.38aeb4f.3190f26c@aol.com> Message-ID: <445F37D0.523.13339C5@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Looks like from Diablo Canyon to Westinghouse in PA, not a WIPP shipment. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Mon May 8 14:39:44 2006 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:39:44 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC0B84DB7F@mail.nymc.edu> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ From JGinniver at aol.com Mon May 8 14:46:55 2006 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver at aol.com) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:46:55 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <313.470d42d.3190fa2f@aol.com> I would appreciate being copied in on any replies to this query. Thanks, Julian From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Mon May 8 16:06:30 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 17:06:30 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: Colleagues * The story I saw indicated that it was headed from PG&E in Avila Beach, CA (Diablo Canyon?) to Westinghouse in Madison, PA. Probably not a waste shipment but rather a shipment of contaminated tools and associated supplies. I have no information as to how the package(s) A couple of interesting things to me: 1) The fact that the truck was carrying radioactive materials got equal (if not greater) billing to the fact that there was one fatality and one serious injury in the accident. 2) I-40 remained closed until Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) folks, headquartered in Phoenix, some 250 miles away, could get there to survey. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Johnston, Thomas" 5/8/2006 15:39:44 >>> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Mon May 8 16:08:14 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 17:08:14 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? - RESEND Message-ID: Colleagues * The story I saw indicated that it was headed from PG&E in Avila Beach, CA (Diablo Canyon?) to Westinghouse in Madison, PA. Probably not a waste shipment but rather a shipment of contaminated tools and associated supplies. I have no information as to how the package(s) was/were labelled, and/or whether the shipment was placarded. A couple of interesting things to me: 1) The fact that the truck was carrying radioactive materials got equal (if not greater) billing to the fact that there was one fatality and one serious injury in the accident. 2) I-40 remained closed until Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) folks, headquartered in Phoenix, some 250 miles away, could get there to survey. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Johnston, Thomas" 5/8/2006 15:39:44 >>> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon May 8 22:49:22 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:49:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXEqiEA Message-ID: <000801c6731b$8eda24d0$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I am a little late in responding to this post and I apologize. The reference quoted by Mr. Salsman for describing the composition of the particles in the DU aerosol is dated (1979). A great deal of work has transpired since that time. I would like to discuss as many of the points below as I can. The most thorough study done to date is the recently released Depleted Uranium Capstone Study (2004). The aerosol analysis did look for and found small quantities of UO3 in the form of schoepite. For reasons that are beyond my expertise, separating UO3 from U3O8 was difficult and it was assumed in the study that UO3 was present whenever U3O8 was found. The Capstone Report can be found at http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/ I read the paper by Dr. Alexander and found it extremely useful for other projects that I am currently working on. The science is out of my comfort zone but the experimental setup and the purpose of the work were clearly stated in the article - study the uranium released in a LOC in a spent fuel storage facility by transpiration. The experiment determined the transpiration rates of uranium and the forms of uranium that occurred when dry air, dry argon and pure oxygen with and without water vapor at temperatures that ranged from over 1000K to over 2000K. The starting material was depleted fuel rod pellets (not uranium metal) that were crushed and then oxidized in a platinum crucible at 850K. In each case the starting material for the experiment was U3O8 or a mixture of U3O8 and UO2 (for the argon). The air experiments were done with dry air and air that contained 10% steam and 50% steam and a partial pressure of UO3 was measured for each condition. It was very clear from the paper that the environment was very well controlled. I am going to follow up with Dr. Alexander because it is some very interesting work. The issue of "uranyl oxide gas" and measurement of UO3 gas/vapor is mentioned throughout the discussion and each time it is mentioned in connection with "burning in air." Along with discussing this I would like to clear up the statement < More than 30% of such bullets' uranium metal burns in air when they are fired against hard targets.> This statement is partially correct. The work done by Gilchrist I believe had 30% but the amount varies based upon the hardness of the target. Not all of the expended portion of the penetrator ignites. The 30% refers to that portion of the round that is "expended" during penetration. The main difference is the environment the DU is in when it ignites. It is not the pristine air used in the experiment being quoted. From the moment of impact the DU "fire-flies" (colloquial term we used to describe the portion of the DU that ignited) are burning in a particle-rich environment that is a combination of all the materials in the armor, and once penetration occurs, all of the materials inside the vehicle. We were able to observe the dynamics inside the vehicle using ultra-high speed cameras and saw DU fire-flies for fractions of a second followed by a dense dark smoke that dissipated over time. These particles aid in rapid condensation. The particle morphology in the Capstone report is extremely interesting and in my personal opinion supports rapid condensation of vapors produced. < Inhalation of uranium combustion fumes is suspected in major illnesses reported in veterans and civilians of the February, 1991 Gulf War.> This is the first time I have seen the word "fumes" used in describing DU internalizations. All of the many US, International and UN, studies and independent reviews done to date are in direct conflict with this statement. There are good summaries of each at http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/ < But the portion of UO3 which doesn't condense disperses further and faster than the aerosols, and are absorbed directly into the bloodstream if inhaled, dissolving immediately to uranyl ions which cause chromosome damage leading to immunological disorders and congenital malformations in the children of the exposed.> The message this statement is conveying is incorrect. Rapid dispersal yields a rapidly reducing concentration which in turn rapidly reduces risk. >From a radiation dose perspective (chromosomal aberrations) a more soluble compound poses far less radiation risk then a compound of lesser solubility. There is no evidence supporting the claim of congenital malformations in children of people exposed to the low very levels of exposure that would occur. The evidence from the VA follow-up of veterans inside vehicles at the time the vehicles were struck is to the contrary. Immunological affects of very high concentrations of uranium in the body (as with embedded fragments) have been undertaken at AFRRI and the results are posted, I believe, on their web site. I would be interested in reading the studies that support this particular statement. Sorry for the long post. Eric Daxon From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue May 9 07:02:59 2006 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:02:59 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC0B84DB81@mail.nymc.edu> This information would be useful to me also. Thank you, Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of JGinniver at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:47 PM To: rreif at whoi.edu Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs I would appreciate being copied in on any replies to this query. Thanks, Julian _______________________________________________ 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/ From maldrich at rehs.rutgers.edu Tue May 9 08:15:51 2006 From: maldrich at rehs.rutgers.edu (Mary Aldrich) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:15:51 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs In-Reply-To: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC0B84DB81@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: For alpha's, scan MDC's get murky - this is discussed in Abelquist's text "Decommissioning Health Physics - A Handbook for MARSSIM Users" and section 6 of the MARSSIM manual. Essentially "it is not practical to determine a fixed MDC for scanning. Instead it is more useful to determine the probability of detecting an area of contamination at a predetermined DCGL for given scan rates." See Appendix J of MARSSIM manual for more. I do highly recommend Abelquist's text to all who enter the MARSSIM zone. Regards M. Aldrich -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Johnston, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:03 AM To: JGinniver at aol.com; rreif at whoi.edu Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs This information would be useful to me also. Thank you, Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of JGinniver at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:47 PM To: rreif at whoi.edu Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs I would appreciate being copied in on any replies to this query. Thanks, Julian _______________________________________________ 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/ From mclamb1 at niehs.nih.gov Tue May 9 08:15:34 2006 From: mclamb1 at niehs.nih.gov (McLamb, John (NIH/NIEHS) [E]) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:15:34 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs In-Reply-To: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080@admin.whoi.edu> Message-ID: <7930EE6CD7CA354D93B444D0433C0611024C5C37@NIHCESMLBX6.nih.gov> A copy of NUREG-1507 can be found at: http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/instrument/NUREG-1507.pdf I hope it helps. John John S. McLamb, CHP, RRPT Health Physicist NIEHS, MD F0-07 P.O. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: (919) 541-4235 Fax: (919) 541-1893 -----Original Message----- From: Ron Reif [mailto:rreif at whoi.edu] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:21 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: 'John Andrews'; 'steven pike'; 'Mary McGeoghegan' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. ----- Ron Reif, P.E.,CHP,CIH EH&S Manager Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://ehs.whoi.edu p:508-289-3788 f:508-457-2015 _______________________________________________ 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/ From pottert at erols.com Tue May 9 09:08:01 2006 From: pottert at erols.com (Thomas Potter) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:08:01 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NUREG-1507 PDF Message-ID: <000901c67371$fc38aff0$6401a8c0@DB44LX51> NUREG-1507 June 1998 version available in PDF at following site: http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/instrument/NUREG-1507.pdf Don't know why it is unavailable at NRC site. Tom Potter Original message: Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:20:53 -0400 From: "Ron Reif" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs To: Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Message-ID: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080 at admin.whoi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. From hflong at pacbell.net Tue May 9 12:11:35 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski In-Reply-To: <20060508152644.53240.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060509171136.95476.qmail@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation sickness, at 1.09%, was much lower [ LOWER] than the mortality rates for the whole population of Belarus of 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%)." (caps mine, Howard Long, MD MPH) John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, I am quite secure in my job. I do not have to use "fear-mongering." I hope that your comments are not a personal indictment against what I say. The accident at Chernobyl is not related to the issue of ALARA. The response to accidents is quite different as personnel would be expected in their response to get higher, but not lethal, doses. Of course, since you are not a professional in radiation safety and health, I would not expect you to know the difference. From contedu at hsph.harvard.edu Tue May 9 13:22:43 2006 From: contedu at hsph.harvard.edu (Harvard Health Professional Training) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:22:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20060509141451.02989e78@hsph.harvard.edu> Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication August 8 - 11, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts For complete details or to register: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/NEP.shtml Current events continue to make emergency planning an urgent concern. With major changes underway from both government and industry, emergency planners and emergency response team members face a host of new challenges in an era of unprecedented public scrutiny. This years offering of Radiological Emergency Planning (formerly Nuclear Emergency Planning) will respond to these important developments. Whether you are new or experienced, from a private facility or from government, this program will give you valuable insights that you can put to immediate use in your daily work. Taught by leaders in the field of Emergency Planning, this program combines lectures and case studies with access to faculty to provide a unique learning experience. Examine the latest principles and regulatory requirements for responding to a radiological emergency, and the newest roles and rules from federal and state agencies regarding: For more information on these or other programs offered by the Harvard School of Public Health, Center for Continuing Professional Education, please contact us at: Web: www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe CALL: 617-384-8692 EMAIL: contedu at hsph.harvard.edu From edaxon at satx.rr.com Tue May 9 23:41:59 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:41:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVk1CEA Message-ID: <002101c673ec$131e5970$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I had a discussion with Dr. Alexander and others on this issue and the primary issue is temperature. While the temperature of burning DU is high while it is burning, it rapidly cools (seconds) to ambient temperature which causes the rapid condensation of the vapor into U3O8. As shown in the phase graph in Dr. Alexander's paper, UO3 occurs at temperatures on the order of 1000K. The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 vapor poses a significant hazard is not. I would welcome any additional information on the topic. Eric Daxon From joseroze at netvision.net.il Wed May 10 00:06:49 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 08:06:49 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication References: <5.2.0.9.2.20060509141451.02989e78@hsph.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00e701c673ef$8b8b0680$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> The note has mentioned "This years offering of Radiological Emergency Planning (formerly Nuclear Emergency Planning)" The Radiological Accident in Goiania was the worst radiological Accident in the world and the most important Laboratory to compare, (until now) with a RDD. All the recent International Congress on Security mention always Goiania, when referring to the country's necessity to be prepared to situations of city contamination and large group of public involvement. And this include, not only communicating with the media and public, including the many aspects of crisis communications, but also other's concerns and conflicts, political, social, economic, medical and psychological. The Goiania Accident, even after 20 years, present many lessons that were not yet learned. For this reason I think Goiania, not just a mention, also must be part of a course like your intention. I am working in the following paper: Radiological Accident in Goiania X RDD, Similarities and Differences Jose Julio Rozental General Coordinator to Respond the Goiania Accident and the Post Recovery Phase joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harvard Health Professional Training" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication > > Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication > > August 8 - 11, 2006 > > Boston, Massachusetts > > For complete details or to register: > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/NEP.shtml > > Current events continue to make emergency planning an urgent concern. With > major changes underway from both government and industry, emergency > planners and emergency response team members face a host of new challenges > in an era of unprecedented public scrutiny. This years offering of > Radiological Emergency Planning (formerly Nuclear Emergency Planning) will > respond to these important developments. Whether you are new or > experienced, from a private facility or from government, this program will > give you valuable insights that you can put to immediate use in your daily > work. Taught by leaders in the field of Emergency Planning, this program > combines lectures and case studies with access to faculty to provide a > unique learning experience. > > Examine the latest principles and regulatory requirements for responding to > a radiological emergency, and the newest roles and rules from federal and > state agencies regarding: > > For more information on these or other programs offered by the Harvard > School of Public Health, Center for Continuing Professional Education, > please contact us at: > > Web: www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe > CALL: 617-384-8692 > EMAIL: contedu at hsph.harvard.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/ > From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 10 01:17:21 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:17:21 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 Message-ID: <008201c67402$229e63c0$ad425142@roger1> I am sure if this person really wanted to learn about Tc-99 that they would come here .. instead it was posted to DU Watch .. a list just full of radiation "experts", but do feel free to comment. You can even join DU Watch at Yahoo Groups or respond directly to piotr.bein at imag.net - he probably is seriously interested in the subject. Roger Helbig --- R Rands wrote: > To: > From: "R Rands" > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:48:35 +1000 > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Subject: Tc-99 > > Subject: Tc-99 [Technetium isotope used for medical > imaging] > Hi Robert and Dave, could you please post the > following question to the networks. > Can someone comment and point to references on the > health effects or risks of intake of Tc-99 for a > bonescan? > Please respond to piotr.bein at imag.net. > > > Thanks. > Piotr Bein From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 10 08:37:08 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski In-Reply-To: <20060509171136.95476.qmail@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060510133708.41642.qmail@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Are these values within statistial limits? I assume that you know what that means. I do not mean the P value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value There were 134 ARS (acute radiation sickness) survivors at Chernobyl with 28 deaths. How does this compare to the age matched population of the three groups you list? What are your reference sources? And what does this have to do with ALARA? Why do you need to change the subject of the original e-mail thread? --- howard long wrote: > "mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation > sickness, at 1.09%, > was much lower [ LOWER] than the mortality rates > for the whole population of Belarus > of 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%)." > (caps mine, Howard Long, MD MPH) > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > I am quite secure in my job. I do not have to use > "fear-mongering." I hope that your comments are not > a > personal indictment against what I say. > > The accident at Chernobyl is not related to the > issue > of ALARA. The response to accidents is quite > different as personnel would be expected in their > response to get higher, but not lethal, doses. Of > course, since you are not a professional in > radiation > safety and health, I would not expect you to know > the > difference. > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 10 08:50:06 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 06:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 In-Reply-To: <008201c67402$229e63c0$ad425142@roger1> Message-ID: <20060510135006.71642.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> First of all, the radionuclide used in medicine in Tc-99m, not its decay product. For a specific answer, try http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q4220.html For more general informtion, see http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/dosesfrommedicalradiation.html and http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/risk-benefitinfosheet.html --- Roger Helbig wrote: > I am sure if this person really wanted to learn > about Tc-99 that they would come here .. instead it > was posted to DU Watch .. a list just full of > radiation "experts", but do feel free to comment. > You can even join DU Watch at Yahoo Groups or > respond directly to piotr.bein at imag.net - he > probably is seriously interested in the subject. > > Roger Helbig > > --- R Rands wrote: > > > To: > > From: "R Rands" > > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:48:35 +1000 > > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Subject: Tc-99 > > > > Subject: Tc-99 [Technetium isotope used for > medical > > imaging] > > > Hi Robert and Dave, could you please post the > > following question to the networks. > > > Can someone comment and point to references on the > > health effects or risks of intake of Tc-99 for a > > bonescan? > > Please respond to piotr.bein at imag.net. > > > > > > Thanks. > > Piotr Bein +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lewis at radonmine.com Wed May 10 10:08:29 2006 From: lewis at radonmine.com (Patricia Lewis) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:08:29 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Correction to ABC program date - Message-ID: <002e01c67443$98a9bf10$b700a8c0@FEM> Friends, You've probably figured out that Friday is the 12th not the 18th as previously noted. Don't forget to watch ABC's 20/20 special on Friday, May 12 at 10pm. In part, myths dispelled, by host John Stossel, about exposures to small amounts of radiation. Mine guest interviews may be part of the broadcast. Enjoy the show, Patricia Lewis Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine PO Box 67 Boulder MT 59632 www.radonmine.com From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Wed May 10 11:11:12 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:11:12 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile neutron sources for explosive detection Message-ID: Colleagues * Just ran across a press release from a company called HiEnergy Techologies ... they're marketing several explosive / SNM detectors using neutron-gamma reactions. The URL for the press release is http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-10-2006/0004358579&EDATE= and the website is www.hienergyinc.com They show on their website the use of a mobile fast-neutron source to search for car bombs ... is anyone familiar with the radiation safety aspects of this system? (i.e. what sort of neutron & gamma dose rates, etc.). I remember a demonstration of an accelerator / pulsed neutron system out at INEEL a couple of years ago, and you didn't want to be within 50 yards or so of the radiation source when operating. I also saw a similar system using a Cf-252 neutron source for remote interrogation of chemical weapons, and again, radiation safety was a HUGE concern. Anybody familar with this system? Jim Hardeman Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us From LMS1 at pge.com Wed May 10 11:45:24 2006 From: LMS1 at pge.com (Sewell, Linda) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:45:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? - RESEND Message-ID: Hi All, Sorry for the late post, but we are in a refueling outage and it's been busy. Jim and Sandy have correctly surmised that it was a shipment of contaminated tools from Diablo Canyon to the Westinghouse facility in Waltz Mill, PA. Two of our shipping folks arrived on scene late Monday/early Tuesday to make sure all was well before the shipment continued on east. I agree regarding Jim's comments. Linda Linda Sewell, CHP Dosimetry Supervisor Diablo Canyon Power Plant MS 119/1/122 PO Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.4315 (voice) 805.545.2618 (fax) mailto:lms1 at pge.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:08 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; mpatterson at canberra.com; Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? - RESEND Colleagues * The story I saw indicated that it was headed from PG&E in Avila Beach, CA (Diablo Canyon?) to Westinghouse in Madison, PA. Probably not a waste shipment but rather a shipment of contaminated tools and associated supplies. I have no information as to how the package(s) was/were labelled, and/or whether the shipment was placarded. A couple of interesting things to me: 1) The fact that the truck was carrying radioactive materials got equal (if not greater) billing to the fact that there was one fatality and one serious injury in the accident. 2) I-40 remained closed until Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) folks, headquartered in Phoenix, some 250 miles away, could get there to survey. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Johnston, Thomas" 5/8/2006 15:39:44 >>> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Wed May 10 16:03:26 2006 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <20060510210326.29327.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' No joke Emil. Some GM detectors, equipped with a thin mica window, would be able to measure high-energy alphas. For example, a pancake probe that is typically used for detecting contamination (e.g., betas from Co-60) can also detect alphas from uranium. Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emil Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:03 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Message-ID: <002101c674a7$41c77930$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous posts and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. I addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are incorrect and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM To: edaxon at satx.rr.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] >... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the > Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 > vapor poses a significant hazard is not. It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 where T2 < T1 This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses slower and less distant before settling. So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such as are present from natural uranium. Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and maybe even decades after exposure. Sincerely, James Salsman From trentino at iol.it Thu May 11 03:06:20 2006 From: trentino at iol.it (Mauro Campoleoni) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:06:20 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Message-ID: <002701c674d1$d01ee3b0$62f21fac@2000server.omm> Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 11 07:32:21 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 05:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow In-Reply-To: <002701c674d1$d01ee3b0$62f21fac@2000server.omm> Message-ID: <20060511123221.15362.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Mauro, This sounds like the "big problem" with computer CRTs or VDTs (depending on what you call them) that was reported in the 1980s. I remember reading an article around that time that said the statistically, there should me MORE reports of miscarriages based on the number of female workers. --- Mauro Campoleoni wrote: > Dear colleagues, > I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, > expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the > case > of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at > Heathrow.... > as I read in the Mirror: > http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html > > I'd like to exchange some info. > > Thanks. > > Mauro Campoleoni > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov Wed May 10 08:12:17 2006 From: edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:12:17 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDBA8@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Technetium-99m is used in nuclear medicine not Technetium-99. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:17 AM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 I am sure if this person really wanted to learn about Tc-99 that they would come here .. instead it was posted to DU Watch .. a list just full of radiation "experts", but do feel free to comment. You can even join DU Watch at Yahoo Groups or respond directly to piotr.bein at imag.net - he probably is seriously interested in the subject. Roger Helbig --- R Rands wrote: > To: > From: "R Rands" > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:48:35 +1000 > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Subject: Tc-99 > > Subject: Tc-99 [Technetium isotope used for medical > imaging] > Hi Robert and Dave, could you please post the > following question to the networks. > Can someone comment and point to references on the > health effects or risks of intake of Tc-99 for a > bonescan? > Please respond to piotr.bein at imag.net. > > > Thanks. > Piotr Bein _______________________________________________ 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/ From james at bovik.org Wed May 10 01:07:57 2006 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 23:07:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] Message-ID: <4461833D.7050101@bovik.org> >... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the > Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 > vapor poses a significant hazard is not. It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 where T2 < T1 This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses slower and less distant before settling. So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such as are present from natural uranium. Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and maybe even decades after exposure. Sincerely, James Salsman From james at bovik.org Wed May 10 22:36:38 2006 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:36:38 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: <002101c674a7$41c77930$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <002101c674a7$41c77930$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <4462B146.9060608@bovik.org> Dear Colonel Daxon, You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to measure the gas products. Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different than that of the solid oxide particulates. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous posts > and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. I > addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have > also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of > "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are incorrect > and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM > To: edaxon at satx.rr.com > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] > > >>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. > > > It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as > it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense > -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): > http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf > > 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 > UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 > where T2 < T1 > > This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish > between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. > > There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't > condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial > amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it > happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed > immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving > UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses > slower and less distant before settling. > > So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious > isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not > just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because > the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions > are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will > not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such > as are present from natural uranium. > > Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the > production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic > absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl > ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and > maybe even decades after exposure. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu May 11 09:00:11 2006 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:00:11 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA8FB8D4@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com Thu May 11 10:03:32 2006 From: Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com (NIXON, Grant) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:03:32 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Message-ID: <35E44FDE74595F44B80A137FEBA29E6DBC3E28@SMXTRG-V31.mds.mdsinc.com> Hi Mahmoud: For a Bicron Surveyor 2000 portable survey meter equipped with a PGM pancake probe, the following conversion factors are typical: 872 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Co-60 1474 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Cs-137 2797 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of U-238 These figures are for scenarios approximating full 2 Pi geometry (i.e., pancake probe directly over the contaminated surface at zero height above surface. Because 185 Bq (5nCi) corresponds with 11100 DPM, only 5550 DPM would be detectable for the given geometry. The PGM's mica window material thickness is between 1.4-2.0 mg/cm2, the area is 15.5 cm2. Ron, the PGM quoted should be compatible with any +900V count rate meter. Best regards, Grant Grant I. Nixon, Ph. D., P. Phys. Radiation Physicist Engineering MDS Nordion Tel: (613) 592 3400 ext. 2869 Fax:( 613) 592 7423 -----Original Message----- From: Haleem, Mahmoud S. [mailto:HALEEM at cua.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:34 AM To: NIXON, Grant Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs I wonder what is the efficiency for such a system? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:22 PM To: Emil; radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs No joke Emil. Some GM detectors, equipped with a thin mica window, would be able to measure high-energy alphas. For example, a pancake probe that is typically used for detecting contamination (e.g., betas from Co-60) can also detect alphas from uranium. Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emil Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:03 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' A pancake will detect alphas but is not very efficient; it is certainly not the instrument of choice for performing alpha surveys, especially at or near typical release limits for transuranics, or when there is a mixture of alpha and beta emitters present. Remember that in the case of U-238, what is really being counted is the hard beta from Pa-234m. Glenn Marshall, CHP -----Original Message----- From: NIXON, Grant [mailto:Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:04 AM To: Haleem, Mahmoud S. Cc: Ron Reif; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Hi Mahmoud: For a Bicron Surveyor 2000 portable survey meter equipped with a PGM pancake probe, the following conversion factors are typical: 872 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Co-60 1474 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Cs-137 2797 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of U-238 These figures are for scenarios approximating full 2 Pi geometry (i.e., pancake probe directly over the contaminated surface at zero height above surface. Because 185 Bq (5nCi) corresponds with 11100 DPM, only 5550 DPM would be detectable for the given geometry. The PGM's mica window material thickness is between 1.4-2.0 mg/cm2, the area is 15.5 cm2. Ron, the PGM quoted should be compatible with any +900V count rate meter. Best regards, Grant Grant I. Nixon, Ph. D., P. Phys. Radiation Physicist Engineering MDS Nordion Tel: (613) 592 3400 ext. 2869 Fax:( 613) 592 7423 -----Original Message----- From: Haleem, Mahmoud S. [mailto:HALEEM at cua.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:34 AM To: NIXON, Grant Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs I wonder what is the efficiency for such a system? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:22 PM To: Emil; radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs No joke Emil. Some GM detectors, equipped with a thin mica window, would be able to measure high-energy alphas. For example, a pancake probe that is typically used for detecting contamination (e.g., betas from Co-60) can also detect alphas from uranium. Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emil Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:03 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Go to http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/5/5 From: PhysicsWeb Alerts [mailto:e-alert at physicsweb.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:01 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News Titan in pictures (May 9) http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/5/5 Have you ever wondered what it must have looked like to be aboard the Huygens probe as it hurtled towards the surface of Titan -- Saturn's largest moon -- in January last year? All is now revealed with a highly realistic new movie of the dramatic descent, released by the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA and the University of Arizona. The movie shows the proble's plunge through Titan's thick orange-brown atmosphere before landing on a soft, sandy riverbed. The film was put together from data collected by the Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) instrument during the probe's descent, which lasted 147 minutes. +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mcmahankl at ornl.gov Thu May 11 12:58:43 2006 From: mcmahankl at ornl.gov (McMahan, Kimberly L.) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:58:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Message-ID: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900207073B@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> Amen to your second paragraph. Here is a link to the product literature for the system in question. The manufacturer claims the dose to the scanned individual is about 3 microrem (30 nSv). They say it is a backscatter device that detects Compton scatters. No incident or representative backscattered spectrum is given that I could find. http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html [An aside: Because of the very low x-ray energies involved, an individual needs to be scanned twice - front and back - in order to be completely screened. However, in the spirit of Rainer's second paragraph I submit that the dose to the person is not doubled with the second screening. This might be a good side thread for discussion.] Page 29 of the following link discusses the backscatter technique but still does not give a spectrum. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183260.pdf The Mirror article could be taken as saying the dose to the passenger from a single screening is 1000 times the annual occupational dose of a security guard, since Terminal 4 handles international ("long haul") passengers. But in reading the "fact sheet" on the device where they highlight the in-flight dose to a passenger, I think you probably have the right comparison. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry 865.576.1566 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:00 AM To: trentino at iol.it; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From alstonchris at netscape.net Thu May 11 13:37:20 2006 From: alstonchris at netscape.net (alstonchris at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Measuring alphas with GM? Message-ID: <7DC47FDE.69FB4F70.48616B36@netscape.net> Emil Actually, the window on, e.g., a pancake GM tube, is typically less than 2 mg/sq.cm. So, you might see, e.g., 5% "4Pi" efficiency for Th-230, at not more than one cm distance. Of course, if betas are present, e.g., natural or depleted U, that's mostly what you're detecting (say, 25% efficiency, under same constraints). cheers cja Emil wrote: >Ron, >Is it a joke? >Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas >with GM detector??? >The GM window thickness makes it impossible. __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From JGinniver at aol.com Thu May 11 14:26:14 2006 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:26:14 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Message-ID: <26a.a3e1808.3194e9d6@aol.com> Hmmm, pancake GMs are not as bad as many people think at detecting Alphas. Thermo quote 0.9 cps per Bq per cm2 for Pu-238 for the 900EP15 (contamination monitor) see _http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html_ (http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html) , this is generally fitted with an LND pancake GM e.g. 7311, 7312, 7313 or 7314 (depending on the connectors required and operating voltage). Ludlum quotes 15% (4pi) efficiency for Pu-239 for the 44-9, as this and other similar probes (e.g. Eberline HP260, Bicron PGM, Tech Assoc P15) all use a 15.5 cm2 pancake geiger similar to those listed above from LND (e.g. Canberra, St Gobain etc.) the performance for alpha monitoring will be broadly similar. Regards, Julian From GRMarshall at philotechnics.com Thu May 11 14:44:35 2006 From: GRMarshall at philotechnics.com (Glenn R. Marshall) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:44:35 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Message-ID: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC4A@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Ludlum also quotes 19% efficiency for Tc-99 (4-pi), and I've received pancakes from them with reported 4-pi efficiencies in excess of 20%. Everyone else gets 10-12%. I called their tech support people once and asked about it. The person on the other end of the phone said they put the source inside the recess of the probe, right up against the screen. Perhaps he was pulling my leg; if so, would somebody please tell me? I don't put much stock in advertised efficiency. In the field, under normal industrial conditions, alpha efficiency on a pancake is usually pretty crappy. Glenn _____ From: JGinniver at aol.com [mailto:JGinniver at aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:26 PM To: Glenn R. Marshall; Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com; HALEEM at cua.edu Cc: rreif at whoi.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Hmmm, pancake GMs are not as bad as many people think at detecting Alphas. Thermo quote 0.9 cps per Bq per cm2 for Pu-238 for the 900EP15 (contamination monitor) see http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html , this is generally fitted with an LND pancake GM e.g. 7311, 7312, 7313 or 7314 (depending on the connectors required and operating voltage). Ludlum quotes 15% (4pi) efficiency for Pu-239 for the 44-9, as this and other similar probes (e.g. Eberline HP260, Bicron PGM, Tech Assoc P15) all use a 15.5 cm2 pancake geiger similar to those listed above from LND (e.g. Canberra, St Gobain etc.) the performance for alpha monitoring will be broadly similar. Regards, Julian From edaxon at satx.rr.com Thu May 11 20:17:20 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:17:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWE3SEA Message-ID: <001801c67561$d1578850$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements. The data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an issue. The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM To: Eric D Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] Dear Colonel Daxon, You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to measure the gas products. Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different than that of the solid oxide particulates. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous posts > and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. I > addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have > also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of > "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are incorrect > and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM > To: edaxon at satx.rr.com > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] > > >>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. > > > It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as > it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense > -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): > http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf > > 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 > UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 > where T2 < T1 > > This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish > between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. > > There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't > condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial > amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it > happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed > immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving > UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses > slower and less distant before settling. > > So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious > isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not > just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because > the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions > are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will > not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such > as are present from natural uranium. > > Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the > production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic > absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl > ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and > maybe even decades after exposure. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Fri May 12 00:10:17 2006 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 22:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re-measuring alphas with GM? In-Reply-To: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC22@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Message-ID: <20060512051017.65191.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Radsafers, I really appreciate all your feedbacks. Wow, I should've keep my mouth shut and I could look as a smart :-) Hey, living learning, right? Yes, GM can "detect" alphas as well as someone told earlier here on this list (1/300) of low energy photons from H-3. The question is what does GM detect with alphas? Is it direct ionization from alpha in the gas? If so how much direct and how much is indirect/bremstlung in the window. Of course all the instruments are just "pieces with two wires +/-" We are all handy and talented people and can make work anything with two wires, right? Put two GM pancakes with a silver foil in between and you may even measure neutrons with these coincidence GM probes. Of course it will not be DIRECT measurement of neutrons but gammas from short lived activated product. Believe me, it was done. Radiation detection is what you see and how confident you are. However, I would never use GM for the alpha release survey, sorry. Again, I am not an instrument geek, I am more on the instrument usage side. So if you are confident in your measurements then. Good luck on your surveys. Emil. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri May 12 01:42:33 2006 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:42:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow References: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900207073B@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA1590DF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Well, ... it appears by now symptomatic for our 'age of radiophobia' that so far neither I nor someone else commented by raising the most important question first: How many pregnancies among the guards did occur in the respective 'follow-up time' and how does the observed number of 5 compares with the number of - properly adjusted - expected 'spontaneous' miscarriages? Depending on age their frequency ranges between 15% and 30%, the latter pertaining to ages above 35 which nowadays appears to be more representative considering the trend to older ages at first pregnancy. Until that question has been answered any further questions about potential causes remain foolish. Rainer ________________________________ Von: McMahan, Kimberly L. [mailto:mcmahankl at ornl.gov] Gesendet: Do 11.05.2006 19:58 An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Amen to your second paragraph. Here is a link to the product literature for the system in question. The manufacturer claims the dose to the scanned individual is about 3 microrem (30 nSv). They say it is a backscatter device that detects Compton scatters. No incident or representative backscattered spectrum is given that I could find. http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html [An aside: Because of the very low x-ray energies involved, an individual needs to be scanned twice - front and back - in order to be completely screened. However, in the spirit of Rainer's second paragraph I submit that the dose to the person is not doubled with the second screening. This might be a good side thread for discussion.] Page 29 of the following link discusses the backscatter technique but still does not give a spectrum. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183260.pdf The Mirror article could be taken as saying the dose to the passenger from a single screening is 1000 times the annual occupational dose of a security guard, since Terminal 4 handles international ("long haul") passengers. But in reading the "fact sheet" on the device where they highlight the in-flight dose to a passenger, I think you probably have the right comparison. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry 865.576.1566 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:00 AM To: trentino at iol.it; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri May 12 02:13:35 2006 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 09:13:35 +0200 Subject: WG: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow References: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900207073B@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA1590DF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA1590E0@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Addendum: 95% symmetric confidence interval for 5 Poisson-distributed observations: [1.62 , 11.67], i.e., an expected number of less than 1.62 (SIR=3.08) would indicate a statistically significant excess - at that (arbitrarily chosen) significance level. Rainer ________________________________ Von: Facius, Rainer Gesendet: Fr 12.05.2006 08:42 An: McMahan, Kimberly L.; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Well, ... it appears by now symptomatic for our 'age of radiophobia' that so far neither I nor someone else commented by raising the most important question first: How many pregnancies among the guards did occur in the respective 'follow-up time' and how does the observed number of 5 compares with the number of - properly adjusted - expected 'spontaneous' miscarriages? Depending on age their frequency ranges between 15% and 30%, the latter pertaining to ages above 35 which nowadays appears to be more representative considering the trend to older ages at first pregnancy. Until that question has been answered any further questions about potential causes remain foolish. Rainer ________________________________ Von: McMahan, Kimberly L. [mailto:mcmahankl at ornl.gov] Gesendet: Do 11.05.2006 19:58 An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Amen to your second paragraph. Here is a link to the product literature for the system in question. The manufacturer claims the dose to the scanned individual is about 3 microrem (30 nSv). They say it is a backscatter device that detects Compton scatters. No incident or representative backscattered spectrum is given that I could find. http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html [An aside: Because of the very low x-ray energies involved, an individual needs to be scanned twice - front and back - in order to be completely screened. However, in the spirit of Rainer's second paragraph I submit that the dose to the person is not doubled with the second screening. This might be a good side thread for discussion.] Page 29 of the following link discusses the backscatter technique but still does not give a spectrum. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183260.pdf The Mirror article could be taken as saying the dose to the passenger from a single screening is 1000 times the annual occupational dose of a security guard, since Terminal 4 handles international ("long haul") passengers. But in reading the "fact sheet" on the device where they highlight the in-flight dose to a passenger, I think you probably have the right comparison. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry 865.576.1566 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:00 AM To: trentino at iol.it; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 12 06:36:12 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 04:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: Radioactive medical deliveries face new delays Message-ID: <20060512113612.79059.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> I saw this in another e-mail service I get, and thought it would be of interest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radioactive medical deliveries face new delays 5/11/2006 By: Reuters Health VIENNA (Reuters), May 11 - A growing unwillingness of shippers to deliver radioactive medical materials due to rising costs and safety fears since the September 11 attacks is threatening healthcare in some countries, experts said on Wednesday. One European state is now refusing air shipments of medical isotopes with a shelf life of 24 hours, they said. Elsewhere, these supplies may travel three times the direct distance between countries because of detours imposed by shippers who have pulled out to escape climbing regulatory costs. In one case, a supplier needed six months to hire transport for a radioactive medication, typically used in diagnosis and treatment -- for especially for cancer, between two European states. What the experts called "a critical need to resolve refusals of some shippers" to deliver nuclear medical aids, especially by sea, is the topic of a conference this week at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "We need to deal with this problem before we reach the point of patients dying because of it," said Jim Stewart, radiological transport adviser in the British government. "(We can get about) 100 reports of denied shipment in three months and that's not a comprehensive picture. We've only started dealing with this issue. Something dramatic needs to be done. The problem is getting worse," he told a news briefing. Industry experts could not say whether any patients had died because radioactive medical aids arrived too late or not at all. They declined to name countries at issue or give examples of patients affected by delays, citing reasons of confidentiality. They also said none of the known hold-ups resulted from security alerts of possible diversions of isotopes into making nuclear "dirty bombs," saying the industry had an exemplary transport safety record for four decades. Medical care at stake But they suggested it was only a matter of time before delivery delays invited medical crises in some countries, especially in the Mediterranean and Asia-Pacific regions. "Delays predate September 11 but may have been exacerbated by it. These products have a short shelf life so transport has to operate like clockwork (to benefit patients)," said Paul Gray of Canadian medical isotope producer MDS Nordion. "There is no short-term solution in sight," said Michael Wangler, an IAEA transport safety official. But he said the IAEA had begun a database to assess the breadth of delays and would offer training to shippers to spur them to take on deliveries. Gray said tens of thousands of radioactive medication shipments are made yearly for 70-80 million cases of treatment. Worst affected by holdups has been cobalt-60, a nuclear isotope used to sterilize half the world's medical products such as gloves, gowns, sutures, and catheters. The problem is compounded by the small number of medical isotope producers worldwide -- half a dozen for radiological cancer aids, and just two producers of cobalt-60, Gray said. David Brennan, a senior official on dangerous goods and safety issues at the International Air Transport Association, representing 260 airlines, said heightened security concerns since September 11 had magnified isotope transport costs. By Mark Heinrich Last Updated: 2006-05-10 16:33:57 -0400 (Reuters Health) Copyright ? 2006 Reuters Limited. +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 12 07:08:12 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 05:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs In-Reply-To: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC4A@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Message-ID: <20060512120812.97549.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> Unless you put the material right up against the screen, alpha surveying in the field is pretty poor. During a training exercise, I had a friend who had problems surveying cacti in the desert. --- "Glenn R. Marshall" wrote: > Ludlum also quotes 19% efficiency for Tc-99 (4-pi), > and I've received > pancakes from them with reported 4-pi efficiencies > in excess of 20%. > Everyone else gets 10-12%. I called their tech > support people once and > asked about it. The person on the other end of the > phone said they put > the source inside the recess of the probe, right up > against the screen. > Perhaps he was pulling my leg; if so, would somebody > please tell me? I > don't put much stock in advertised efficiency. In > the field, under > normal industrial conditions, alpha efficiency on a > pancake is usually > pretty crappy. > > > > Glenn > > _____ > > From: JGinniver at aol.com [mailto:JGinniver at aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:26 PM > To: Glenn R. Marshall; Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com; > HALEEM at cua.edu > Cc: rreif at whoi.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? > Re: Survey MDAs vs. > ScanMDAs > > > > Hmmm, > > pancake GMs are not as bad as many people think at > detecting Alphas. > > > > Thermo quote 0.9 cps per Bq per cm2 for Pu-238 for > the 900EP15 > (contamination monitor) see > http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html > , this > is generally fitted with an LND pancake GM e.g. > 7311, 7312, 7313 or 7314 > (depending on the connectors required and operating > voltage). > > > > Ludlum quotes 15% (4pi) efficiency for Pu-239 for > the 44-9, as this and > other similar probes (e.g. Eberline HP260, Bicron > PGM, Tech Assoc P15) > all use a 15.5 cm2 pancake geiger similar to those > listed above from LND > (e.g. Canberra, St Gobain etc.) the performance for > alpha monitoring > will be broadly similar. > > > > Regards, > > Julian > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 12 14:29:59 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive decay under your feet!! Message-ID: <20060512193000.77240.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> >From Nature 437, 485-486 (22 September 2005) On-line article at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7058/full/437485a.html Earth science: Unleaded high-performance Tim Elliott1 Abstract: Previous measurements of uranium-series isotopes have implied uncomfortably fast speeds of melt movement through the mantle. Yet the latest results suggest such velocities were serious underestimates. Most volcanism on Earth occurs unseen, at submarine volcanic ridges that form in response to the sedate spreading of the oceanic plates. As the plates pull apart at a genteel rate of a few centimetres per year, underlying mantle viscously rises at a similar rate to fill the space. As a result of this upwelling and decompression, the mantle melts, producing the magma that feeds mid-ocean-ridge volcanoes. On page 534 of this issue1, Rubin et al. provide a dramatic illustration that magma rises to the surface with unexpected haste, in stark contrast to the stately movements of the solid from which it is derived. Melt velocities of up to a few metres per year, about 100 times faster than plate spreading rates, have been rationalized from simple physical models2. But Rubin and colleagues' measurements suggest that melts beneath oceanic ridges may move up to three orders of magnitude faster than that ? raising questions about our understanding of permeability and fluid flow in the mantle3. The authors present a geochemical study of very recently erupted mid-ocean-ridge magmas. Investigation of the rates of magma production and transport exploit the uranium-series nuclides, which include isotopes of thorium, radium, radon and lead. These short-lived daughter nuclides occur in the decay chain between the long-lived radioactive parent 238U (half-life 4.5109 years) and its ultimate, stable daughter, 206Pb. Given time, these intermediate daughter nuclides will establish a steady-state decay chain, in which all nuclides decay at the same rate. This steady state is termed secular equilibrium. Various processes, such as mantle melting, may disturb secular equilibrium, but equilibrium is re-established between any nuclide pair in the uranium-series chain within around five half-lives of the shorter-lived nuclide. Any disequilibrium between a nuclide pair records an event more recent than this. Within the uranium series, nuclide half-lives range from 2.5105 years to 1.610-4 seconds, providing an ample choice of chronometer. Compared to many geological processes, the timescales documented by even the longer-lived uranium-series nuclides, such as 230Th (half-life 76,000 years) and 226Ra (half-life 1,600 years), are rapid. Yet previous studies of mid-ocean-ridge magmas had already revealed disequilibrium in both 230Th?238U and 226Ra?230Th nuclide pairs4, 5. Rubin et al.1 have upped the ante and analysed 210Pb, which has a half life of only 23 years. After disturbance, the 210Pb?226Ra nuclide pair will return to equilibrium on a timescale of about 100 years, dizzyingly fast for most processes in the Earth's interior. A major hurdle is to find samples from the seabed that are so young that any 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium present at eruption has not significantly decayed. It is troublesome to detect, let alone sample, eruptions that occur some 2,500 metres beneath the ocean surface, and so it is a remarkable achievement to obtain lavas to test for initial 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium. The magmas erupted at mid-ocean ridges also have notably low abundances of uranium and its daughter nuclides, making accurate analysis challenging. Rubin et al.1 have overcome these problems, and make the striking observation that many of their samples have 210Pb?226Ra deficits ? that is, less 210Pb than would be expected relative to 226Ra at the steady state, secular equilibrium. It is both reasonable and conceptually appealing to attribute disequilibrium to the very melting process that produces the magmas. Yet it is also possible that contamination of magma in the crust just before eruption, or degassing of the volatile intermediate 222Rn (or even of 210Pb itself), produces 210Pb deficits. Rubin et al., however, present convincing arguments that these secondary processes do not significantly influence 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium. If the 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium is then a result of melting, rates of melting and melt movement to the sea floor can be inferred. It is first necessary, however, to assess what part of the melting process the disequilibrium is timing. Disequilibrium records the fractionation of parent from daughter nuclide. This occurs during melting because elements have different affinities for melt relative to the melting solid. For example, 210Pb enters the melt less readily than 226Ra, giving rise to a melt with a 210Pb deficit. But many of the uranium-series nuclides, including 226Ra and 210Pb, favour the melt over the solid so strongly that the differences in their behaviour are apparent only when very small amounts of melt are present. In simple models of melting, this means that the production of 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium can occur only when melt is first produced (Fig. 1). The presence of any disequilibrium in erupted lavas then provides a constraint on the time taken for melt to travel from the very bottom of the melting region to the top. [[[[[Figure 1: Melt pathways and possible sites for generation of uranium-series nuclide disequilibrium. Nuclides are fractionated at the onset of melting because of their different affinity for melt relative to the solid. The 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium in magmas measured by Rubin et al.1 potentially records this event and so the transit time to eruption. Yet continued equilibration between upwelling melt and solid leads to different velocities for the nuclides through the mantle7, generating further disequilibrium. Generation of disequilibrium by such an 'ingrowth' process is also only effective where the proportion of the melt is small compared to the solid. That is unlikely to be the case in the main melt conduits, but tributaries to the main channels may contribute ingrown nuclides even high in the melting column. Finally, disequilibrium may be caused by contamination or degassing in the crust, but Rubin et al. make a good case against this. High resolution image and legend (71K)]]]]]] The previous speed limit for this process was clocked in 1988 ? also by Rubin, who, together with J. D. Macdougall5, used the 226Ra?230Th pair, which returns to equilibrium in about 8,000 years. The time constraints of this earlier study were thus some two orders of magnitude less stringent than those of the new observations, but at the time they came as a big surprise. In response to the perceived difficulty of moving melt so fast to the surface6, melting models were developed that relieved some of the need for speed7. However, the less glamorous but quite plausible alternative of crustal contamination has also continually raised its head (Fig. 1). Importantly, the new study1 not only requires faster melt transport than before but also provides evidence against some of the increasingly sophisticated scenarios of contamination8. The effects of contamination on the 226Ra?230Th pair are strikingly different from those on 210Pb?226Ra. Thus, models constructed to explain previously observed 226Ra?230Th excesses by contamination seem unlikely to be able to account for the new 210Pb?226Ra deficits. On the other hand, coupled 210Pb?226Ra deficits and 226Ra?230Th excesses are expected for most melting processes. Rubin et al. demonstrate that a simple model can reasonably account for their observations. Clearly, a more comprehensive exploration of the new data using refined models9, 10 will follow. But now, even more emphatically than before, it seems that you can't keep a good melt down. References 1Rubin, K. H., van der Zander, I., Smith, M. C. & Bergmanis, E. C. Nature 437, 534?538 (2005). Kelemen, P. B., Hirth, G., Shimizu, N., Spiegelman, M. & Dick, H. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 355, 283?318 (1997). | Article | 2Phipps Morgan, J. & Holtzman, B. K. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 6, Q08002; doi:10.1029/2004GC000818 (2005). | Article | 3Condomines, M., Morand, P. & All?gre, C. J. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 55, 247?256 (1981). | Article | Rubin, K. H. & Macdougall, J. D. Nature 335, 158?161 (1988). | Article | 4Faul, U. Nature 410, 920?923 (2001). | Article | Spiegelman, M. & Elliott, T. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 118, 1?20 (1993). | Article | 5Saal, A. E. & van Orman, J. A. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 5, Q02008; doi:10.1029/2003GC000620 (2004). | Article | 6Lundstrom, C. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 121, 189?204 (2000). | Article | 7Jull, M., Kelemen, P. B. & Sims, K. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 66, 4133?4148 (2002). | Article | +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From david.wesley at ucr.edu Thu May 11 11:18:50 2006 From: david.wesley at ucr.edu (David Wesley) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:18:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CSHEMA 2006 Preliminary Schedule is now available Message-ID: <773854B2E1C0D94687157C3B57F07FDC01342E36@VCAMAIL.vcadmin.vcaitad.ucr.edu> DON'T DELAY SIGN UP FOR CSHEMA BEFORE JUNE 1ST and SAVE The technical sessions for CSHEMA 2006 have been selected and the preliminary schedule is attached. This year's speakers hail from colleges and universities from all over this fine planet we call home. >From the University of California to Boston University up to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and over to the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, everyone is coming to CSHEMA 2006 at the Disneyland Resort in beautiful Southern California. From Biosafety to Emergency Management, CSHEMA has a talk you'll want to hear. For any and all information about CSHEMA 2006, please check out www.cshema.2006.org Here is a small sample of the outstanding presentations scheduled for CSHEMA 2006: Hot Zone in the Vivarium: A Practical Approach to Managing Biohazards in Research Animals Stephen Kowalewski, University of California, San Diego Lessons Learned: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Mike Durham, Louisiana State University Training EH&S Programs to Function with the University Environment Robert Emery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston Applications of Nanotechnology in Biomedicine Nanda Gudderra, NIH CSHEMA 2006 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE (Subject to Change) Monday, July 17 Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 10:30-11:15 BIOSAFETY Considerations for the Institutional Review of Recombinant DNA Research Robert Hashimoto, Consultant EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Severe Weather Readiness: Lessons Learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma Roger Morse, AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates ENVIRONMENTAL Regulatory Update: EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Initatives Adam Steinman, Esq. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS A Survey of the Implementation Status of Environmental Management Systems in US Colleges and Universities Susanne M. Savely, Baylor College of Medicine 11:20-12:05 BIOSAFETY Hot Zone in the Vivarium: A Practical Approach to Managing Biohazards in Research Animals Stephen Kowalewski, University of California, San Diego EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Including Senior Managment in Emergency Planning Madelyn Miller, Carnegie Mellon University ENVIRONMENTAL The Benefit of Performing a Self-Disclosure audit Program for Your Facility Peter Charrington, Jacques Whitford Company MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS A Review of Safety Management Systems at Nine Hong Kong Universities Martha McDougall, Retired/Consultant Awards Luncheon 1:30-2:15 BIOSAFETY Development and Implementation of a University Select Agent Management Program Ben Owens, University of Nevada, Reno EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Pandemic Influenza: Assumptions and Myths Peter Reinhardt, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ENVIRONMENTAL Compliance through Pollution Prevention: A Case Study of the Fayetteville Campus of the University of Arkansas Dr. Miriam Lonon, University of Arkansas MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Performance-Based Safety Measurement: Modern Metrics for Modern Times Wayne Pardy, Q5 Systems Limited 2:20-3:05 BIOSAFETY Creating a Comprehensive Exercise Program: How to Meet Your Obligations in the Select Agent Final Rules Thomas Boyle, University of Pennsylvania EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2006 Lessons Learned Marty Shaub, University of Utah ENVIRONMENTAL Encouraging Toxics Use Reduction in Academic Laboratories Susan Leite, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Campus Safety Management Systems - Working with Front-Line Units Tom McGiff, Cornell University Break 3:30-4:15 BIOSAFETY A Risk-Based Approach for Laboratory Design; Meeting the FDA's Expectation for Manufacturing Sterile Biological Products Using Aseptic Processing Wayne Thomann, Duke University EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Lessons Learned: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Mike Durham, Louisiana State University ENVIRONMENTAL Mass-Balance Calculations Pereformed to Estimate Airborne Emissions of HAPs and VOCs from University Laboratory Fume Hoods: A Case Study Luis Barthel-Rosa, Ph.D., University of Nevada, Reno MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The Role of Business Process Modeling in the MIT EHS Management System Tom Pedersen, CDM 4:20-5:05 BIOSAFETY National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) Peter Schneider, Boston University ENVIRONMENTAL Air Permitting Requirements for Cogeneration Plants Joseph Hower, ENVIRON International Corporation MANAGEMENT The Emperor Has No Hard Hat -- Creating a Safety Culture Alan Quilley, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology Tuesday, July 18 Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 10:30-11:15 LABORATORY SAFETY Implementing a Laboratory Safety Initiative Elizabeth (Betsy) Howe, University of Nebraska, Lincoln EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EH&S Recovery Operations After a Major Laboratory Fire Rebecca Lally, CIH, University of California, Irvine SUSTAINABILITY Environmentally Sustainable Initatives at USC John Edward Becker, University of Southern California MANAGEMENT-- TBD 11:20-12:05 LABORATORY SAFETY UVM's Lab Safety Partnership Barbara Benton St. Gelais, University of Vermont EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Points to Consider in a Disaster Recovery Plan Roger G. Morse, AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates SUSTAINABILITY Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Platform to Launch Sustainability Julie Hampel and Valerie Fanning, University of California, San Diego MANAGEMENT--TBD Lunch 1:00-1:45 LABORATORY SAFETY A Lab Safety Inspection System That Works: How to Inspect 850 Labs in 150 Days Pietro Gasparrini, McGill University EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Interfacing with the National Incident Management System with Campus Emergency Operations Plans Terry Logan, Middle Tennessee State University SUSTAINABILITY LEEDing Further - WSP Environmental's Experience at Ithaca College Josh Whitney and Ed Quevedo, WSPE MANAGEMENT Campus Safety: It Isn't Rocket Science.. Or Is It? Al Diaz, University of California, Riverside 1:50-2:35 LABORATORY SAFETY Implementation of a Lab Security System at Arizona State University Steven J Hunter, Leon Igras, Laura Ploughe, Lara York, Arizona State University EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Picking up the Pieces - Delgado Community College New Orleans JoAnn Copperud, CEO, Vendor SUSTAINABILITY Energy Conservation in Laboratories -- Five Big Hits..Is Safety One of Them? David Drummond, University of Wisconsin, Madison MANAGEMENT Developing Enterprise Risk Management for the University of California System Grace Crickette, University of California, Office of the President Break and Poster Sessions 3:30-4:15 LABORATORY SAFETY Student Health and Safety in the Instructional Environment Jeffrey Battaglia, Washington State University SMALL COLLEGES Small Colleges: Benchmarking and Lessons Learned Suzanne Howard, Wellesley College GENERAL SAFETY Pre-Placement Physical Program Richard Costello, University of Texas, Pan American MANAGEMENT The Compelling Display of Health & Safety Data to Facilitate Desired Decision Making Robert Emery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston 4:20-5:05 LABORATORY SAFETY Using Online Video to Support Laboratory Safety Compliance at Stanford University Robert Edgar, Stanford University GENERAL SAFETY Boundary Condition and Decision Analysis and Back Analysis of Risk Douglas Sweeney, Thompson Rivers University, University of BC MANAGEMENT Training EH&S Programs to Function with the University Environment Robert Emery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston Wednesday, July 19 Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 10:30-11:15 NANO TECHNOLOGY Safety Management Including Fire and Chemical Safety for Semiconductor/Nanotech R&D Operations David Rainer, NC State University Experiencing Sharing of a Preliminary Nanosafety Program at a Research University Dr. Samuel Yu, Denv, CIH, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Applications of Nanotechnology in Biomedicine Nanda Gudderra, NIH FIRE SAFETY Explosion and Fire in the Organic Chemistry Stockroom at UC Riverside in 2005 Russell Vernon, PhD, NR, University of California, Riverside GENERAL SAFETY And The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Implosion of Highrise Student Dormitory Paul Richmond, Iowa State University MANAGEMENT A Labyrinth of Chaos - How to Survive Change in the Expanding University Stephen Scheufler, Arizona State University 11:20-12:05 FIRE SAFETY A Chemist Looks at Laboratory Fire Safety Regulations John DeLaHunt, Colorado College TECHNOLOGY HOMEPAGE Winner to Be Announced MANAGEMENT Why We Do What We Do: Developing and Inculcating a Standard of Care Phillip Van Saun, University of California, San Diego Lunch 1:00-1:45 NANOTECHNOLOGY The NIOSH Nanotechnology Health and Safety Research Program Charles Geraci, NIOSH FIRE SAFETY A Balanced Approach to Fire Protection - Content Flammability Bob Backstrom, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. TECHNOLOGY EHS Assistant: Information Management in an EHS Program Ronald Slade, Boston University GENERAL SAFETY UC Irvine: Integrating Safety into the Workplace Chris Younghans-Haug, CSP, CIH, REH, University of California, Irvine 1:50-2:35 FIRE SAFETY University Knox-Lock Box Program Richard Benton, University of California, San Diego TECHNOLOGY The Use of Interactive Virtual Pre-Labs in Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Instruction Jeremiah Woolsey, Shailesh Prasad and Chunyan Tracy Zhang, Concordia University GENERAL SAFETY Staff and Student Use of Job Safety Analyses at the UC Berkeley Campus Gary Bayne, CHST CAC, University of California, Berkeley Break 3:00-3:45 BUILDING DESIGN How Did You Do That? Construction of a New Environmental Health & Safety Services Building A. David Inyang, Iowa State University, Environmental Health & Safety ` HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Logistical Tracking System (LTS) - Enhancing the Tracking, Safety and Security of HAZMAT at Universities and Colleges Dr. Nicolas Valcik and Esequiel Barrera, University of Texas, Dallas TECHNOLOGY Tablet PCs for EH&S Field Surveys Thomas Flynn, PhD, PE, University of Washington GENERAL SAFETY Achieving and Maintaining Safe Work Environments at Remote University Locations Brian Oatman and Mark Barros, University of California, Davis 3:50-4:35 EPA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous Materials and Earthquakes: Who Goes in After the Shaking Stop? Douglas Gallucci, CHMM, University of Washington TECHNOLOGY Database Development: Lessons Learned from UIUC's Ventures Jennifer Bedell, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign GENERAL SAFETY Gross Anatomy Lab Exposure Reduction: Our Journey to Local Exhaust Ventilation Richard Stone, University of Nevada, Reno CSHEMA 2006 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE (Subject to Change) This year's professional development conferences are so good you'll want to come early and stay late. They include: Emergency Exercises That Work: In this workshop, participants will look at best practices for designing and conducting emergency drills and exercises that work. Offered twice so you won't miss it!! Emerging Biosafety Issues for EHS Directors: This short course will provide an in-depth look at the year's emerging biological safety issues and provide a glimpse of things to come. This session is designed for EHS management personnel who need a comprehensive overview of the most current issues facing their Biosafety program managers. Conducting Peer Program Reviews: The Professional Development Seminar (PDS) on Program Review (PR) provides an in-depth look into how to conduct Environmental Health and Safety Program reviews. The PDS content is based on nationally recognized methodologies and planning strategies and is designed to provide the participants with the knowledge of how to conduct an external program review. A host of qualified speakers will present timely and informative topics and provide various templates for use by participants. NEW Offering! The EHS Management Academy 2 Days Amazing as it may seem, almost none of the EH&S management that provide support to the over 4,000 colleges and universities in this country have ever received formal academic instruction on how universities function and how EH&S programs might serve to further the mission of the institution. This situation is due in large part to the absence of formal training in this area. In 1996, the University of Texas System EH&S Academy was created with support from a grant from NIOSH to provide individuals with training on the breadth of health and safety issues inherent to the university work environment, and to instill an understanding of how universities operate. The original 40 hour version of the course has been very successful, providing training to hundreds of individuals from across Texas and the nation. The popularity of the course subsequently lead to requests for the on-site delivery of condensed versions of the course to train existing staff on key elements, such as what programmatic measures are important, how universities operate, and the special needs of faculty. This PDS will provide a condensed version of the Academy, covering topics identified as being particularly useful and timely, as judged by recent course participants. The topics covered will include a wide range of operational aspects. Ranging from how universities work to risk management and insurance, to effective program marketing and communications. The sessions are designed to be very interactive, and time will be allotted for the customization of individual program data displays - so to gain maximum value from this course, participants should bring electronic examples of the data they use to explain what they do, and the graphs used to tell this story. Those bringing their laptops will be able to modify and customize some of their displays during the course and before and after "make overs" will be presented for review by the course participants. Course content DAY 1 * University Infrastructure: Why Universities Exist, How They Work, and Understanding the Needs of Faculty * Risk Management and Insurance Primer for University EH&S Programs * Identification and Use of EH&S Metrics That Matter * 50 Things That Every Person in a University EH&S Program Should Know DAY 2 * Effectively "Selling" Your EH&S Program * Effectively Communicating Public Health Information through the Mass Media * The Compelling Display and Use of EH&S Information for Desired Decision Making * Participant Data and Report Make-Over Workshop: Presentations, Judging-- participants bring best graphs, charts, revise and present See you there From piotr.bein at imag.net Thu May 11 13:53:37 2006 From: piotr.bein at imag.net (Piotr Bein) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:53:37 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99m Message-ID: <0822800B-B1CA-44DA-843A-1B59C7D46FFF@imag.net> What is the biological half life in a scan of a broken wrist? What are the features of the carrying agents? Is there a mobilization solution to facilitate clearance or is the product already designed for clearance? Is the use of homeopathic chelating agents recommended to clean blood and suck up the isotope? Piotr Bein From james at readsay.com Thu May 11 22:07:12 2006 From: james at readsay.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:07:12 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: <001801c67561$d1578850$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <001801c67561$d1578850$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <4463FBE0.2040205@readsay.com> Dear Colonel Daxon, Again, to what data do you refer? The only data I've been able to find which can answer the question are the enthalpies of production of uranium oxide gases in table V.4 on page 98 of H. Wanner and I. Forest, eds. (2004) "Chemical Thermodynamics of Uranium" (Paris: OECD and French Nuclear Energy Agency) -- http://www.nea.fr/html/dbtdb/pubs/uranium.pdf Ask a physical chemist to interpret those figures if you don't understand them (I had to.) UO3 production at the burning temperature (>2500 K) is more likely than UO2 production, and UO2 is already established as 25% of the solid particulate product. There is reason to believe that nearly all U3O8(s) particulate product is produced from UO3(g) condensation and decomposition, and not as a direct combustion product. The French thermodynamic table lacks the enthalpies for direct production of U3O8, but common sense suggests that a large, eleven atom oxide is an unlikely combustion product in comparison to the four atom UO3. And by the way -- I forgot to mention these three important facts: 1. If UO3(g) cools below about 400 deg. C before it condenses, then it will not decompose further. 2. "Health impact assessments for depleted uranium munitions should take into account the presence of respiratory UO3" according to Salbu, B. et al. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait," Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125?135: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf 3. Production of UO3 as a combustion product is documented in: Army Environmental Policy Institute (1995) "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army," Champaign, Illinois, June 1995; and U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (1998) "Interim Summary, Total Uranium and Isotope Uranium Results," Project No. 47-EM-8111-98. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements. The > data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an > issue. The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM > To: Eric D > Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much > UO3(g)?] > > Dear Colonel Daxon, > > You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any > data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas > combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the > present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of > incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to > measure the gas products. > > Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any > sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes > only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining > dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told > by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. > > Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of > UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question > once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology > and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different > than that of the solid oxide particulates. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > Eric D wrote: > >>I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous > > posts > >>and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. > > I > >>addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have >>also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of >>"uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are > > incorrect > >>and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. >> >>Eric Daxon >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM >>To: edaxon at satx.rr.com >>Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl >>Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] >> >> >> >>>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. >> >> >>It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as >>it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense >>-- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): >> http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf >> >> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 >> UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 >> where T2 < T1 >> >>This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish >>between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. >> >>There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't >>condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial >>amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it >>happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed >>immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving >>UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses >>slower and less distant before settling. >> >>So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious >>isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not >>just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because >>the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions >>are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will >>not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such >>as are present from natural uranium. >> >>Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the >>production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic >>absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl >>ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and >>maybe even decades after exposure. >> >>Sincerely, >>James Salsman >> > > From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Fri May 12 07:55:35 2006 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:55:35 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs In-Reply-To: <20060512120812.97549.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC4A@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> <20060512120812.97549.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I can confirm this, though in the Arizonan desert I did not survey the cacti for alpha-emitters, but rather the desert for cacti.... My experience was made during the Mururoa-Project of the IAEA, where I checked on all the places where we took soil, coral, plants etc. the alpha- and the beta-gamma contamination with large-area contamination monitors. Though I was extremely careful not to touch any obstacles, especially corals or tips of small plants the mylar-window was punctured within a few hours. After having replaced it by a spare one and being even more cautious the foil showed several hole within the next hour. I agree that such alpha-monitors cannot be used in the environment, but probably on an even surface like a table. Since the distance to the source is so crucial I would not even in this ideal case trust any data expressed in Bq/cm2 (or pCi/square inch...). BTW, the titanium window of the xenon gas filled beta-gamma probe survived much longer, but also this was punctured by the sharp end of a stem of a shrub. For the survey of plutonium-239 distribution we used thin NaI(Tl) crystals to measure the gamma-rays of Am-241, which was associated with the Pu. The radio was determined by radiochemical analysis of samples from soil or corals. Best regards, Franz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006/5/12, John Jacobus : > > Unless you put the material right up against the > screen, alpha surveying in the field is pretty poor. > During a training exercise, I had a friend who had > problems surveying cacti in the desert. > > From dankane at mindspring.com Fri May 12 15:36:36 2006 From: dankane at mindspring.com (Daniel F. Kane) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99m References: <0822800B-B1CA-44DA-843A-1B59C7D46FFF@imag.net> Message-ID: <005001c67603$c389df50$0a0110ac@S1098400778> In general the effective half - life (which considers both the biological half-life and the physical half-life of Tc-99m) is considered from a dosimetry standpoint to be six hours. At least that is what the manufacturers state in their package inserts. The radiopharmaceutical (either MDP or HDP) binds to the hydroxyapatite crystals of bone in a manner that is related to blood flow or metabolism. High blood flow/metabolism equals higher uptake which often suggests some disease or injury process. My guess is that once bound to the bone, it stays there. At least 50% of the injected agent is excreted by urine in the first few hours. I doubt that anyone knows what effect homeopathic chelating agents may have on this agent but usually just drinking more water suffices to clear the body of the agent rapidly and safely. Simply increase your water intake thereby increasing your urine output and facilitating the removal of any agent not bound to your bone. Of course, one should discuss this all with the physician supervising the test who has full access to your medical history and physical state. The nuclear medicine physician responsible for your care should be consulted. Dan Kane Associates in Medical Physics, LLC www.medphysics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Piotr Bein" To: Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:53 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99m > What is the biological half life in a scan of a broken wrist? > What are the features of the carrying agents? Is there a mobilization > solution to facilitate clearance or is the product already designed for > clearance? > Is the use of homeopathic chelating agents recommended to clean blood and > suck up the isotope? > > Piotr Bein > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From rhelbig at california.com Fri May 12 20:42:13 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:42:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [DU-WATCH] House Passes Rep. McDermott DU Amendment to Defense Bill In-Reply-To: <20060513013648.90457.qmail@web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bad news since McDermott heavily influenced by Moret and Rokke, for example, the forged document purporting to be memo to Maj Gen Groves about DU in 1942. Hope Senate has more sense. Maybe though, the resulting study will prove once and for all that there is no danger to veterans or their children. We can only hope. Apparently, McDermott in his ignorance has no knowledge of the already extensive studies which have proved the activists wrong time and time again, but their clever use of internet and obscure world wide radio has kept their version of the issue in the minds of legislators. Roger Helbig --- R Rands wrote: Note word is being spread by the Australian arch-activist Robert Rands > To: > From: "R Rands" > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:41:31 +1000 > Subject: [DU-WATCH] House Passes Rep. McDermott DU > Amendment to Defense Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Denise Nichols > > > The McDermott(WA) amendment to the DOD bill for a > study on DU passed the floor of the House at > approximately 2:27 EST! It was carried in floor > proceedings carried on CSpan, the Committee did not > fight the amendment and it was passed by voice vote > to be included in the Defense Bill. > > Sincerely, > Denise > DSNurse > > > House Passes Rep. McDermott Amendment > Possible DU Health Effects on Soldiers Will Be > Studied > For Immediate Release, May 11, 2006 > > After years of relentless and unwavering efforts, > including speeches, interviews, news conferences, > working with groups like Physicians for Social > Responsibility, and even appearing on a song in a > newly released Punk Rock album, in order to raise > public awareness, the House of Representatives today > passed legislation (DoD Authorization) that includes > an amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D) ordering a > comprehensive study on possible health effects from > exposure to depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and > their children. > > "As long and winding as the road has been to get > where we are today, this is only the beginning- but > this is a great day because we have taken the first > step to defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and > defend us," McDermott said. > Shortly after passage, Rep. McDermott received a > letter from James King, the national executive > director of AMVETS, the American Veterans > organization: > > "This is a very important issue for AMVETS and its > membership. Our ultimate goal is to provide atomic > veterans with the tools necessary to file a claim > and be considered for due compensation. Your > amendment will help begin this process. > "Again, thank you for your amendment and your > support of veterans and their families." > > Rep. McDermott has spent several years working to > get the House to study DU. He explained the reason > behind his passionate advocacy for the issue in this > way: > > "For me, this is a personal, not political, quest. > My professional life turned from medicine to > politics after my service in the U.S. Navy during > the 1960s, when I treated combat soldiers returning > from Vietnam. > > "Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange > posed any danger to U.S. soldiers who were exposed. > Decades later, the truth finally emerged. Agent > Orange harmed our soldiers. It made thousands sick > and some died. During all those years of denial, we > stood by and did nothing while soldiers suffered. No > more Agent Orange! > > "If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it with > statistically valid, and independent scientific > studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to > know it, and act quickly as any doctor would, to use > all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our > soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that > leads us." > > The amendment to undertake a comprehensive study of > possible health effects to soldiers from exposure to > depleted uranium was contained in the Department of > Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the House > on Thursday evening. > > Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium > enrichment process. Because it is very dense, the > U.S. military uses DU for munitions like > armor-piercing bullets and tank shells, and as a > protective shield around tanks. When used in > munitions, DU pulverizes into a fine dust upon > impact; it can hang in the air, be inhaled or seep > into the soil. > > During the Gulf War, the U.S. military used > approximately 300 metric tons of DU as munitions. To > date in the Iraq War, approximately 150 metric tons > have been used. During conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, > Serbia, and Montenegro, about 12 metric tons were > used. (A metric ton is slightly more than 2,200 > pounds.) > In addition to its own use, the United States has > provided or sold DU and DU munitions to several > other nations. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > McDermott Presses Amendment to Study Possible DU > Health Impacts on U.S. Soldiers, notes Ken Kadlec > > 2006-05-11 | Jim McDermott's amendment, which adds a > provision to the DoD Authorization measure to > require the U.S. Secretary of Defense to conduct a > study on the health impact that Depleted Uranium has > on soldiers, will be considered on the House floor > today (Thursday, May 11). Majority has indicated > that they will accept the amendment, and it will > pass the House later this morning. > > Ken Kadlec > > Photo of an Afghani child victim of "Depleted" > Uranium (DU), courtesy of the > Afghan DU & Recovery Fund: > http://www.afghandufund.org > > Please have the courage to view other photos on the > above website and at: > The Center for an Informed America: NEWSLETTER #13 > August 13, 2002; > http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr13.html > For greater clarity, please click the photo and then > continue ... > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Select Legislative DayMay 02, 2006May 03, 2006May > 04, 2006May 08, 2006May 09, 2006May 10, 2006May 11, > 2006 > > > > CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS > LEGISLATIVE DAY OF MAY 11, 2006 > 109TH CONGRESS - SECOND SESSION > > H.R. 5122: > to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for > military activities of the Department of Defense, to > prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal > year 2007, and for other purposes > 2:28 P.M. - > DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 811, > the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes > of debate on the Tierney amendment. > > Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney. > An amendment numbered 22 printed in House Report > 109-461 to restructure the missile defense program > to be consistent with a Congressional Budget Office > (CBO) alternative proposal; to prohibit the > deployment of: (1) Ground-Based Midcourse Defense > beyond the authorized systems; and (2) any > space-based interceptors; and reduce the Missile > Defense Agency's (MDA's) $9.3 billion budget by > $4.747 billion so as to still enable the MDA to > focus on research and development as well as testing > and upgrades to current systems. > > 2:27 P.M. - > On agreeing to the McDermott amendment Agreed to by > voice vote. > > 2:23 P.M. - > DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 811, > the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes > of debate on the McDermott amendment. > > 2:22 P.M. - > Amendment offered by Mr. McDermott. > > An amendment numbered 13 printed in House Report > 109-461 to direct the Secretary of Defense, in > consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs > and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to > conduct a comprehensive study of the health effects > of exposure to depleted uranium munitions. > > On agreeing to the Hooley amendment as modified > Agreed to by voice vote. > > "There are too many legitimate medical questions > concerning possible adverse health effects on our > soldiers in Iraq from the U.S. military's use of > depleted uranium," McDermott said. "We owe it to our > soldiers to get answers." > > Earlier in this Congress, McDermott introduced H.R. > 2410. This bill calls for a comprehensive study of > health effects from exposure to DU, a study of the > environment where DU has been tested in the United > States, and mitigation and cleanup of contaminated > sites, if studies find DU to be harmful. > > The Pentagon routinely states that DU is a safe and > effective weapon, and the Republican-controlled > Congress refuses to hold a hearing on the issue or > McDermott's legislation. However, many veterans of > the Gulf Wars believe that exposure to depleted > uranium could be a cause of Gulf War Syndrome. > > "As a medical doctor, I know the difference between > a cursory and a comprehensive study," McDermott > said. "We don't have the kind of credible, > independent, scientific evidence on which to judge > DU harmful or not. U.S. soldiers deserve better than > 'trust us,' which is what the Pentagon is saying. > They said that before during the Vietnam War when > concerns were raised about the use of Agent Orange. > Decades later, the Pentagon finally admitted Agent > Orange was harmful. I have the same concerns about > DU." > > McDermott said his amendment differs from his > legislation in order to jump parliamentary hurdles > to be included in the DoD authorization bill. The > amendment Reps. McDermott and Shays submitted calls > only for a comprehensive study of health effects on > U.S. soldiers. > > "I was willing to scale back my DU legislation to > fit the narrow requirements of the Rules Committee," > McDermott said, "because U.S. soldiers have every > right to know if exposure to depleted uranium might > harm them now or in the future." > "Our soldiers deserve our thanks, and they deserve > our commitment to a comprehensive medical study that > will answer scientifically and independently whether > DU poses health dangers." From rhelbig at california.com Fri May 12 22:46:28 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] House Passes McDermott Depleted Uranium Study Amendment Message-ID: <012101c67641$383b4cc0$9d425142@roger1> House Passes McDermott Depleted Uranium Study Amendment Possible DU Health Effects on Soldiers Will Be Studied May 11, 2006 For Immediate Release After years of relentless and unwavering efforts, including speeches, interviews, news conferences, working with groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility, and even appearing on a song in a newly released Punk Rock album, in order to raise public awareness, the House of Representatives today passed legislation that includes an amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D) ordering a comprehensive study on possible health effects from exposure to depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and their children. See McDermott's introduction of his amendment calling for a comprehensive study of the effects of depleted uranium "As long and winding as the road has been to get where we are today, this is only the beginning- but this is a great day because we have taken the first step to defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and defend us," McDermott said. Shortly after passage, Rep. McDermott received a letter from James King, the national executive director of AMVETS, the American Veterans organization: "This is a very important issue for AMVETS and its membership. Our ultimate goal is to provide atomic veterans with the tools necessary to file a claim and be considered for due compensation. Your amendment will help begin this process. Again, thank you for your amendment and your support of veterans and their families." Rep. McDermott has spent several years working to get the House to study DU. He explained the reason behind his passionate advocacy for the issue in this way: "For me, this is a personal, not political, quest. My professional life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s, when I treated combat soldiers returning from Vietnam. "Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed any danger to U.S. soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth finally emerged. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers. It made thousands sick and some died. During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while soldiers suffered. No more Agent Orange! "If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it with statistically valid, and independent scientific studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it, and act quickly as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads us." The amendment to undertake a comprehensive study of possible health effects to soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium was contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the House on Thursday evening. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Because it is very dense, the U.S. military uses DU for munitions like armor-piercing bullets and tank shells, and as a protective shield around tanks. When used in munitions, DU pulverizes into a fine dust upon impact; it can hang in the air, be inhaled or seep into the soil. During the Gulf War, the U.S. military used approximately 300 metric tons of DU as munitions. To date in the Iraq War, approximately 150 metric tons have been used. During conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, about 12 metric tons were used. (A metric ton is slightly more than 2,200 pounds.) In addition to its own use, the United States has provided or sold DU and DU munitions to several other nations. -30- http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr060511b.shtml From gpblackwood at yahoo.com Sat May 13 15:39:59 2006 From: gpblackwood at yahoo.com (Gerry Blackwood) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] U.N. Finds New Uranium Traces in Iran Message-ID: <20060513203959.73544.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com> [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] By WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: May 13, 2006 Atomic inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment linked to an Iranian military base, raising new questions about whether Iran harbors a clandestine program to make nuclear bombs, diplomats said yesterday. It is the second such discovery in three years of United Nations inspections in Iran. As the Security Council debates how to handle the atomic impasse with Tehran, the finding is likely to deepen skepticism about Iran's claims that its program is entirely peaceful. Yesterday, diplomats familiar with the discovery said its ultimate significance was unclear. "There are still lots of questions," a senior European diplomat said. "So it's not a smoking gun." They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The main puzzle, the senior diplomat added, is whether the traces of highly enriched uranium could be explained by the inadvertent contamination of machinery that Iran obtained abroad. Even so, the diplomat said, that explanation would still link the discovery to Iran's military, which dissidents have long accused of concealing a secret effort to make an atom bomb. Worse, he said, would be an outcome suggesting that Iran had enriched the uranium to a level far beyond most peaceful uses. He said further analysis of the samples might provide an unambiguous answer. European diplomats said the traces of highly enriched uranium had been found by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on equipment linked to the Military Physics Research Center at the Lavizan-Shian base. Iran leveled Lavizan more than two years ago, stirring suspicions that it had been part of a secret nuclear program. Last night, a senior Bush administration official said the United States had long expected that some traces of nuclear activity would be linked to the demolished base. But he added that Washington also expected Iran would claim that the traces came from elsewhere. Highly enriched uranium contains 20 percent or more of a rare form of uranium, known as its 235 isotope. Bomb-grade uranium is usually defined as 80 percent or more, and can be fashioned into the core of a nuclear weapon. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained 140 pounds of highly enriched uranium. The senior European diplomat said the samples from Iran indicated the presence of highly enriched, but not necessarily bomb-grade, uranium. Iran says its atomic program is meant to enrich uranium to the relatively low grades needed for the production of electrical power in nuclear reactors, about 3 or 4 percent, a level that the inspectors recently confirmed. But the United States and some of its allies call the Iranian effort a cover for the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. Iranian officials have said that the Lavizan base was established in 1989 to provide scientific advice to the Defense Ministry. Atomic inspectors say one of its functions was to acquire materials and equipment that, if diverted from benign research, could be used to enrich uranium. Despite the base's destruction, the inspectors, starting in 2004, were eventually able to locate some equipment linked to the base, and to examine it for signs of nuclear materials. The I.A.E.A.'s most recent report on Iran, issued on April 28, mentioned the analysis but no conclusions. In interviews, diplomats said environmental samples from the equipment were sent to the agency's center in Seibersdorf, Austria, one of the world's top laboratories for atomic sleuthing. Following the usual practice, the samples were then sent to a network of laboratories around the globe to confirm the findings. It was unclear if the sampled equipment came from the Lavizan base or from a technical school associated with it. The I.A.E.A. report said the samples came from "equipment said to have been procured for use by the university." For two years, the inspectors pressed hard to track down materials from the base, in part because an Iranian opposition group had charged that the authorities had removed enrichment equipment from Lavizan before demolishing the buildings and carting off the rubble. The first episode involving a mystery of highly enriched uranium began in late 2003, when the inspectors did environmental sampling of some Iranian centrifuges ??? machines that spin extremely quickly to enrich, or concentrate, uranium into fuel for reactors and bombs ??? and found traces of the radioactive material. The finding set off international alarm about the country's intentions, and raised questions about where the material had originated. Iran claimed it was contamination from imported equipment. The agency found that at least some of the highly enriched uranium came from equipment imported from Pakistan. Diplomats said the agency was comparing its knowledge of the signatures of the Pakistani uranium to that found on the equipment linked to the Lavizan base. If it matches, one diplomat said, that would tend to support accidental contamination. "If it doesn't," he added, "it raises an interesting issue." The agency, in its April report, said, "Further access to the procured equipment is necessary." But diplomats cautioned that such access and cooperation were unlikely to occur. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington for this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sat May 13 20:05:07 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:05:07 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVE4yEA Message-ID: <003f01c676f2$71087260$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> The discussion below indicates a change in position. The discussion supports my previous posts as do the "Facts" quoted. Fact 1 agrees with the temperature discussion on an early post I made. Fact 2 has already been accomplished. The Capstone report addressed it. Fact 3, a publication I co-authored, is in line with my other posts and also discussed UO3. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james at readsay.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:07 PM To: Eric D Cc: 'James Salsman'; alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] Dear Colonel Daxon, Again, to what data do you refer? The only data I've been able to find which can answer the question are the enthalpies of production of uranium oxide gases in table V.4 on page 98 of H. Wanner and I. Forest, eds. (2004) "Chemical Thermodynamics of Uranium" (Paris: OECD and French Nuclear Energy Agency) -- http://www.nea.fr/html/dbtdb/pubs/uranium.pdf Ask a physical chemist to interpret those figures if you don't understand them (I had to.) UO3 production at the burning temperature (>2500 K) is more likely than UO2 production, and UO2 is already established as 25% of the solid particulate product. There is reason to believe that nearly all U3O8(s) particulate product is produced from UO3(g) condensation and decomposition, and not as a direct combustion product. The French thermodynamic table lacks the enthalpies for direct production of U3O8, but common sense suggests that a large, eleven atom oxide is an unlikely combustion product in comparison to the four atom UO3. And by the way -- I forgot to mention these three important facts: 1. If UO3(g) cools below about 400 deg. C before it condenses, then it will not decompose further. 2. "Health impact assessments for depleted uranium munitions should take into account the presence of respiratory UO3" according to Salbu, B. et al. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait," Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125-135: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf 3. Production of UO3 as a combustion product is documented in: Army Environmental Policy Institute (1995) "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army," Champaign, Illinois, June 1995; and U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (1998) "Interim Summary, Total Uranium and Isotope Uranium Results," Project No. 47-EM-8111-98. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements. The > data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an > issue. The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM > To: Eric D > Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much > UO3(g)?] > > Dear Colonel Daxon, > > You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any > data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas > combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the > present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of > incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to > measure the gas products. > > Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any > sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes > only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining > dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told > by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. > > Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of > UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question > once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology > and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different > than that of the solid oxide particulates. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > Eric D wrote: > >>I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous > > posts > >>and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. > > I > >>addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have >>also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of >>"uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are > > incorrect > >>and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. >> >>Eric Daxon >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM >>To: edaxon at satx.rr.com >>Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl >>Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] >> >> >> >>>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. >> >> >>It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as >>it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense >>-- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): >> http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf >> >> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 >> UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 >> where T2 < T1 >> >>This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish >>between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. >> >>There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't >>condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial >>amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it >>happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed >>immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving >>UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses >>slower and less distant before settling. >> >>So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious >>isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not >>just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because >>the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions >>are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will >>not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such >>as are present from natural uranium. >> >>Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the >>production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic >>absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl >>ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and >>maybe even decades after exposure. >> >>Sincerely, >>James Salsman >> > > From lboing at anl.gov Mon May 15 12:00:41 2006 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:00:41 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NUREG-1507 PDF In-Reply-To: <000901c67371$fc38aff0$6401a8c0@DB44LX51> Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847892AF57E@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> The DDSC website has lots of good HP related references and resources. L Boing -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Thomas Potter Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:08 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Ron Reif'; JGinniver at aol.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] NUREG-1507 PDF NUREG-1507 June 1998 version available in PDF at following site: http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/instrument/NUREG-1507.pdf Don't know why it is unavailable at NRC site. Tom Potter Original message: Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:20:53 -0400 From: "Ron Reif" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs To: Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Message-ID: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080 at admin.whoi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. _______________________________________________ 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/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Tue May 16 00:03:51 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:03:51 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please send it again References: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41F8A0@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> <016501c665d6$86cf0a00$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Message-ID: <002b01c678a6$39fbdef0$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> I received yestarday a personal request on the Juarez accident. By mistake I deleted the message. Could the colleague send me again Jose joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel From rhelbig at california.com Tue May 16 05:28:50 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:28:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The Eureka Reporter - Article Message-ID: <00c601c678d3$924d2640$de435142@roger1> How to contact the Eureka Reporter A Locally Owned Newspaper Established 2003 Newsroom (707) 476-8000 (707) 476-0623 (fax) Advertising (707) 476-8000 (707) 476-0622 (fax) ads at eurekareporter.com 215 Fourth Street Eureka, CA 95501 Executive Staff Judi Pollace, Publisher judi at eurekareporter.com Glenn Franco Simmons, Managing Editor editor at eurekareporter.com Cori Reed, Advertising Director cori at eurekareporter.com Kevin Bell, Design Director kevin at eurekareporter.com Diane M. Batley, Assistant Managing Editor diane at eurekareporter.com Steve Sartor, Circulation Director steve at eurekareporter.com Steve Jackson, Director of Production Operations sjackson at eurekareporter.com Ray Hamill, Sports Editor rhamill at eurekareporter.com Editorial Staff Wendy Butler, Arts Editor wbutler at eurekareporter.com Christine Bensen-Messinger, Reporter christine at eurekareporter.com Nathan Rushton, Reporter nathan at eurekareporter.com Ann Rohde, Copy Editor arohde at eurekareporter.com Jackie Christensen, Sports Reporter jackie at eurekareporter.com Sean Quincey, Sports Reporter sean at eurekareporter.com Courtney Hunt, Business/Youth Editor courtney at eurekareporter.com Carol Harrison, Health/Travel Editor Charrison at eurekareporter.com Bryan DeMain, Sports Reporter bdemain at eurekareporter.com Tyson Ritter, Photographer tritter at eurekareporter.com Heather Muller, General Assignment Reporter hmuller at eurekareporter.com Kathleen Adkins, Home/Life Editor kadkins at eurekareporter.com Rebecca S. Bender, Reporter rbender at eurekareporter.com Sharon Letts, Reporter sletts at eurekareporter.com Mike Morrow, Reporter mmorrow at eurekareporter.com Katie O'Neill, Photographer koneill at eurekareporter.com Megan McCulloch, Community Coordinator mmcculloch at eurekareporter.com Design Staff Jen McFerrin, Designer jennifer at eurekareporter.com Brian Binder, Designer brian at eurekareporter.com Marcella Humphrey, Designer mhumphrey at eurekareporter.com Advertising Staff Leslie Sampson, Advertising Sales lsampson at eurekareporter.com Andrea Georgeson, Advertising Sales ageorgeson at eurekareporter.com Denise Mildbrandt, Advertising Sales dmildbrandt at eurekareporter.com Trina Knips, Advertising Assistant trina at eurekareporter.com Krista Chalker, Classified Ad Sales kchalker at eurekareporter http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=10544 Bill on depleted uranium in Senate by Rebecca S. Bender, 4/25/2006 A bill now working its way through the state Senate would set up a health screening system for U.S. veterans who may have been exposed to depleted uranium. SB 1720, the Veterans? Health and Safety Act, was introduced by State Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata) in February. Recognizing the extensive use of depleted uranium by U.S. Armed Forces since the 1991 Gulf War and the health risks associated with the radioactive heavy metal ? including kidney and lung damage, cancer and genetic mutations ? the bill designates health screenings for veterans who may have been exposed. ?The purpose of this act is to safeguard the health of California?s veterans by assisting them in obtaining federal treatment services, including ?best practice? health screening tests capable of detecting low levels of depleted uranium,? it stated. It requires the adjutant general and the secretary of the California Department of Veterans Affairs to provide outreach and assistance to eligible veterans, defined as those who return to California following service in an area where depleted uranium was known to be used, or in an area that was designated as a combat zone by the U.S. president after 1990. The health screenings would include a bioassay procedure capable of detecting depleted uranium at low levels and discriminating between different uranium isotopes. An annual report on the efficacy of pre- and post-deployment training related to detecting exposure would also be submitted to the state legislative policy committees dealing with veterans? affairs. Last week, the bill was re-referred to the Committee on Veterans? Affairs. Another bill introduced by Chesbro and co-authored by Assemblymember Patty Berg (D-Eureka) expresses support for the federal Veterans? Right to Know Act. That bill, HR 4259, was introduced in Congress by U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Napa). It signed into law, it would create a commission to investigate chemical and biological tests involving members of the armed services, particularly Project 112 and the Shipboard Hazard and Defense Project. It has been in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel since the end of November. The California lawmakers? bill of support was also re-referred to the Committee on Veterans? Affairs last week. From koskokd at aol.com Tue May 16 08:55:55 2006 From: koskokd at aol.com (koskokd at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:55:55 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem Message-ID: <8C84707964C3531-1154-16D@mblk-r39.sysops.aol.com> Dear Colleagues, I am looking for information regarding the definition of "reasonable" as it applies to a person-rem of exposure. I expect that the definition varies greatly depending on the applicable regulatory agency and/or the political drivers at a particular site. Specifically, I would like to know what value (in dollars per person-rem) is used at your site when considering work approach, engineering controls etc.. I would also be interested in knowing if your site has no assigned monetary value directly associated to a person-rem. Thank you in advance. Best Regards, Kevin D. Kosko President K2 Environmental Services LLC. Phone:(937) 470-2655 Fax: (937) 743-3012 e-mail:KOSKOKD at aol.com ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. From Danb at DNFSB.GOV Tue May 16 09:49:45 2006 From: Danb at DNFSB.GOV (Dan Burnfield) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:49:45 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 2005 Summer School Presentation Message-ID: <4469AE49.0EE1.00C8.0@DNFSB.GOV> During the 2005 Summer school there was a presentation made by a senior CH2M HILL executive with a slide called the silver Bullet. Does anyone have a copy of this presentation they would be willing to share. Thanks. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov From llowe at senes.ca Tue May 16 15:06:09 2006 From: llowe at senes.ca (Leo M. Lowe) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:06:09 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Transport Shielding Requirements for Uranium ? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060516154223.02b2c320@mail.senes.ca> Uranium ore and physical concentrates of such ores are classified as LSA-I in the IAEA transport regulations (TS-R-1), which means that they can be shipped in regular IP-1 packages, or unpackaged if shipped under exclusive use. However, high grade ores and physical concentrates can exhibit elevated radiation levels, in the order of 0.5 mSv/h or higher at 1 meter distance [TS-R-1, para. 526(c) suggests using 0.4 mSv/h at 1 m]. Since the maximum radiation levels for road or rail vehicles for consignments under exclusive use is 0.1 mSv/h at 2 m from the sides of the vehicle [TS-R-1 para.572{c)], does this mean that such ores and concentrates must be shielded when transported? I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for such materials. Regards, Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys. SENES Consultants Limited llowe at senes.ca www.senes.ca Tel: 905-764-9380 Fax: 905-764-9386 This transmission is intended only for the addressee and may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information. Any unauthorized disclosure, use or retention is strictly prohibited. SENES does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in contents or attachments. Information is provided for use "as is" by the addressee. Revised documents must not be represented as SENES work product, without express, written permission of a SENES Director. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Tue May 16 15:35:24 2006 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:35:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Transport Shielding Requirements for Uranium ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060516154223.02b2c320@mail.senes.ca> Message-ID: Leo This is a good question. Perhaps the answer depends on the country. I would ask the Canadian trucking associations at Jade Transportation (http://www.jadetrans.com/aboutus.html) British Columbia Trucking Association (http://www.bctrucking.com) Alberta Motor Transport Association (http://www.amta.ca) Saskatchewan Trucking Association (http://www.sasktrucking.com) Ontario Trucking Association (http://www.ontruck.org/memberlinks) Transport Quebec: Trucking (http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/camionnage/index.asp) Transport Canada 2000 (http://www.transport2000.ca/atlantic/about.html) Canadian Trucking Alliance (http://www.cantruck.com) Canadian Trucking Association( http://www.cta.ca/contacts.php) Regards John _________________ John R Johnson, Ph.D. ***** President, IDIAS, Inc 4535 West 9-Th Ave Vancouver B. C. V6R 2E2 (604) 222-9840 idias at interchange.ubc.ca ***** -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Leo M. Lowe Sent: May 16, 2006 1:06 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Transport Shielding Requirements for Uranium ? Uranium ore and physical concentrates of such ores are classified as LSA-I in the IAEA transport regulations (TS-R-1), which means that they can be shipped in regular IP-1 packages, or unpackaged if shipped under exclusive use. However, high grade ores and physical concentrates can exhibit elevated radiation levels, in the order of 0.5 mSv/h or higher at 1 meter distance [TS-R-1, para. 526(c) suggests using 0.4 mSv/h at 1 m]. Since the maximum radiation levels for road or rail vehicles for consignments under exclusive use is 0.1 mSv/h at 2 m from the sides of the vehicle [TS-R-1 para.572{c)], does this mean that such ores and concentrates must be shielded when transported? I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for such materials. Regards, Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys. SENES Consultants Limited llowe at senes.ca www.senes.ca Tel: 905-764-9380 Fax: 905-764-9386 This transmission is intended only for the addressee and may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information. Any unauthorized disclosure, use or retention is strictly prohibited. SENES does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in contents or attachments. Information is provided for use "as is" by the addressee. Revised documents must not be represented as SENES work product, without express, written permission of a SENES Director. _______________________________________________ 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/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Wed May 17 01:25:09 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:25:09 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem References: <8C84707964C3531-1154-16D@mblk-r39.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00e001c6797a$cd97b380$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> By 8/23/99 similar question was made, my information at that time can be used today. Pleaso GO TO http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9908/msg00533.html I will only add one more reference IAEA Safety Series 109 Intervention Criteria in a Nuclear or Radiation Emergency, 1994 - infortunably no more available to download. Look at page 72 - I.10 - I.16 Value Assigned to avoiding health detriment. Jose Julio Rozental joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem > Dear Colleagues, > > I am looking for information regarding the definition of "reasonable" as it applies to a person-rem of exposure. I expect that the definition varies greatly depending on the applicable regulatory agency and/or the political drivers at a particular site. Specifically, I would like to know what value (in dollars per person-rem) is used at your site when considering work approach, engineering controls etc.. I would also be interested in knowing if your site has no assigned monetary value directly associated to a person-rem. Thank you in advance. > > Best Regards, > > Kevin D. Kosko > President > K2 Environmental Services LLC. > Phone:(937) 470-2655 > Fax: (937) 743-3012 > e-mail:KOSKOKD at aol.com > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From eport at rssi.us Wed May 17 10:12:57 2006 From: eport at rssi.us (Eli Port) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:12:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20060517101142.032884e8@mail.rssi.us> HEALTH PHYSICS POSITION RSSI is a Morton Grove, Illinois Health Physics consulting organization that provides solutions to regulatory, operational, and environmental problems. RSSI is seeking applicants who have a BS or MS in Health Physics or another science, and zero to two years of internship or practical experience, for an entry-level position in Health Physics. During the first half year, a new employee will gain theoretical and applied skills beyond those acquired in school. In this first half year of employment, a new member of RSSI's staff will work in operational Health Physics programs, environmental radiological health studies, and perform laboratory analysis with high-resolution gamma spectroscopy, alpha spectroscopy, low-level alpha-beta counting, and alpha track dosimetry. Following this six month period, the employee will be assessed for knowledge and understanding and will be encouraged to grow in regulatory affairs and intervention, and to prepare to assume positions with greater decision-making responsibilities. For the first several years, individuals will be closely mentored and regularly evaluated for success and for future growth potential. Benefits include health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, and reimbursement for educational expenses. To learn about RSSI, go to www.rssi.us. Send resumes to eport at rssi.us or call Eli Port at 847-965-1999. Thanks. Eli Port, CHP, CIH, P.E. RSSI 6312 W. Oakton St. Morton Grove, IL 60053-2723 VOICE: +1-847-965-1999 24X7 FAX: +1-847-965-1991 http://www.rssi.us From tom.odou at unlv.edu Wed May 17 11:14:15 2006 From: tom.odou at unlv.edu (tom.odou at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:14:15 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] UNLV Radiological Safety Officer Posting Message-ID: The University of Nevada Las Vegas is looking for a University RSO. The job listing is below, please contact Aurali Dade (see listing below) for more information. Thanks, Tom O'Dou, CHP, RRPT Director of Radiation Laboratories Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas ----- Forwarded by Tom O'dou/UNLV on 05/17/2006 09:03 AM ----- Aurali Dade/UNLV Sent by: aurali Dade 05/12/2006 02:37 PM To Becky Delacruz/UNLV at UNLV, Tom O'dou/UNLV at UNLV, Ben Fausett/UNLV at UNLV, George Fratus/UNLV at UNLV, Rowena Gonzalez/UNLV at UNLV, Ed Gannon/UNLV at UNLV, Larry Warkentin/UNLV at UNLV, Robert Hoffman/UNLV at UNLV, Toni Lee/UNLV at UNLV, Johnny Centineo/UNLV at UNLV, Michael Means/UNLV at UNLV, Abigail Rakvica/UNLV at UNLV, Ellen Fleck/UNLV at UNLV, Billy Ayers/UNLV at UNLV, Michele Washington/UNLV at UNLV, Steen Madsen/UNLV at UNLV, czerwin2 at unlv.nevada.edu, Mark Rudin/UNLV at UNLV, Ronald Yasbin/UNLV at UNLV, mjo at unr.edu cc Subject UNLV Radiological Safety Officer Posting Here is the link: http://www.higheredjobs.com/institution/details.cfm?JobCode=175182254 Radiological Safety Officer Institution: University of Nevada Las Vegas Location: Las Vegas, NV Category: Admin - Occupational and Environmental Safety Posted: 05/12/2006 Application Due: Open Until Filled Type: Full Time The Risk Management and Safety (RMS) Department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) seeks applicants for the position of Radiological Safety Officer (RSO). This is a full-time, 12-month renewable appointment. RESPONSIBILITIES The Radiological Safety Officer (RSO) reports to the Assistant Director, Environmental Management & Laboratory Safety. Responsibilities include ensuring a safe working research and educational environment with respect to the use of radiation, radioactive materials, and non-ionizing radiation for research and teaching on the UNLV campus under a broad scope license. The person filling this position is expected to maintain all State licenses for radioactive materials and registrations of radiation producing machines and to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and policies. He/she is expected to oversee the radiation protection program, assess potential exposures to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and minimize the hazards associated with the use, transport, storage and disposal of sources by establishing and implementing appropriate policies and procedures. He/she also must have the ability to interpret personnel dose reports, perform surveys and inspections, provide all levels of training related to radioactive materials, provide technical assistance to assure containment of radioactive materials and calibration of radiation detection equipment. QUALIFICATIONS Applicant must have a Bachelor's Degree in Health Physics, Radiological Science or related scientific discipline and 5 years comparable professional radiation protection experience including experience administering a broad scope license. A master's degree in Health Physics or related discipline and certification as a Certified Health Physicist (CHP) is preferred. The RSO must be capable of managing a comprehensive radiation safety program without close supervision and have good written and verbal interpersonal communication skills. The applicant must be able to lift 50 pounds, handle full 55 gallon drums (450 pounds) using mechanical assistance and must be able to respond to a radiological incident by wearing an air purifying respirator, self contained breathing apparatus and all levels of personal protective equipment. APPLICATION DETAILS Application materials must include a current resume or curriculum vitae, a detailed cover letter, and names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three professional references who may be contacted. Applicants should fully describe qualifications and experience, since the initial review will serve to evaluate applicants based on documented relevant qualifications. The review of materials will begin immediately. Materials should be addressed to Aurali Dade, Search Committee Chair and are to be submitted via on-line application at https://hrsearch.unlv.edu . For assistance with UNLV's on-line applicant portal, contact Jen Feldmann at (702) 895-3886 or hrsearch at unlv.edu. UNLV is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action educator and employer committed to excellence through diversity. Application Information Contact: University of Nevada Las Vegas Online App. Form: https://hrsearch.unlv.edu Thanks! Aurali Aurali Dade Biosafety Officer/Chemical Hygiene Officer University of Nevada Las Vegas Phone: (702) 895-0463 Fax: (702) 895-4690 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 17 11:56:39 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem In-Reply-To: <00e001c6797a$cd97b380$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Message-ID: <20060517165639.78074.qmail@web54311.mail.yahoo.com> Kevin, Another value is the NRC's assessment of $2,000 per man-rem. There analysis is in NUREG 1530, "Reassessment of the NRC's Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy." You can get a copy by sending an e-mail request to distribution at nrc.gov --- Jose Julio Rozental wrote: > By 8/23/99 similar question was made, my information > at that time can be > used today. Pleaso GO TO > http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9908/msg00533.html > > I will only add one more reference IAEA Safety > Series 109 Intervention > Criteria in a Nuclear or Radiation Emergency, 1994 - > infortunably no more > available to download. Look at page 72 - I.10 - I.16 > Value Assigned to > avoiding health detriment. > > Jose Julio Rozental > joseroze at netvision.net.il > Israel > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I am looking for information regarding the > definition of "reasonable" as > it applies to a person-rem of exposure. I expect > that the definition varies > greatly depending on the applicable regulatory > agency and/or the political > drivers at a particular site. Specifically, I would > like to know what value > (in dollars per person-rem) is used at your site > when considering work > approach, engineering controls etc.. I would also be > interested in knowing > if your site has no assigned monetary value directly > associated to a > person-rem. Thank you in advance. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Kevin D. Kosko > > President > > K2 Environmental Services LLC. > > Phone:(937) 470-2655 > > Fax: (937) 743-3012 > > e-mail:KOSKOKD at aol.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video > search, pictures, email and > IM. All on demand. Always Free. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 17 12:19:37 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bad news on the Cold Fusion front Message-ID: <20060517171937.38977.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Story from news at nature.com: http://news.nature.com//news/2006/060508/060508-8.html Published online: 10 May 2006; Bubble-fusion group suffer setback Team admits a mix-up with one of their neutron detectors. Eugenie Samuel Reich A group of researchers making high-profile claims about fusion energy has admitted to accidentally using equipment different from that reported in their most recent paper. An erratum providing details of the mistake by Rusi Taleyarkhan of Purdue University and colleagues has been published in Physical Review Letters1. Critics interpret the admission as a sign that the group's fusion claims2 are unravelling, because it comes in the wake of serious questions about the original work's validity (see 'Is bubble fusion simply hot air?'). "Confusing detectors in a discovery of this magnitude is an embarrassing mistake," says Seth Putterman of the University of California, Los Angeles. But Taleyarkhan and colleagues say that their data, analysis and conclusions are not affected by the error. In January, Taleyarkhan published the most recent of a series of papers in respected journals that claimed to see neutrons characteristic of fusion reactions coming from collapsing bubbles in organic fluids. If validated, such work could pave the way for cheap, green energy. Taleyarkhan claimed to have deployed three independent methods of detecting these neutrons, one of which was a boron trifluoride gas proportional tube with a polyethylene covering. His erratum notes that this actually turned out to be a lithium iodide crystal scintillation detector, also with a polyethylene covering. According to the erratum, the error was discovered "upon disassembly of the outer coverings" of the detector and is due to "an oversight which was based on incorrect information from a person's recollection who loaned this apparatus for the study". Knowing what you're working with The mistake does not in itself invalidate the experiment's conclusions, but experts say it casts further doubt over the results. Neutron expert Mike Saltmarsh of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where Taleyarkhan previously worked, points out that doing a good technical job involves knowing what detector is in use. "If you don't know what you're working with, you can easily make mistakes," says Saltmarsh. Manuals provided by Ludlum Measurements, which manufactures both types of detector, confirm that different operating voltages and different calibration checks are recommended for the two, for example. Source of confusion Brian Naranjo of the University of California, Los Angeles, claimed in March that Taleyarkhan's observed neutrons probably came from a standard lab source rather than fusion reactions3. Naranjo based his study on results from a different detector in Taleyarkhan's setup. Saltmarsh points out that the data from the lithium iodide detector, as it is now known to be, are consistent with Naranjo's claim. In Taleyarkhan's experiment, the 'boron trifluoride' detector observed high levels of gamma rays (-rays) alongside the neutrons, despite the fact that boron trifluoride detectors are not very sensitive to -rays. Taleyarkhan and his colleagues suggest that neutrons from fusion were interacting with the detector's polyethylene coating to produce a slew of rays. But the lithium iodide detector is more sensitive to -rays, says Saltmarsh, and the lab source posited by Naranjo could easily have provided enough for the levels observed. Taleyarkhan's co-author Robert Block, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, disagrees. Block says he and Taleyarkhan still think the observed -rays are produced by fusion neutrons colliding in the polyethylene covering, no matter what the detector. A university review of Taleyarkhan's work is under way and due to finish by 1 June. References Taleyarkhan R. P., et al. Physical Review Letters, 96. 179903 (2006). Taleyarkhan R. P., et al. Physical Review Letters, 96. 034301 (2006). http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0603060 (submitted to Physical Review Letters) Top ? 2006 Nature Publishing Group | Privacy policy +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 17:00:33 2006 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and other causes can lead to DNA damage Message-ID: <20060517220035.83540.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 17-May-2006 Contact: Kim Carlyle kcarlyle at uga.edu 706-542-8083 University of Georgia 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and other causes can lead to DNA damage Researchers have known for years that damaged DNA can lead to human diseases such as cancer, but how damage occurs--and what causes it--has remained less clear. Now, computational chemists at the University of Georgia have discovered for the first time that when a proton is knocked off one of the pairs of bases that make up DNA, a chain of damage begins that causes "lesions" in the DNA. These lesions, when replicated in the copying mechanisms of DNA, can lead to serious disorders such as cancer. The research, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was led by doctoral student Maria Lind and Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham-Perdue Professor of Chemistry. Other authors on the paper are doctoral student Partha Bera, postdoctoral associate Nancy Richardson and recent doctoral graduate Steven Wheeler. Call it a "pinball proton." While chemists have shown other causes of DNA damage, the report in PNAS is the first to report how protons, knocked away by such mechanisms as radiation or chemical exposure, can cause lesions in DNA. The work was done entirely on computers in the Center for Computational Chemistry, part of the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences at UGA. "This kind of damage in DNA subunits is about as basic as you can get," said Schaefer. "This is the simplest kind of lesion possible for such a system." The double-helix structure of DNA has been known for more than half a century. This basic building block of life can "unzip" itself to create copies, a process at the heart of cell replication and growth. DNA is made of four "bases," Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine, and each one pairs with its opposite to form bonds where the "information" of life is stored. Thus, Guanine pairs with Cytosine, and Thymine with Adenine. The team at the University of Georgia studied how the removal of a proton from the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) base pair is involved in creating lesions that can lead to replication errors. This pair has 10 protons, meaning there are numerous targets for processes that knock the protons off. The lesions are breaks in the hydrogen bonds, of which there are two in the G-C base pair. (The Adenine-Thymine pair has three hydrogen bonds.) "Our real goal is to examine all possible lesions in DNA subunits," said Lind. The team discovered that the base pair minus its knocked-off proton can either break entirely or change its bonding angle--something that also causes improper replication. "The C-G subunit is usually totally planar [flat]," said Lind. "If it twists, it could simply pull apart." Though it has already been suspected that lesions in DNA caused by both high- and low-energy electrons result in cancer cell formation, the new study is the first evidence that protons do the same thing. The study in PNAS also has other implications. Researchers are beginning to understand how DNA can be used as "molecular wire" in constructing electrical circuits. Such a breakthrough would allow small electronic devices to shrink even further, but how the electrical properties of DNA would work in such a context is not yet understood. The UGA research adds important knowledge about how so-called "deprotonated" DNA base pairs work and could be important in creating "DNA wire." ### The research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Roy Herren --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 18 12:53:46 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and other causes can lead to DNA damage In-Reply-To: <20060517220035.83540.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518175346.98940.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Roy, Thanks for posting this. I assume that the "explusion" of the proton from the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) base pair is due to the deposited energy of the UV radiation. It provides insight into mutation beyond the creation of thymine dimers by UV radiation. http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~rwinning/genetics/mutat3.htm --- ROY HERREN wrote: > Public release date: 17-May-2006 > > Contact: Kim Carlyle > kcarlyle at uga.edu > 706-542-8083 > University of Georgia > 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and > other causes can lead to DNA damage Researchers > have known for years that damaged DNA can lead to > human diseases such as cancer, but how damage > occurs--and what causes it--has remained less clear. > Now, computational chemists at the University of > Georgia have discovered for the first time that when > a proton is knocked off one of the pairs of bases > that make up DNA, a chain of damage begins that > causes "lesions" in the DNA. These lesions, when > replicated in the copying mechanisms of DNA, can > lead to serious disorders such as cancer. The > research, just published in the Proceedings of the > National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was led by > doctoral student Maria Lind and Henry F. Schaefer > III, Graham-Perdue Professor of Chemistry. Other > authors on the paper are doctoral student Partha > Bera, postdoctoral associate Nancy Richardson and > recent doctoral graduate Steven Wheeler. Call it a > "pinball proton." While chemists have > shown other causes of DNA damage, the report in > PNAS is the first to report how protons, knocked > away by such mechanisms as radiation or chemical > exposure, can cause lesions in DNA. The work was > done entirely on computers in the Center for > Computational Chemistry, part of the Franklin > College of Arts and Sciences at UGA. "This kind of > damage in DNA subunits is about as basic as you can > get," said Schaefer. "This is the simplest kind of > lesion possible for such a system." The > double-helix structure of DNA has been known for > more than half a century. This basic building block > of life can "unzip" itself to create copies, a > process at the heart of cell replication and growth. > DNA is made of four "bases," Adenine, Guanine, > Thymine and Cytosine, and each one pairs with its > opposite to form bonds where the "information" of > life is stored. Thus, Guanine pairs with Cytosine, > and Thymine with Adenine. The team at the > University of Georgia studied how the removal of a > proton > from the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) base pair is > involved in creating lesions that can lead to > replication errors. This pair has 10 protons, > meaning there are numerous targets for processes > that knock the protons off. The lesions are breaks > in the hydrogen bonds, of which there are two in the > G-C base pair. (The Adenine-Thymine pair has three > hydrogen bonds.) "Our real goal is to examine all > possible lesions in DNA subunits," said Lind. The > team discovered that the base pair minus its > knocked-off proton can either break entirely or > change its bonding angle--something that also causes > improper replication. "The C-G subunit is usually > totally planar [flat]," said Lind. "If it twists, it > could simply pull apart." Though it has already > been suspected that lesions in DNA caused by both > high- and low-energy electrons result in cancer cell > formation, the new study is the first evidence that > protons do the same thing. The study in PNAS also > has other implications. > Researchers are beginning to understand how DNA can > be used as "molecular wire" in constructing > electrical circuits. Such a breakthrough would allow > small electronic devices to shrink even further, but > how the electrical properties of DNA would work in > such a context is not yet understood. The UGA > research adds important knowledge about how > so-called "deprotonated" DNA base pairs work and > could be important in creating "DNA wire." ### > The research was supported by a grant from the > National Science Foundation. > > > Roy Herren > > --------------------------------- > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not > radically different. Just radically better. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu May 18 13:20:49 2006 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified Message-ID: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's response about the following article. Sorry, but the graphic associated with this article may not be passed along by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified" Roy Public release date: 18-May-2006 Contact: Jerry Barach jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il 972-258-82904 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Protein (green dot) shown in this sequence scanning through a cell?s DNA for mutations. Click here for more information. --------------------------------- For the first time anywhere, researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in observing and describing how damaged DNA is naturally identified. The research sheds new light on understanding this molecular mechanism and is likely to aid in research on diseases involving DNA damage, including cancer. An article regarding the work of the Hebrew University researchers appears in the current issue of the scientific journal Cell. The researchers, headed by Dr. Sigal Ben-Yehuda of the Department of Molecular Biology at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, revealed a new protein which scans DNA at the onset of bacterial sporulation. The protein moves quickly along the chromosome and identifies DNA damage. When the protein identifies such damage, it halts at that spot and signals to other proteins which repair DNA. Under conditions of stress, some bacteria undergo a process of division which produces spores. These spores are particularly resistant to conditions of heat, radiation, dryness and exposure to chemicals, making it difficult to eradicate them with conventional methods, such as antibiotic drugs. Most of the knowledge about sporulation of bacteria has been gathered over the years on a bacterium known as Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium which does not cause any illnesses. When this bacterium enters the sporulation phase, it verifies that the DNA sequence is in proper order and does not contain any mutations. But the process of how this occurs has not been observed until now. "For the first time it is now possible to see how this phenomenon occurs," said Dr. Ben-Yehuda. "Proteins triggered by the bacteria that are similar to the protein that has been revealed in our laboratory are found in all species, including humans, and therefore one can conclude that the way in which the bacterial protein scans the DNA for lesions is similar among many forms of life. "This understanding of the molecular basis of the DNA repair is a basic step in furthering our ability to understand those illnesses stemming from DNA damage, for example cancerous growths. " ### Roy Herren --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 18 14:25:34 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518192534.16184.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Roy, I am not sure if this really adds much to the discussion about DNA repair mechanism. The consequences of DNA repair and mis-repair have been known for many years. See http://www.hhmi.org/news/goldbergj.html http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=1303 http://mednews.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6237.html et alia --- ROY HERREN wrote: > I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's response > about the following article. Sorry, but the graphic > associated with this article may not be passed along > by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to > http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and > search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew > University researchers succeed in observing for 1st > time how DNA damage is identified" > > Roy > > Public release date: 18-May-2006 > > Contact: Jerry Barach > jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il > 972-258-82904 > The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing > for 1st time how DNA damage is identified > > --------------------------------- > > > > --------------------------------- > > Protein (green dot) shown in this sequence > scanning through a cell?s DNA for mutations. > Click here for more information. > > --------------------------------- > > > For the first time anywhere, researchers at the > Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in > observing and describing how damaged DNA is > naturally identified. > The research sheds new light on understanding this > molecular mechanism and is likely to aid in research > on diseases involving DNA damage, including cancer. > An article regarding the work of the Hebrew > University researchers appears in the current issue > of the scientific journal Cell. > The researchers, headed by Dr. Sigal Ben-Yehuda of > the Department of Molecular Biology at the Hebrew > University-Hadassah Medical School, revealed a new > protein which scans DNA at the onset of bacterial > sporulation. The protein moves quickly along the > chromosome and identifies DNA damage. When the > protein identifies such damage, it halts at that > spot and signals to other proteins which repair DNA. > > Under conditions of stress, some bacteria undergo > a process of division which produces spores. These > spores are particularly resistant to conditions of > heat, radiation, dryness and exposure to chemicals, > making it difficult to eradicate them with > conventional methods, such as antibiotic drugs. > Most of the knowledge about sporulation of > bacteria has been gathered over the years on a > bacterium known as Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium > which does not cause any illnesses. When this > bacterium enters the sporulation phase, it verifies > that the DNA sequence is in proper order and does > not contain any mutations. But the process of how > this occurs has not been observed until now. > "For the first time it is now possible to see how > this phenomenon occurs," said Dr. Ben-Yehuda. > "Proteins triggered by the bacteria that are similar > to the protein that has been revealed in our > laboratory are found in all species, including > humans, and therefore one can conclude that the way > in which the bacterial protein scans the DNA for > lesions is similar among many forms of life. > "This understanding of the molecular basis of the > DNA repair is a basic step in furthering our ability > to understand those illnesses stemming from DNA > damage, for example cancerous growths. " > ### > > > Roy Herren > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From JPreisig at aol.com Thu May 18 17:37:48 2006 From: JPreisig at aol.com (JPreisig at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:37:48 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cold Fusion Message-ID: <42c.165ba1a.319e513c@aol.com> Hmmmmm, This is from: jpreisig at aol.com . Hi Radsafers, Recent RADSAFE messages indicate that some cold fusion researchers are mixing up their Lithium Iodide and BF3 detectors. Oh my --- why can't researchers get something so fundamental correct??? The detector responses of these types of detectors are different, right??? Perhaps some verbal abuse (or worse) is in order. What was more important than getting the experiment's detectors correct??? I would recommend re-analyzing the data with only one type of detector present (drop out the other detector's data). See what happens. Then rerun the whole experiment with only one type of detector used. Of course, send erratum messages to any journal's involved with these articles. My guess is that the experiment's results will improve once only a single type of detector is used. On to other matters. Some RADSAFE participants have a clear dislike for this ROKKE person. Hope they are not confusing him with the Al Roker weather person out of New York City. And now, on to Hanford. Most of the storage tanks there have had their fluids removed, leaving mostly fairly solid waste, right??? Also some of the waste is being moved to double walled storage tanks. And efforts to vitrify the waste are continuing, right??? Also, isn't the Hanford area fairly arid (and doesn't receive much rainfall each year)??? So, what are Hanford's radioactive waste plumes and how far from the storage tank farm have they gotten? Some radionuclides move very slowly with respect to groundwater, and others move right along with the groundwater (i.e. at the same velocity). The Groundwater Hydrogeology book by Freeze and Cherry describes what is going on at an undergraduate/graduate level. So, I guess Hanford should continue to replace old, leaking, storage tanks with double-walled storage tanks. And I guess, Hanford should continue along with its waste vitrification efforts. The old leaking storage tanks that need repair more quickly are those that have radionuclides that transport quickly in the gound. The actual physical form of the waste is important also. I'm guessing that no-one is now using Hanford aquifers for drinking water??? One computer code for doing groundwater (radionuclide) transport is Femwater/BLT, which, I think is available from the Radiation Shielding Information Center (RSICC) at Oak Ridge. I think a PC friendly version of Femwater/BLT exists now. Other computer codes like MODFLOW, Lewater/Lewaste, etc. are available also. The interesting part in all this is that if radionuclide waste plumes actually reach the Columbia River (or whatever rivers are nearby), the sheer volume of the water in that River would dilute the radionuclides considerably. Still, I guess leaky storage tanks should be replaced and the waste in them should eventually be vitrified. Was the Hanford show on 60 minutes up to date, or was it a rebroadcast of an earlier show??? Hope your day is going well. Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, Ph.D. From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Fri May 19 06:59:52 2006 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:59:52 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Recognition proteins must have been known for 2-3 decades by now. I wonder what the new aspect is. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com From eport at rssi.us Tue May 16 18:00:40 2006 From: eport at rssi.us (Eli Port) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:00:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20060516175048.035a3eb0@mail.rssi.us> RSSI is a Morton Grove, Illinois Health Physics consulting organization that provides solutions to regulatory, operational, and environmental problems. RSSI is seeking applicants who have a BS or MS in Health Physics or another science, and zero to two years of internship or practical experience, for an entry-level position in Health Physics. During the first half year, a new employee will gain theoretical and applied skills beyond those acquired in school. In this first half year of employment, a new member of RSSI's staff will work in operational Health Physics programs, environmental radiological health studies, and perform laboratory analysis with high-resolution gamma spectroscopy, alpha spectroscopy, low-level alpha-beta counting, and alpha track dosimetry. Following this six month period, the employee will be assessed for knowledge and understanding and will be encouraged to grow in regulatory affairs and intervention, and to prepare to assume positions with greater decision-making responsibilities. For the first several years, individuals will be closely mentored and regularly evaluated for success and for future growth potential. Benefits include health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, and reimbursement for educational expenses. To learn about RSSI, go to www.rssi.us. Send resumes to eport at rssi.us or call Eli Port at 847-965-1999. Thanks. Eli Port, CHP, CIH, P.E. RSSI 6312 W. Oakton St. Morton Grove, IL 60053-2723 VOICE: +1-847-965-1999 24X7 FAX: +1-847-965-1991 http://www.rssi.us From mcmahankl at ornl.gov Fri May 19 08:34:04 2006 From: mcmahankl at ornl.gov (McMahan, Kimberly L.) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:34:04 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cold Fusion Message-ID: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900215DB94@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> We had a similar situation a couple of years ago. One of our operational groups purchased a Bonner sphere set and made some measurements in an "unknown" field, just for information and familiarization with the equipment and codes. Data were gathered and unfolding codes were run. Not long after our group made some measurements in a different field using these Bonner spheres as well as a Snoopy and a TEPC. Lo and behold the Bonner spheres were reporting much higher than the others. Finally we took the Bonner spheres into the cal lab's low scatter room and delivered some known doses (sheesh, we're slow). Evaluated doses were still very high. On investigation and consultation with the supplier it was found that the crystal size was 4 x 8 mm rather than 4 x 4 mm as stated in the technical documents. They were as surprised as we were (!). Manufacturers, please take note. Where was the QA at the factory? Buyer, beware. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of JPreisig at aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:38 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cold Fusion Hmmmmm, This is from: jpreisig at aol.com . Hi Radsafers, Recent RADSAFE messages indicate that some cold fusion researchers are mixing up their Lithium Iodide and BF3 detectors. Oh my --- why can't researchers get something so fundamental correct??? The detector responses of these types of detectors are different, right??? Perhaps some verbal abuse (or worse) is in order. What was more important than getting the experiment's detectors correct??? I would recommend re-analyzing the data with only one type of detector present (drop out the other detector's data). See what happens. Then rerun the whole experiment with only one type of detector used. Of course, send erratum messages to any journal's involved with these articles. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 19 12:54:35 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: DNA repair mapped, systems-wide Message-ID: <20060519175435.69722.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> >From The Scientist at http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23466/ As noted: ". . . The researchers found 30 transcription factors that appeared to be involved in the damage response . . ." -------------------------- NEWS DNA repair mapped, systems-wide By Melissa Lee Phillips Scientists use sweeping approach to generate map of interconnected cellular responses to DNA damage [Published 19th May 2006 06:13 PM GMT] ------------------------------------------------------- Many cellular processes -- including DNA replication and repair, cell cycle control, metabolism, and stress responses -- form an integrated response to DNA damage, according to a report in this week's Science. The authors used a systems biology approach to create a map of transcriptional networks that are activated when yeast DNA is damaged. "We now know an order of magnitude more pathway connections than were known before, as far as how information is transmitted through the cell in response to damage," senior author Trey Ideker of the University of California, San Diego, told The Scientist. Looking at cellular processes from a wide-angle view -- rather than the one-gene, one-protein approach of classical biology -- permits the construction of "a complete wiring diagram" of transcriptional interactions, Ideker said, which will help scientists control cellular response to DNA damage. Scientists have gathered significant data about how DNA damage is sensed and repaired in the cell, Ideker explained, and previous work has shown that many pathways other than classic "repair" pathways become activated after damage. "What's been entirely unknown is how those different pathways are interlinked to form one cohesive response," Ideker said. Ideker and his colleagues -- led by Christopher T. Workman and H. Craig Mak, also at UCSD -- first screened yeast cells for transcription factors involved in the cellular response to an alkylation agent called methyl-methanesulfonate (MMS). The researchers found 30 transcription factors that appeared to be involved in the damage response -- either because their expression changed with MMS treatment, they bound to promoters of genes whose expression changed with MMS treatment, or their deletion diminished a cell's ability to recover from damage. The authors then used a technique called ChIP-chip -- chromatin immunoprecipitation combined with microarray chip hybridization -- to identify the transcriptional network that each of the 30 transcription factors induces when exposed to MMS. By comparing the genes and protein-DNA interactions after MMS treatment to interactions under normal growth conditions, the authors mapped how transcription factors change their behavior when the cell experiences DNA damage. These changes include employing different DNA binding motifs, altering regulated genes, or changing pairings with other transcription factors. Ideker and his colleagues next used microarrays of yeast genetic knockouts to determine how deleting a key transcription factor changes gene expression induced by MMS. If the ChIP-chip analysis showed that a transcription factor binds to promoters of a certain set of genes, the authors reason, then knocking out that transcription factor should alter those genes' response to MMS treatment. Since transcription factors can also affect genes that they don't bind directly, however, the authors also applied a Bayesian modeling technique to determine likely intermediate factors through which transcription factors modulate downstream gene activity. The resulting transcriptional network shows how transcription factors regulate the expression of 82 genes in response to MMS damage. At the core of the network lies a set of known DNA damage response genes, but surrounding these genes are interacting networks involved in DNA replication and repair, cell cycle arrest, stress responses, and metabolic pathways. "We've now explained all of these pathways that people have hinted at before within the context of one circuit diagram," Ideker said. "I really liked the concept of the paper," said Yolanda Sanchez of Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, NH, who was not involved in the study. "They took a lot of information that was already out there... and figured out connections between the pathways." In future studies, it will be important to add analyses of post-transcriptional and post-translational mechanisms to what they've revealed about transcriptional pathways, Sanchez added. "I'm sure that's coming." "They certainly uncovered some novel connections and pathways that weren't known before," said Grant Brown of the University of Toronto in Ontario. "The biology is not followed up in any rigorous sense, but the point of this is to generate novel ideas that then lead to more hypothesis-driven experiments." Links within this article C.T. Workman et al., "A systems approach to mapping DNA damage response pathways," Science, May 19, 2006. http://www.sciencemag.org M.B. Castan, "DNA damage responses: Cancer and beyond," The Scientist, October 10, 2005. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15766/ Trey Ideker http://chianti.ucsd.edu/idekerlab/index.html J.F. Wilson, "Elucidating the DNA damage pathway," The Scientist, January 21, 2002. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/12816/ S.A. Jelinsky, L.D. Samson, "Global response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an alkylating agent," PNAS, February 16, 1999. PM_ID: 9990050 Yolanda Sanchez http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sanchezlab/ Grant Brown http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/brown/ +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hflong at pacbell.net Fri May 19 14:32:29 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060519193230.86130.qmail@web81814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Roy, My best info on DNA repair comes from my classmate, Myron Pollycove, and his publications with Feinendigan. The study below is incomplete, not showing the end result in people (or even mice). Simply put, as with allergy, a little ionizing radiation seems to stimulate 10 orders of magnitude greater repair than damage by stimulating biologic processes. Howard Long ROY HERREN wrote: I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's response about the following article. Sorry, but the graphic associated with this article may not be passed along by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified" Roy Public release date: 18-May-2006 Contact: Jerry Barach jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il 972-258-82904 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Protein (green dot) shown in this sequence scanning through a cell?s DNA for mutations. Click here for more information. --------------------------------- For the first time anywhere, researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in observing and describing how damaged DNA is naturally identified. The research sheds new light on understanding this molecular mechanism and is likely to aid in research on diseases involving DNA damage, including cancer. An article regarding the work of the Hebrew University researchers appears in the current issue of the scientific journal Cell. The researchers, headed by Dr. Sigal Ben-Yehuda of the Department of Molecular Biology at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, revealed a new protein which scans DNA at the onset of bacterial sporulation. The protein moves quickly along the chromosome and identifies DNA damage. When the protein identifies such damage, it halts at that spot and signals to other proteins which repair DNA. Under conditions of stress, some bacteria undergo a process of division which produces spores. These spores are particularly resistant to conditions of heat, radiation, dryness and exposure to chemicals, making it difficult to eradicate them with conventional methods, such as antibiotic drugs. Most of the knowledge about sporulation of bacteria has been gathered over the years on a bacterium known as Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium which does not cause any illnesses. When this bacterium enters the sporulation phase, it verifies that the DNA sequence is in proper order and does not contain any mutations. But the process of how this occurs has not been observed until now. "For the first time it is now possible to see how this phenomenon occurs," said Dr. Ben-Yehuda. "Proteins triggered by the bacteria that are similar to the protein that has been revealed in our laboratory are found in all species, including humans, and therefore one can conclude that the way in which the bacterial protein scans the DNA for lesions is similar among many forms of life. "This understanding of the molecular basis of the DNA repair is a basic step in furthering our ability to understand those illnesses stemming from DNA damage, for example cancerous growths. " ### Roy Herren --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 22 08:40:15 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060519193230.86130.qmail@web81814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060522134015.52794.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, You are, of course, aware that some people do not develop a "resistance" are you are implying. I believe that a classic case is the response people have to poison ivy http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921270717.html To continue your analogy, maybe some individuals (or cells) do not adequately repair DNA following radiation or other DNA-altering events, and become more sensitive. Just some thoughts to consider. By the way, can you cite a reference for your statements "a little ionizing radiation seems to stimulate 10 orders of magnitude greater repair than damage by stimulating biologic processes." What model are you using? What is the end-point? --- howard long wrote: > Roy, > My best info on DNA repair comes from my > classmate, Myron Pollycove, and his publications > with Feinendigan. The study below is incomplete, not > showing the end result in people (or even mice). > > Simply put, as with allergy, a little ionizing > radiation seems to stimulate 10 orders of magnitude > greater repair than damage by stimulating biologic > processes. > > Howard Long > > ROY HERREN wrote: > I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's > response about the following article. Sorry, but the > graphic associated with this article may not be > passed along by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to > http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and > search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew > University researchers succeed in observing for 1st > time how DNA damage is identified" > > Roy > > Public release date: 18-May-2006 > > Contact: Jerry Barach > jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il > 972-258-82904 > The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing > for 1st time how DNA damage is identified > --------------------------------- > > +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 22 12:46:32 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Brain-tumour cluster strikes university Message-ID: <20060522174632.88739.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> >From news at nature.com Published online: 18 May 2006 (Just for your information) http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515-14.html Brain-tumour cluster strikes university Coincidence, or the fault of cell-phone masts? Carina Dennis A Melbourne university has emptied the top floors of one of its buildings after a spate of brain-tumour cases were reported during the past month. Most affected staff worked on the top floor, raising fears that cell-phone masts on top of the building are responsible. But experts say it is far more likely to be an unfortunate coincidence. Since mid-April, five staff from the business school of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University have reported developing brain tumours. Two other cases have been reported since 1999. Of the seven, two are malignant and five benign. "We suspect there might be other cases, but these haven't been confirmed," says National Tertiary Education Union representative Matthew McGowan, who adds that the union and the university have received phone calls and e-mails from additional staff reporting health concerns. Five of the seven staff worked on the top floor, and all except one have worked in the building for a decade, mostly on the top level. Some staff are concerned that mobile-phone-transmitter towers on top of the building are to blame. "It is too much of a coincidence to simply be chance," says McGowan. The university has offered staff on the two top floors alternative office space while it carries out a two-week investigation. No clear link But international studies have been unable to provide a convincing link between cancer and the use of mobile phones or the proximity of mobile-phone towers. "There is no consistent evidence at present that radiation frequency causes brain tumours. That's not to say it's impossible, but it is not convincing," says Anthony Swerdlow, an epidemiologist at the Institute of Cancer Research in London, and member of a radiation advisory group with the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board. Preliminary results from the university's investigation indicate that radiofrequency levels are extremely low, according to an RMIT spokesperson. "Our initial tests show no cause for alarm," he says. Although little is known of what causes brain tumours, a bacterial or viral agent could be responsible. "That is one of many possibilities," says Richard McNally, a statistical epidemiologist at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. McNally previously reported that brain-tumour occurrence in a region of the Netherlands showed a pattern typical of diseases caused by infection1. RMIT is also testing air- and water-quality to investigate this possibility. Chance cluster Many experts say it is most likely to be a coincidental clustering of cases. "My strong hunch is that it may well be a chance occurrence," says David Hill, the Director of the Cancer Council of Victoria in Australia. McNally, who also think that this "may well be a chance occurrence that has sprung to attention," says the university should determine whether those affected had other known risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition or previous exposure to ionizing radiation. Some of the affected staff did have personal histories that may be linked to a higher risk, according to the RMIT spokesperson. The fact that the tumours are different from each other may also make a common cause unlikely. "The tumours detected have varying origins and only three of the seven types have known associations with radiation," says John Gall, of private-health company Southern Medical Services, who has been appointed by RMIT to investigate the epidemiology of the cluster. The university is expected to release its report next week. References Houben M. P., et al. Eur J Cancer., 41. 2917 - 2923 (2005). +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Wed May 24 01:03:46 2006 From: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:03:46 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] JobPosting: RADIATION SAFETY AND TRAINING SPECIALIST Message-ID: <4473F742.7010808@tudelft.nl> Posted on behalf of Russ Johnson, Radiation Safety/Training Specialist, New Mexico State University. If you are interested in this position and would like to apply please do not send your reaction to RadSafe or me (Marcel Schouwenburg) but send them directly to the adress mentioned below in this JobPosting. Begin JobPosting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RADIATION SAFETY AND TRAINING SPECIALIST (Req #2006003896, Grade 36) Bachelor''s degree in health physics, biology, chemistry or related field and four years of related experience. Implements a comprehensive radiation safety program for large research-based university campus which includes radionuclide laboratories, nuclear gauges, analytic and diagnostic xray devices and lasers. Provides training for radioactive materials, laser safety, respiratory protection, and defensive driving. Submit letter, resume, transcript, list of three references. View the attached pdf-file for a more detailed description of this job. For complete listing: http://www.nmsu.edu/~personnel. Evaluations begin May 29, 2006 and continue until filled. Send to: Dr. K. Doolittle, Environmental Health & Safety, Box 30001/Dept 3578, Las Cruces, NM 88003. NMSU is an EEO/AA employer. End JobPosting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg Head Training Centre Delft / RadSafe moderator & listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15 27 86575 Fax +31 (0)15 27 81717 email m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Radsafetyposition.052006.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 13493 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed May 24 15:12:10 2006 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:12:10 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Test Message Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE1701208336@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> All, This is a test message because I've not be receiving RADSAFE postings since about 1 May. I will email the administrator shortly. Thank you. Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP Kadix Systems U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Wed May 24 19:55:00 2006 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:55:00 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! Message-ID: http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html May 24 Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box Crescent City, Florida (AP) ? A Putnam County couple got a startling surprise when they found a piece of depleted uranium at the bottom of a box of tools. Susan and Lance Greninger called NASA because they had bought the box at an auction near the Kennedy Space Center. A Hazmat team from the fire department examined the metal and said it was a solid piece of depleted uranium about the size of a child's fist. They closed the road in the front of the home for about five hours just to be safe. [[...ohmygawd! only 5h ?!? ...whoa! ...talk about taking chances with the public's well-being !! ]] The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder. They said the piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard to the community. They did say that if the couple had walked around the house with the uranium in their pocket, they would get radiation sickness. [[ ....really ?? ....so i guess my colleague who's been wearing a radium luminous-dial watch for the past 40 years must be fried to a crisp ! ....oddly enough, he doesn't look it ! ]] Authorities said the piece may have been part of a tool. Depleted uranium can be used as a radiation shield and is sometimes used as a ballast in commercial airliners and ships. -- Associated Press -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 5/24/2006 From denison8 at wowway.com Wed May 24 21:48:54 2006 From: denison8 at wowway.com (denison8 at wowway.com) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 22:48:54 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a couple of mrem. At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: >http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >May 24 >Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box > > > >The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder. They said the >piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard to the community. They did >say that if the couple had walked around the house with the uranium in their >pocket, they would get radiation sickness. > [[ ....really ?? ....so i guess my colleague who's been wearing a radium >luminous-dial watch for the past 40 years must be fried to a crisp ! >....oddly enough, he doesn't look it ! ]] > -- ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Eric Denison Westerville, Ohio, USA denison8 at wowway.com Where do you stand? Take "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" online at www.self-gov.org/quiz "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Wed May 24 23:38:43 2006 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:38:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <447534D3.1030109@chartertn.net> denison8 at wowway.com wrote: > Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home > without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a > couple of mrem. > > At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: > >> http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >> May 24 >> Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box >> >> >> >> The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder. They >> said the >> piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard to the community. >> They did >> say that if the couple had walked around the house with the uranium >> in their >> pocket, they would get radiation sickness. >> [[ ....really ?? ....so i guess my colleague who's been wearing a >> radium >> luminous-dial watch for the past 40 years must be fried to a crisp ! >> ....oddly enough, he doesn't look it ! ]] >> I believe that the dose rate from the betas from depleted uranium is about 218 mrad/hr. It does not make any difference how much there is as long as the source is thicker than the range of the betas in U. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From farbersa at optonline.net Thu May 25 00:28:51 2006 From: farbersa at optonline.net (Stewart Farber) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 01:28:51 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! References: <447534D3.1030109@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <000a01c67fbc$1b551da0$b18e7845@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello all, For authoritative information on this point, see the HPS "Ask the Experts" [link and text below] to see that the 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at CONTACT [emphasis added] with a thick [depleted] uranium slab in metal form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is generally assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on depletion or enrichment. As distance from the slab increases, the 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the surface of the slab will quickly fall away to insignificant levels. Stewart Farber ======================= http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q161.html Answer to Question #161 Submitted to "Ask the Experts" Category: Radiation Basics - Beta Radiation The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field: Q: I'm having a very hard time finding solid information about the radiation field intensities expected at the surface of a depleted uranium slab. We are hoping to use such a slab to test and calibrate beta detectors to establish their beta dose rate response. Such a technique is often mentioned in the literature, but I find very little said about what sort of beta-dose rate to expect at the surface of such a slab. Obviously the exact alpha, beta, and gamma intensities will depend on the precise makeup of this particular batch of depleted uranium, but it would be nice to find a discussion of the general ranges expected for each as well as some examples of how others perform such calibrations. The few mentions I see of this range in the area of 210 to 235 mR/hr beta-dose rate at the surface and somewhere between 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the surface of the slab. (The alpha will be unimportant since we'll have the slab covered by thin (5 mil) mylar to minimize potential contamination). If someone has a good reference for this, or a site URL which discusses this, I'd really appreciate any information. Thanks. A: The 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at contact with a thick uranium slab in metal form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is generally assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on depletion or enrichment. The value is mostly dependent on the beta contribution and will therefore vary depending on additional layers of absorber. The following is an excellent reference for published data on natural and depleted uranium (no, I am not the author of the paper): Preferred Reference: a.. Coleman, R.L.; Hudson, C. G.; Plato, P. A. Depth-dose curves for 90SR and natural and depleted uranium in mylar. Health Phys. 44(4): 395-402; 1983. Other References: a.. Handbook of Safety Procedures for Processing Depleted Uranium, Army Material Command Handbook, No. AMCHDBK-385-1.1-89, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. The relevant charts from the handbook are shown in Question #5 of the 1997 ABHP Exam (the view at this Web site is in a not-completely-clear format). b.. Radiological Health Handbook, Bureau of Radiological Health, Jan. 1970, Page 204. Rules of thumb for dose rates at the surface of uranium materials (no supporting data). Robert L. Coleman Oak Ridge National Laboratory ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Andrews" To: Cc: "RADSAFE" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! > denison8 at wowway.com wrote: > >> Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home >> without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a >> couple of mrem. >> >> At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: >> >>> http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >>> May 24 >>> Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006 From farbersa at optonline.net Thu May 25 00:46:10 2006 From: farbersa at optonline.net (Stewart Farber) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 01:46:10 -0400 Subject: Fw: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! Message-ID: <002f01c67fbe$86c3a3c0$b18e7845@YOUR7C60552B9E> For detailed info showing graphs of the drop in dose rate from a slab of DU with various mass thickness [from which you can derive a decline of about 10 for beta dose within 1 meter in air], as part of an American Board of Health Physics exam question on the subject, see: http://www.hps1.org/aahp/abhp/exams/1997/97exam-1.htm#ques5 Stewart Farber ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Farber" To: "John Andrews" ; Cc: "RADSAFE" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! > Hello all, > > For authoritative information on this point, see the HPS "Ask the Experts" > [link and text below] to see that the 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at > CONTACT [emphasis added] with a thick [depleted] uranium slab in metal > form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is generally > assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on depletion or > enrichment. > > As distance from the slab increases, the 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the > surface of the slab will quickly fall away to insignificant levels. > > Stewart Farber > ======================= > > http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q161.html > > Answer to Question #161 Submitted to "Ask the Experts" > Category: Radiation Basics - Beta Radiation > > The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field: > > Q: I'm having a very hard time finding solid information about the > radiation field intensities expected at the surface of a depleted uranium > slab. We are hoping to use such a slab to test and calibrate beta > detectors to establish their beta dose rate response. Such a technique is > often mentioned in the literature, but I find very little said about what > sort of beta-dose rate to expect at the surface of such a slab. Obviously > the exact alpha, beta, and gamma intensities will depend on the precise > makeup of this particular batch of depleted uranium, but it would be nice > to find a discussion of the general ranges expected for each as well as > some examples of how others perform such calibrations. The few mentions I > see of this range in the area of 210 to 235 mR/hr beta-dose rate at the > surface and somewhere between 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the surface of > the slab. (The alpha will be unimportant since we'll have the slab covered > by thin (5 mil) mylar to minimize potential contamination). If someone has > a good reference for this, or a site URL which discusses this, I'd really > appreciate any information. Thanks. > > A: The 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at contact with a thick uranium > slab in metal form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is > generally assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on > depletion or enrichment. The value is mostly dependent on the beta > contribution and will therefore vary depending on additional layers of > absorber. The following is an excellent reference for published data on > natural and depleted uranium (no, I am not the author of the paper): > > Preferred Reference: > a.. Coleman, R.L.; Hudson, C. G.; Plato, P. A. Depth-dose curves > for 90SR and natural and depleted uranium in mylar. Health Phys. 44(4): > 395-402; 1983. > Other References: > a.. Handbook of Safety Procedures for Processing Depleted Uranium, > Army Material Command Handbook, No. AMCHDBK-385-1.1-89, Department of the > Army, Washington, D.C. The relevant charts from the handbook are shown in > Question #5 of the 1997 ABHP Exam (the view at this Web site is in a > not-completely-clear format). > > b.. Radiological Health Handbook, Bureau of Radiological Health, > Jan. 1970, Page 204. Rules of thumb for dose rates at the surface of > uranium materials (no supporting data). > Robert L. Coleman > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Andrews" > To: > Cc: "RADSAFE" > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:38 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! > > >> denison8 at wowway.com wrote: >> >>> Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home >>> without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a >>> couple of mrem. >>> >>> At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >>>> May 24 >>>> Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006 From gpblackwood at yahoo.com Thu May 25 07:02:28 2006 From: gpblackwood at yahoo.com (Gerry Blackwood) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 05:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] NNSA Marks 2-Year Anniversary of Global Message-ID: <20060525120228.70712.qmail@web80727.mail.yahoo.com> [ Well the NNSA Press shop is doing its thing! " Removing over 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from facilities worldwide that could have been used to make an improvised nuclear device;" Not to shabby.... just another 905 metric tons either not secured or poorly secured to go! ] Though at least soemone is doing something.... Keep up the good fight! Gerry NNSA NEWS National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy For Immediate Release May 24, 2006 Contact: NNSA Public Affairs, (202) 586-7371 NOTE: A detailed list of accomplishments is attached below. ** Tomorrow, May 25th, the head of GTRI will be available for interviews. Please call NNSA Public Affairs to arrange. NNSA Marks 2-Year Anniversary of Global Program to Reduce Nuclear Threats GTRI has secured more than 400 radiological sites around the world and removed enough material for eight nuclear weapons WASHINGTON, D.C. - In the past two years, a key nuclear nonproliferation program of the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has removed more than eight nuclear weapons worth of highly enriched uranium, and secured more than 400 radiological sites around the world containing over 6 million curies - enough for approximately 6,000 "dirty bombs." NNSA marks the two-year anniversary of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, or GTRI, on Friday. This program works with partners around the world to reduce the threat posed by high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials, which could be used by terrorists to make a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb. "The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is an important part of the President's 2006 National Security Strategy to protect Americans," Linton F. Brooks, the head of NNSA, said. "In just two years, GTRI has worked with our international allies to significantly step up international efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials. The Bratislava agreement between Presidents Bush and Putin has accelerated our efforts to keep dangerous materials out of the hands of terrorists." GTRI is part of NNSA's multi-layered strategy to decrease the risk of nuclear terrorism. It is focused on identifying, securing, removing and/or disposing of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials - as quickly and expeditiously as possible - that pose a potential threat to the United States and the international community. Highlights of GTRI's progress during the past two years include: ? Removing over 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from facilities worldwide that could have been used to make an improvised nuclear device; ? Recovering and securing more than 2,700 excess and unwanted radiological sources located within the United States; ? Converting three research reactors from the use of highly enriched uranium, which can be used in a nuclear weapon, to the use of low enriched uranium; and ? Installing and upgrading physical security at more than 400 sites around the world where vulnerable radiological sources are stored. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. ### GTRI: Two Successful Years of Reducing Nuclear Threats Significant Accomplishments from 2004 to 2006 On May 26, 2004, the National Nuclear Security Administration established the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. GTRI, as it is known, works to identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of high risk vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world, as quickly as possible, that pose a threat to the United States and the international community. In the past two years, GTRI has removed more than eight nuclear bombs worth of highly enriched uranium and secured more than 400 radiological sites around the world containing over 6 million curies, enough for approximately 6,000 dirty bombs. Since its inception two years ago, GTRI has accelerated its nuclear security efforts and made significant progress to reduce the risk posed by vulnerable civilian nuclear and radiological materials, which could be used by terrorists to make an improvised nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device ("dirty bomb"). GTRI's specific accomplishments to reduce the threat from both nuclear and radiological materials since 2004 include: Nuclear Material Threat Reduction Accelerated conversion of research reactors from the use of highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium ? Prior to the creation of GTRI, only two research reactors were converted during the four-year period from 2000 to 2004. The last U.S. research reactor was converted in 2000 and the last international research reactor was converted in 2004. ? In fiscal year 2006, alone, six research reactors will be converted to operate with low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of using highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used to make a nuclear weapon. o In the past nine months, three research reactors have been converted to LEU. The three research reactors are: ? The VR-1 Sparrow research reactor at the Czech Technical University in Prague. (This conversion in October 2005 was the first time a Russian-supplied research reactor was converted to LEU); ? The HFR Petten reactor in the Netherlands converted in October 2005; and ? The IRT critical assembly in Libya converted in January 2006. o Over the next four months, three additional research reactors will be converted. This includes two U.S. university reactors at the University of Florida and Texas A&M as well as the Russian-supplied IRT-1 research reactor at the Tajoura facility in Libya. Accelerated removal of Russian-origin HEU fresh and spent fuel ? In the two years prior to the creation of GTRI, only four shipments to remove Russian-origin research reactor fuel took place. ? Since May 2004, GTRI has doubled the number of shipments to return Russian-origin research reactor fuel. During the past two years, eight shipments have successfully taken place to remove and return to Russia more than 89 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU. o HEU Fresh Fuel: Four shipments to remove and return 26 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU fresh fuel have taken place since 2004. These shipments include the return of nuclear material to Russia from: ? The Institute of Nuclear Physics in Uzbekistan in September 2004; ? The Rez facility in the Czech Republic in December 2004; ? The Salaspils facility in Latvia in May 2005; and ? The Czech Technical University in the Czech Republic in September 2005. o HEU Spent Fuel: Four shipments to remove and return 63 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU spent fuel from the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Uzbekistan took place from January to April 2006. ? As a result of the Bratislava Joint Statement on Nuclear Security Cooperation issued by Presidents Bush and Putin in February 2005, GTRI has developed an overall prioritized accelerated schedule of shipments: o By the end of 2006, all shipments to return eligible Russian-origin HEU fresh material will be completed; and o By the end of 2010, all shipments to return eligible Russian-origin HEU spent fuel currently stored outside of reactor cores will be completed. ? In accordance with this accelerated schedule, during the next five months, GTRI is planning to repatriate more than 200 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU fresh fuel from facilities worldwide. Removal of U.S.-origin research reactor spent fuel ? Since 2004, more than 78 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU in spent research reactor nuclear fuel was returned to the United States from Germany, Austria, Greece, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden. Removal of "Gap" Material ? Significant progress has been made to secure nuclear material that was not covered by other pre-existing nuclear material threat reduction programs. This material is referred to as "gap" material. ? More than 35 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU fresh material was safely returned in two shipments from Canada and Belgium. ? In addition, in coordination with GTRI, and as a way to encourage collaboration with the private sector, AREVA recently signed contracts for the recovery of more than 85 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU from several facilities within Europe. Radiological Threat Reduction ? Physical protection upgrades have been completed in over 40 countries at more than 400 radiological sites, including industrial, medical, and commercial facilities. Specifically, during the past two years, GTRI secured 421 vulnerable radiological sites around the world containing over 6,000,000 curies - enough for approximately 6,000 dirty bombs. ? In the United States, during the past two years, GTRI removed 2,700 at-risk radiological sources totaling 74,350 curies - enough for more than 74 dirty bombs. o This work included recovering over 60,000 curies of Cobalt-60 from several U.S. university irradiators in December 2005, and removing 19 large gammators containing Cesium-137 from one hospital, six universities and five small colleges around the U.S. by October 2005. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 25 09:39:14 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] News: The lasting efficiency and versitility of nuclear energy Message-ID: <20060525143914.93084.qmail@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> Story at http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/05/23/voyager.2/index.html About the plutonium power source, see http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/top10_voyager_020820-7.html -------------------------------- Voyager II detects solar system's edge By Ker Than http://SPACE.com Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Posted: 10:24 a.m. EDT (14:24 GMT) Voyager II is about 6.5 billion miles away and moving at about 3.3 AU per year. RELATED Interactive: Voyager I pushes into the final frontier ? SPACE.com: Top 10 Voyager facts http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/top10_voyager_020820-1.html ? SPACE.com: Voyager images http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=1567&gid=130&index=0 ? NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Voyager http://www.nasa.gov/mov/52704main_heliopause.mov (SPACE.com) -- Voyager II could pass beyond the outermost layer of our solar system, called the "termination shock," sometime within the next year, NASA scientists announced at a media teleconference Tuesday. The milestone, which comes about a year after Voyager 1's crossing, comes earlier than expected and suggests to scientists that the edge of the shock is about one billion miles closer to the sun in the southern region of the solar system than in the north. This implies that the heliosphere, a spherical bubble of charged low-energy particles created by our sun's solar wind, is irregularly shaped, bulging in the northern hemisphere and pressed inward in the south. Scientists determined that Voyager I was approaching the termination shock when it began detecting charged particles that were being pushed back toward the sun by charged particles coming from outside our solar system. This occurred when Voyager 1 was about 85 AU from the sun. (Full story) One AU is the distance between the Earth and the sun, or 93 million miles. In contrast, Voyager II began detecting returning particles while only 76 AU from the sun. "This tells us that the shock down where Voyager II is must be closer the sun than where Voyager I is," said Ed Stone, Voyager project scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The researchers think that the heliosphere's asymmetry might be due to a weak interstellar magnetic field pressing inward on the southern hemisphere. "The [magnetic] field is only 1/100,000 of the field on the Earth's surface, but it's over such a large area and pushing on such a faint gas that it can actually push the shock about a billion miles in," Stone explained. Both Voyager spacecrafts were launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida: Voyager II headed out on August 20, 1977, Voyager I on September 5, 1977. Currently, Voyager I is about 8.7 billion miles from the sun and traveling at a speed of 3.6 AU per year while Voyager II is about 6.5 billion miles away and moving at about 3.3 AU per year. ------------------------------------------------------- Copyright ? 1999-2005 SPACE.com, Inc. +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 25 15:22:52 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: Predicting solar storms and radiation effects Message-ID: <20060525202252.41115.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> >From Nature 441, 402-404 (25 May 2006) Published online 24 May 2006 at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7092/full/441402a.html The dark side of the Sun Stuart Clark1 Abstract: The Sun occasionally hurls streams of particles towards Earth, where they can wreak havoc with satellites. Predicting these solar storms is hard, but some physicists believe we're about to face the biggest bout of solar flares in years. Halloween is supposed to be a time of weird phenomena and spooky events. But by any standards what happened in late October 2003 was unusual. Telecommunications around the world were disrupted, half of NASA's satellites malfunctioned, 50,000 people in Sweden were left without electricity, and the global airline industry lost millions of dollars. The link between these events was not supernatural, it was something far more familiar: the Sun. The chaos was caused as our star went through one of the more active moments in its 11-year cycle. And according to some predictions, what happened that October is nothing compared with what is going to occur in five or six years' time. "Solar activity in the next cycle could be more of a problem than ever," warns Peter Gilman, a physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. And it's not just satellites and telecommunications that face problems. Some researchers claim that the Sun's behaviour affects Earth's atmosphere ? in particular influencing cloud formation. This claim has attracted global-warming sceptics, who argue that the Sun has greater influence than human activities on our changing climate. The Sun's 11-year cycle is driven by its magnetic field, and generates a flow of charged particles known as the solar wind. At the quieter parts of the cycle, activity is fairly low and the solar wind is reasonably uniform. But at the 'solar maximum', sunspots ? dark patches caused by the magnetic field twisting at the surface ? appear on the Sun's face. Huge solar flares explode above these spots causing turbulence in the solar wind and sending streams of charged particles hurtling through space. The most recent solar cycle was fairly moderate when measured by the number of sunspots (see graphic). Yet in late October 2003, three years after the cycle's peak, two monstrous sunspots appeared, each more than ten times the diameter of Earth. Both were in a state of almost constant eruption, spewing out billions of tonnes of electrically charged particles. These were the particles that caused such havoc when they hit Earth's atmosphere. The global maritime emergency call system blacked-out, contact was lost with expeditions on Mount Everest, and the accuracy of the global positioning system was impaired. As well as NASA's satellite malfunctions, the Japanese lost contact with one of their weather satellites altogether. The cost to the airline industry arose as planes were re-routed to lower altitudes, congesting the airways and burning more fuel. Lucky escape The sunspots bombarded Earth, on and off, for two weeks as the Sun's rotation carried them across its face. On 4 November, as the second sunspot was about to be lost from sight, it let loose another tremendous explosion. Solar physicists calculated that it was one of the largest solar flares in recorded history1. By sheer luck it exploded into deep space, catching Earth only in the side wash. Those who saw it breathed a sigh of relief and wondered what the damage might have been if such a flare had exploded facing Earth. If the latest prediction comes true for the next solar cycle, we may yet find out. Predicting the timing and strength of such solar eruptions is clearly important, but it is hampered by the fact that scientists know relatively little about the Sun's inner workings. So to coincide with the start of the next solar cycle, the largest coordinated study of the Sun will be launched next year. Known as the International Heliophysical Year (IHY), the initiative hopes to build awareness of the Sun's possible influence on Earth's climate and to bring researchers from different disciplines together to study solar activity. Currently, the Sun is at a solar minimum, and most predictions suggest that the next solar maximum in five or six years' time will be weak. But the most recent forecast, the first to be based on a completely physical model of the Sun, suggests otherwise. This forecast has been generated by Mausumi Dikpati and her team at the NCAR2. They have developed a computer simulation that mixes the Sun's internal magnetic dynamo with theories about how solar plasma circulates near the surface. And they have reached a sobering conclusion. "We expect between 30% and 50% more sunspots and solar activity than the cycle just ending," says Gilman, who is a member of Dikpati's team. The last time solar activity occurred on this scale was in 1958, when there was little technology in orbit. Now things are very different: Earth is surrounded by thousands of active satellites. Satellite operators rely on predictions of solar activity to estimate the lifetime of space missions. The solar wind heats Earth's thin upper atmosphere, increasing atmospheric density and causing more drag. Gilman estimates that a 30% increase in activity will almost double the atmospheric density at an altitude of 300 km, affecting low-altitude satellites. Mission planners looking ahead to 2012 may want to boost their spacecraft to higher orbits, or accept a shorter operational lifetime. Even above 800 km, where satellites are safe from atmospheric drag, other dangers remain. The solar wind can cause a build up in electrical charge, which then short-circuits and burns out sensitive equipment. This is the suspected fate of the Japanese Midori 2 satellite, lost during the 2003 flares. And as more satellites die in orbit, operators have to worry about dodging 'space junk'. In the aftermath of a large solar storm, the change in atmospheric drag can shift the orbit of space debris, endangering active satellites. The Sun's influence over space hardware is only one aspect of the latest drive to understand the star. The possible effects of the solar cycle on our climate, especially cloud formation, are also receiving a lot of attention. A link between the two was suggested in 1997, when meteorologists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, both at the Danish Meteorology Institute in Copenhagen, analysed weather satellite records for 1979 to 1992. They found that during solar minima, Earth was 3% cloudier than at solar maxima3. They also noticed that the influx of high-energy particles reaching Earth from deep space, phenomena known as cosmic rays, was up to 25% higher at solar minima, hinting that they might seed cloud formation. The pair called their finding a "missing link in solar?climate relationships". Climate sceptics who argue that human activities are not responsible for global warming have seized on these results. They claim it shows that the Sun is largely responsible for variations in our climate. So convinced are they that last year two Russian sceptics placed a $10,000 bet that global temperatures will show an average fall for 2012?17 ? on the assumption that the next solar cycle will be weak4. But most proponents of the solar?climate link are proceeding more carefully. "We're not suggesting that all clouds are formed by solar activity, merely that the process might be modulated by solar activity," says Robert Bingham, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, UK. He is part of an international experiment known as CLOUD, or Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets. This will use CERN's particle accelerator on the French?Swiss border to fire charged particles through a chamber holding gases to simulate Earth's atmosphere and determine whether 'clouds' are created. Global network To take advantage of the next solar cycle more directly, the United Nations is heading an initiative to install radio receivers in all 191 of its member states. For the first time, the upper atmosphere's response to the continual collision of solar radiation would be monitored on a global basis. Although space officially starts at an altitude of about 100 km, scientists know little about this region because it is difficult to study. The UN project is one of the planned elements in the IHY. Although it has no dedicated research budget, the IHY has initiated a call-for-proposals aimed at making it easier for scientists from any discipline to gain access to solar instruments and data. "We are inviting ideas from the community," says Rutherford's Richard Harrison, the joint UK coordinator for the IHY. Certainly 2007 will put at scientists' disposal the largest-ever fleet of space missions for studying solar?terrestrial interactions. A dozen spacecraft that track solar activity are already in orbit, and another three should launch this year, including the most sophisticated solar watchdog yet. NASA's Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) consists of two nearly identical craft that will watch the Sun from different locations, one preceding Earth in its orbit and the other following behind. This will allow them to take stereoscopic images of the Sun and to track the three-dimensional structure of particle eruptions. In this way, STEREO might be able to supply advance notice of the speed and direction of eruptions as they head towards Earth. Such information should help satellite operators respond to imminent dangers, but for proper planning they will need long-term forecasts of solar activity. Some researchers, such as Harrison, believe that scientists don't yet understand the Sun enough to make meaningful long-term predictions. Certainly, past forecasts have relied on tracking signposts of future solar activity, without worrying too much about the mechanisms behind them. For example, in the 1970s, astronomers recognized that the build up of magnetism at the Sun's poles after the cycle has peaked has a bearing on the strength of the next cycle. Just last year, one of the pioneers of this method, Leif Svalgaard, used the Sun's polar magnetic field to predict that the next solar cycle will be the weakest for a century5. Other 'signpost' methods, such as those looking at the amount of 10.7-centimetre radio waves coming from the Sun or the number of bright patches near the Sun's poles, also forecast a weak cycle. The only signpost method to predict a strong cycle comes from solar physicists David Hathaway and Robert Wilson at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. In 2004, they noticed that a solar cycle's strength correlates to the number of sunspots two cycles before. Applying that rule of thumb to the next cycle, they have predicted strong activity in 2012 (ref. 6). Dikpati's model agrees with this forecast and, crucially, puts the reason for it on a physical footing. In the past decade, physicists have discovered a vast conveyor belt of plasma on the Sun that seems to flow from the equator to the poles in each hemisphere at around 30?65 kilometres per hour. Sunspots are typically active for just a few weeks before fading from view, but their magnetic fields linger on. These weak fields are carried by the flow and accumulate at the poles before being submerged below the surface, where they presumably flow back towards the equator7. Dikpati's work combines sunspot observations dating back to the 1900s with a computer simulation of the Sun's magnetic dynamo and the conveyor belt (see graphic). In the simulation, the conveyor belt sweeps along old sunspots, submerging them at the poles. During the deep return flow, the Sun's rotation rejuvenates the old magnetic fields, creating new sunspots and fresh areas of solar activity. It is the only prediction in which every step uses a physics-based computer model, which is why it is being taken seriously by solar physicists. "The solid physics of Dikpati's model is a high hurdle for the other techniques to get over," says Hathaway. Solar memory The key to Dikpati's forecast is how fast the Sun's conveyor belt runs. The deep return flow is unmeasurable but the model suggests that it is slower than the surface flow, perhaps just 5 kilometres per hour. If so, the return leg of the journey would take a couple of decades. "This shows that the Sun retains a memory of its magnetic field for about 20 years," says Dikpati. So in her model, the Sun's activity is not based solely on the previous cycle's magnetic field but on the interplay with earlier cycles. In contrast, most 'signpost' prediction methods assume that the previous solar cycle immediately kicks off the activity of the next. "It is good for science that the predictions are now diverging," says Svalgaard, although he disagrees with Dikpati's conclusions. Solar physicists are now waiting to see if this physics-based forecast is right. And they may not have to wait for the peak of activity in six years' time to find out. All methods predict only the average number of sunspots, but records show that large cycles have always begun early and raced to their peak. That means that the telltale signs of a large solar cycle should be evident within just three or four years from now. "We must now let Mother Nature tell us who is right," says Svalgaard. But Dikpati and her team are refining their model to see whether it can predict features such as an early start. Either way, there will be plenty of sun watchers ? from mission planners to climate sceptics ? tracking the way the solar wind blows. References 1. Tsurutani, B. T. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03S09 (2005). 2. Dikpati, M. , de Toma, G. & Gilman, P. A. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L05102 (2006). 3. Svensmark, H. & Friis-Christensen, E. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 59, 1225?1232 (1997). 4. Giles, J. Nature 436, 897 (2005). 5. Svalgaard, L. , Cliver, E. W. & Kamide, Y. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L01104 (2005). 6. Hathaway, D. H. & Wilson, R. M. Solar Phys. 224, 5?19 (2004). 7. Hathaway, D. H. et al. Astrophys. J. 589, 665?670 (2003). +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 25 15:38:28 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: Fitting the linear-quadratic model to detailed data sets for different dose ranges Message-ID: <20060525203828.37935.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> >From *Physics in Medicine and Biology* Volume 51, 7 June 2006 Fitting the linear-quadratic model to detailed data sets for different dose ranges L M Garcia, J Leblanc, D Wilkins and G P Raaphorst 2006 Phys. Med. Biol. 51 2813-2823 Abstract: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-alert=1462/0031-9155/51/11/009 Full text PDF: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-alert=1462/0031-9155/51/11/009/pmb6_11_009.pdf Survival curve behaviour and degree of correspondence between the linear-quadratic (LQ) model and experimental data in an extensive dose range for high dose rates were analysed. Detailed clonogenic assays with irradiation given in 0.5 Gy increments and a total dose range varying from 10.5 to 16 Gy were performed. The cell lines investigated were: CHOAA8 (Chinese hamster fibroblast cells), U373MG (human glioblastoma cells), CP3 and DU145 (human prostate carcinoma cell lines). The analyses were based on χ2-statistics and Monte Carlo simulation of the experiments. A decline of LQ fit quality at very low doses (<2 Gy) is observed. This result can be explained by the hypersensitive effect observed in CHOAA8, U373MG and DU145 data and an adaptive-type response in the CP3 cell line. A clear improvement of the fit is discerned by removing the low dose data points. The fit worsening at high doses also shows that LQ cannot explain this region. This shows that the LQ model fits better the middle dose region of the survival curve. The analysis conducted in our study reveals a dose dependency of the LQ fit in different cell lines. --------------------- As noted in the Discusson: "A drop in the fit quality was found when low doses were included. This could be a result of the linearity in the trend of the survival curve at low doses that will affect the total fit in a range from 0 Gy to the final dose in the linear?quadratic region. "However, the very low dose region (∼0?2 Gy) strongly influences the decline of the fit quality. This outcome can be explained by the hypersensitive effect observed in CHOAA8 and U373MG data and an adaptive-type response in CP3 cell line. Detailed study becomes necessary to assess a hyper-radiosensitive/induced-radioresistant response in both cell lines, especially, because this effect has not been detected in human U373MG and hamster ovarian CHOAA8 cells, but has been reported in other cell lines (Marples et al 2004, Bartkowiak et al 2001). "The LQ behaviour characterizes the survival curves in the middle dose region, which is demonstrated by a clear improvement of goodness of fit and Monte Carlo analyses. "The fit worsening at high doses showed as expected that the LQ model cannot explain this region. LQ model predicts a constant increasing slope at high doses in contrast to the constant slope observed in experimental survival curves. This can be translated in our study as a deterioration of goodness of fit at those dose ranges. "Exactness of region delimitation is affected by hypersensitivity, adaptive response at very low doses and data uncertainties." +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From alstonchris at netscape.net Thu May 25 15:47:43 2006 From: alstonchris at netscape.net (alstonchris at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:47:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: funniest DU scare story ever ! Message-ID: <5EEC26CF.3B7C5D44.48616B36@netscape.net> "Exposure rate", I don't know, but the beta doserate at contact with a DU source of infinite density (1/8" ?), e.g., the plaques used to calibrate survey meters, is 230 mrad/h, as best I recall. The 60 and 90 keV x-rays only sum to about 7%, so that wouldn't be much exposure; but there's bremsstralung, too ...(?) Cheers cja denison8 at wowway.com wrote: >Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at >home without my books). ?Off the top of my head I'd guess no more >than a couple of mrem. __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From isurveyor at vianet.net.au Fri May 26 20:17:34 2006 From: isurveyor at vianet.net.au (Ivor Surveyor) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 09:17:34 +0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Storage of spent fuel Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060527090532.023fa078@vianet.net.au> The following message was posted on an Australian site There is currently an active debate in Australia on the question of nuclear energy. I wonder if those with specialist knowledge could comment on the background to the message as it relates to the US and /or UK. please? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nuclear spent fuel in the USA languishes in over 70 stirred ponds awaiting a decision as to what to do with it finally. Recent arrivals have to be carefully placed so as not to be adjacent to the previous arrivals to avoid neutron exchange. Some of the longer term resident fuel elements are put in dry containers, adequately spaced internally so as to avoid interaction. The ponds have to be constantly stirred and cooled, so if they lose their electricity supply for a protracted period, the spent fuel elements might melt down and catch fire, contaminating the internal space inside the containment shield or the surrounding area if they are outside. It would be possible to send the dry containers to Australia in return for the earned revenue from past uranium exports. The procrastination experienced in finding a final solution is to be deprecated. In the UK's Sellafield the external ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls and poor records mean that the exact contents are unknown. Tenders are out to private contractors invited to quote to clear up the mess. The first tranche of taxpayers' money to clean up the closed Magnox and research stations and the processing plant at Sellafield totals ?70 billion. The sums needed to clean up the working reactors at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from the generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4. Are the Australians really wanting to join the nuclear generation club? Posted by John Busby, Saturday, 27 May 2006 2:44:57 AM" Ivor Surveyor [ isurveyor at vianet.net.au ] From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sat May 27 01:04:28 2006 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Off subject issue...cancer related? Dartmouth study finds that arsenic inhibits DNA repair Message-ID: <20060527060428.63301.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 26-May-2006 Contact: Sue Knapp Sue.Knapp at Dartmouth.edu 603-646-3661 Dartmouth College Dartmouth study finds that arsenic inhibits DNA repair --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Authors of the study, from left to right: Eugene Demidenko, Angeline Andrew, Joshua Hamilton, Margaret Karagas, all at Dartmouth Click here for more information. --------------------------------- HANOVER, NH ? Dartmouth researchers, working with scientists at the University of Arizona and at the Department of Natural Resources in Sonora, Mexico, have published a study on the impact of arsenic exposure on DNA damage. They have determined that arsenic in drinking water is associated with a decrease in the body's ability to repair its DNA. "This work supports the idea that arsenic in drinking water can promote the carcinogenic effects of other chemicals," says Angeline Andrew, the lead author and a research assistant professor of community and family medicine at Dartmouth Medical School. "This is evidence that it's more important than ever to keep arsenic out of drinking water." The study, which was published online on May 10, 2006, in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the drinking water and measured the arsenic levels in samples of urine and toenails of people who were enrolled in epidemiologic studies in New Hampshire, and in Sonora, Mexico. Andrew and her colleagues examined the data in conjunction with tissue samples from the study participants to determine the effect of arsenic on DNA repair. To further corroborate their findings, the researchers conducted laboratory studies to examine the effects of arsenic on DNA repair in cultured human cell models. "The DNA repair machinery normally protects us from DNA-damaging agents, such as those found in cigarette smoke," says Andrew. "The concern is that exposure to drinking water arsenic may exacerbate the harmful effects of smoking or other exposures." Andrew explains that in regions of the United States where the rock contains higher levels of arsenic, the greater the likelihood that drinking water sources contain some potential adverse levels of the toxin. While the levels of arsenic in municipal water systems are regularly monitored, there is no mandated testing of arsenic levels in private wells. This is of particular concern since the regions where arsenic levels are high are in rural regions, such as New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan and some regions of the Southwest and Rockies. Private wells are common in these areas as primary sources of drinking water. ### (More information on drinking water testing and remediation options can be found from the NH Department of Environmental Services: http://www.des.state.nh.us/ws.htm or the US Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/drinkwater/private_well_owners.html) Andrew's co-authors on this paper are: Jefferey Burgess, Maria Meza, Eugene Demidenko, Mary Waugh, Joshua Hamilton, and Margaret Karagas, all from Dartmouth Medical School, the Department of Environmental and Community Health at the University of Arizona, or the Department of Natural Resources at the Technological Institute of Sonora, Mexico. The research was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Cancer Institute, the Dartmouth and Arizona Superfund Programs, and the American Society of Preventive Oncology. Roy Herren --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. From JGinniver at aol.com Sat May 27 10:03:36 2006 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 11:03:36 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Storage of spent fuel Message-ID: <2df.7d71486.31a9c448@aol.com> In a message dated 27/05/2006 02:21:48 GMT Standard Time, isurveyor at vianet.net.au writes: "Nuclear spent fuel in the USA languishes in over 70 stirred ponds awaiting a decision as to what to do with it finally. A descision was made many years ago about what to do with sepnt nuclear fuel from US nuclear power plants. As part of a deal to end commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in the United States, the US government agreed to take ownership of US spent nuclear fual at a set date (which I think has passed) and to dispose of it in a national disposal facility. This facility is to be constructed at Yucca Mountain (if all of the licensing requirements are successfully completed). However many of the spent fuel facilities at Nuclear Plants are reaching capacity and because Yucca Mountain is not available the plants are having to look at alternative storage options. Some utilities/plants have successfully sued the US government for not taking the nuclear fuel at the agreed date. The option most are adopting is to place the fuel in large steel, concrete or composite (steel and concrete containers) known as spent fuel flasks or casks (as mentioned below). Recent arrivals have to be carefully placed so as not to be adjacent to the previous arrivals to avoid neutron exchange. It is necessary to plan where to place recently discharged fuel to ensure that the stoarge arrangement cannot produce a nuclear excursion known as a criticality. However this is simple and does not present problems for the operators. In addition neutron absorbing chemicals can (and ofetn are) be added to the water the fuel is stored in to make sure that a criticality cannot occur. , Some of the longer term resident fuel elements are put in dry containers, adequately spaced internally so as to avoid interaction. These are the dry fuel casks mentioned above. Some anti-nuclear activities have actually campaigned to have the nuclear fuel stored this way. E.g. Robert Alvarez wrote an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recommending this approach. The ponds have to be constantly stirred and cooled, so if they lose their electricity supply for a protracted period, the spent fuel elements might melt down and catch fire, contaminating the internal space inside the containment shield or the surrounding area if they are outside. There are two issues here. The first is that fuel recently discharged from a nuclear reactor must be stored under water and that the water must be circulated and cooled to remove the heat produced from the radioactive decay taking place inside the fuel. The rate of heat produce is very high immediately after a nuclear reactor shuts down, but the amount of heat produced decreases rapidly as the radionuclides with very short half lives decay away. So the longer the fuel is stored the less heat that is produced and the longer the fuel can go without cooling. It's also important to recognise that key safety systems on nuclear power plants are provided with several diverse methods of electricity supply to minimise the likelyhood that a complete loss of power to any safety system occurs. In the extreme it would probably be possible to cool the fuel using water supplied by fire vehicles/appliances. The second issue is that fuel cannot be rapidly transferred to dry fuel casks as it is still generating too much heat. However after a period of time in the cooling ponds the amount of heat being produced dies down to a point where the fuel can be cooled by natural circulation of air around the fuel storage flask/cask. At this point it can be transferred for long term storage in a cask. The whole point of the dry fuel storage containers is that they are passive and require no additional safety precautions. It would be possible to send the dry containers to Australia in return for the earned revenue from past uranium exports. The procrastination experienced in finding a final solution is to be deprecated. In the UK's Sellafield the external ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls and poor records mean that the exact contents are unknown. This is a whole lot of balderdash. In the early days of the Magnox power plant programme all ponds were open to atmosphere and problems did occur. However, as far as I'm aware all fuel storage ponds are enclosed to prevent seagulls from floating around on the nice warm water. The sludge that is mentioned is an issue that relates to the design of the Magnox (MAgnesium Non OXidising) cladding used on the first generation of Nuclear Power Plants in the UK. This cladding can corrode in the cooling pond if the water is not kept clean and maintained with the appropriate water chemistry. The Magnox cladding will burn readily and once buring is very difficult to put out. Amongst other reasons, it's because Magnox Fuel is so diffficult to store, that the UK has a civil nuclear reprocessing programme. Even if the UK decided to end commercial reprocessing tomorrow, it would still have to complete the reprocessing of the Magnox fuel from the civil nuclear programme. Tenders are out to private contractors invited to quote to clear up the mess. The first tranche of taxpayers' money to clean up the closed Magnox and research stations and the processing plant at Sellafield totals ?70 billion. The UK has over the last few years changed how it manages the civil nuclear liabilities in the UK. Work is ongoing to put out to tender the contracts for the clean up and restoration of the Civil Nuclear research and re-processing programmes. It is expected that a more commercial approach will lead to reductions in the cost of restoring these sites. For example the cost of cleaning up the sites from the reactor research programmes (currently operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) has been reduced by over ?1 Billion in the last few years. What has also not been recognised is the revenue that the UK Goverment has recieved from Fuel Enrichment, Fuel manufacture and Reprocessing for UK and foreign customers. It also doesn't show how much of the ?70 billion is to cover the clean up of much of the early Nuclear Weapons Programme in the UK. These costs to recognise the enormous spin offs that have come from the UK Civil Nuclear research programme. For example Amersham International that is now owned by GE Health Care and is one of the worlds biggest suppliers of Radiopharmceuticals was once part of the UK Civil Nuclear Programme. There have been advances in many areas from technolgies to destroy chemical weapons (the Silver II) process to advanced battery technologies used in space etc. It would be nice if at sometime someone could actually review the overall cost of the programme including clean up and site restoration against the benefits from that programme. For example after all the rhetoric from the anti nuclear groups about the UK Government bailing out British Energy, for very little initial cost the Governement now owns a stake in the company which, according to a report the other day, is know worth over $6 billion, and now that the company is profitable the Governement is not going to have to put nearly as much money towards the decomissioning liabilities. The sums needed to clean up the working reactors at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from the generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4. More nonsense. There are a number of very successful projects taking place around the world decommssioning Nuclear Power Plants. In the UK, the prototype Advanced Gas Reactor at Windscale (part of the larger Sellafield site) is one of the European Union demonstration projects for Nuclear Power Plant decommissioning. It is currently below budget and ahead of time, other European projects include the larger multi reactor site at Grafenwhalde(? not sure about the spelling). The projects indicate that it will cost between ?300 - ?500 million to decommission a large Nuclear power station (which in the case of the UK, generally have two reactors per power plant). In the UK Electricity Generators are currently receiving on average about ?30 per Megawatt Hour (this works out at 3 pence a killowatt hour). The large Advanced Gas Reactor Plants can prove about 1200 Megawatts per hour to the national grid. So they earn about ?36,000 per hour, or ?864,000 per day, or ?315,360,000 per year if they generate all year. However UK plants currently only have an average load factor (time spent generating) of about 75% (although it should be noted that some reactoirs have been able to generate for more than 650 days without shuting down). So if we take the figure for the year and multiply by 75% we get, ?236,520,000 a year. The plants have a nominal lifetime of about 35 years although work is ongoing to see if this can be extended, so over the lifetime of the plant the revenue would be about ?8,278,2000,000 at todays prices. As you can see this exceeds the cost of decommissioning by a factor of between 16.5 and 27.5, for decomissioning to exceed revenue by a factor of 3 or 4, the cost would have to be ?24 Billion to ?32 Billion per site. These are UK figures, if anyone can do something similar for US plants I would be interested. It is worth noting that Pressurised Water Reactor Power Plants are comparatively simple to decomission compared to some other types, and so I would expect the cost for many US plants to be a bit lower. I hope this helps, feel free to contact me for more inormation if required. Are the Australians really wanting to join the nuclear generation club? Posted by John Busby, Saturday, 27 May 2006 2:44:57 AM" From theo at richel.org Sun May 28 06:01:37 2006 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:01:37 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Message-ID: <009101c68246$17368b50$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> The source for the claim that Chernobyl resulted in 100.000-200.000 abortions is: L.E. Ketchum, 1987. "Lessons of Chernobyl: SNM members try to decontaminate the world threatened by fallout. Experts face challenge of educating public about risk and radiation." J. Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 28, pp. 933-42. Theo Richel theo at richel.org From bill.schaper at mjwts.com Thu May 25 15:08:19 2006 From: bill.schaper at mjwts.com (Bill V. Schaper) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:08:19 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Manual For Tri-Med (Ballard) MicroCOUNT 9605 LSC Message-ID: <985B62D710A3654487FFD73973D855AA80A3D0@MJWEXCHANGE.mjwcorp.com> I am in need of an operation manual for the Tri-Med (BALLARD) MicroCOUNT Mdl 9605 Liquid Scintillation Counter any help in finding one would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, William V. Schaper VP of Operations MJW Technical Services, Inc 243 Root St Olean, NY 14760 (716) 372-5300 (716) 432-6890 Cell (716) 372-5307 Fax bill.schaper at mjwts.com From corgano at rpii.ie Wed May 24 03:09:06 2006 From: corgano at rpii.ie (Catherine Organo) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:09:06 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NORM V conference announcement - FYI Message-ID: For all those of you who didn't know about it, the NORM V conference information website can be found at the following address: www.us.es/normv/ Conference dates: 19-22 March 2007 Location: Seville Cordially Catherine ORGANO Radiological Protection Institute Of Ireland Advisory Services Division / Natural Radioactivity Advice & Information Section 3 Clonskeagh Square Clonskeagh Road Dublin 14 - IRELAND email: corgano at rpii.ie Phone: + 353 1 206 69 06 (direct line) Phone: + 353 1 269 77 66 (main switch) Fax: + 353 1 269 74 37 Website: www.rpii.ie From theo at richel.org Mon May 29 06:14:32 2006 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:14:32 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] quiz Message-ID: <029601c68311$0fb9df00$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> As a science journalist from the Netherlands ( see www.richel.org/resume ) I am very much interested in the health effects of radiation. While researching the subject I found that many scientific studies indicate that low levels of radiation might even be beneficial. Now the public climate is currently such that it is almost impossible to publish anything that goes against the tide of radio-phobia. So instead of an article I decided to make a quiz that will hopefully stir the debate. Through this I invite you to do that quiz and eventually mail me your comments. The quiz is here: http://www.richel.org/radiation/welcome.php . Thank you for your interest, Theo Richel Stationsstraat 43 4421 AK Kapelle The Netherlands Tel. +31 113 330030 theo at richel.org From maurysis at ev1.net Mon May 29 12:09:57 2006 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 12:09:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Message-ID: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of warning markings on your own printer, go to: http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ Cheers and Happy Decoration Day Maury&Dog From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Mon May 29 13:15:20 2006 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:15:20 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> References: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> Message-ID: <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> Maury Siskel wrote: > Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the > trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of > warning markings on your own printer, go to: > http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ > > Cheers and Happy Decoration Day > Maury&Dog > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > I thought something was wrong with that radiation symbol. It is upside down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs are in 10CFR20, I think. The distance from the center dot to the blade of the symbol should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From maurysis at ev1.net Mon May 29 13:29:06 2006 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:29:06 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> References: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <447B3D71.2010907@ev1.net> Thanks for telling me, John. Don't know if they will do anything with it but I'm going pass your into that website to see if they will fix it. Your picky picky is worthwhile. I failed to even notice that it was inverted! Thanks again, Maury&Dog ============ John Andrews wrote: > Maury Siskel wrote: > >> Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the >> trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of >> warning markings on your own printer, go to: >> http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ >> >> Cheers and Happy Decoration Day >> Maury&Dog >> _______________________________________________ >> > I thought something was wrong with that radiation symbol. It is > upside down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs are in > 10CFR20, I think. The distance from the center dot to the blade of > the symbol should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. > > OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > > . > From frantaj at aecl.ca Mon May 29 13:31:19 2006 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:31:19 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F70B4F55EF@sps13.aecl.ca> Its possible these labels are for people who tend to stick things on up side down.... (the rest of us can learn, I assume....) Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of John Andrews Sent: May 29, 2006 2:15 PM To: Maury Siskel; Mailing List for Risk Professionals; RadiatSafety Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Maury Siskel wrote: > Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the > trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of > warning markings on your own printer, go to: > http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ > > Cheers and Happy Decoration Day > Maury&Dog > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > I thought something was wrong with that radiation symbol. It is upside down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs are in 10CFR20, I think. The distance from the center dot to the blade of the symbol should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee _______________________________________________ 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/ 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 PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From toro at ispt.ro Tue May 30 02:54:48 2006 From: toro at ispt.ro (Toro) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:54:48 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Message-ID: At the The IRPA Congress on Radiation Protection, Paris, May 15 - May 19 2006 there were an interesting paper on some proposals to change the radiation warning sign: New Radiation Warning Sign, C.J. Mac Kenzie (International Atomic Energy Agency) The whole paper is not on the net, I can send the abstract (in pdf format). Unfortunatelly in the Proceeding CD they have only the abstract (it was a poster). Yours, Laszlo Toro -- ====================================================================== Laszlo Toro PhD senior scientist Institute of Public Health Timisoara Radiation Hygiene Dept. RO 300226 Timisoara Bd. V. Babes 16-18 Romania ph. +40 256 492101 ext 34 fax +40 256 492101 e-mail toro at ispt.ro ====================================================================== ________________________________________________ VHCS Webmail From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue May 30 07:42:01 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <20060530124201.36885.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> John, I believe that the upside-down trefoil is the symbol for a fall-out shelter. See http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/signs/index.html --- John Andrews wrote: > Maury Siskel wrote: > > > Question has arien in past about warning labels > and expecially the > > trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a > wide selection of > > warning markings on your own printer, go to: > > http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ > > > > Cheers and Happy Decoration Day > > Maury&Dog > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > I thought something was wrong with that radiation > symbol. It is upside > down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs > are in 10CFR20, I > think. The distance from the center dot to the > blade of the symbol > should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. > > OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > _______________________________________________ > 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 get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Tue May 30 09:24:01 2006 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:24:01 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shipping Electronics from Germany to USA Message-ID: Can anyone suggest the cheapest means to ship two 25 kg. boxes from Wolfen to Boston? J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From stanford at stanforddosimetry.com Tue May 30 09:37:43 2006 From: stanford at stanforddosimetry.com (Neill Stanford) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:37:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002a01c683f6$9d28fb60$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> Reading this thread re-inspired me to find an image of the new sign presented at last year's HPS meeting. Here is a link to a pdf of the presentation: http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/meetings/general-conference05/new-radiation -warning-sign.pdf Neill Stanford, CHP ----------------------------------------------------- Stanford Dosimetry, LLC 2315 Electric Ave. Bellingham, WA 98229 www.stanforddosimetry.com 360 527-2627 (voice) 360 715 1982 (fax) 360 770-7778 (cell) ------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Toro Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:55 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re:[ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker At the The IRPA Congress on Radiation Protection, Paris, May 15 - May 19 2006 there were an interesting paper on some proposals to change the radiation warning sign: New Radiation Warning Sign, C.J. Mac Kenzie (International Atomic Energy Agency) The whole paper is not on the net, I can send the abstract (in pdf format). Unfortunatelly in the Proceeding CD they have only the abstract (it was a poster). Yours, Laszlo Toro -- ====================================================================== Laszlo Toro PhD senior scientist Institute of Public Health Timisoara Radiation Hygiene Dept. RO 300226 Timisoara Bd. V. Babes 16-18 Romania ph. +40 256 492101 ext 34 fax +40 256 492101 e-mail toro at ispt.ro ====================================================================== ________________________________________________ VHCS Webmail _______________________________________________ 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/ From pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us Tue May 30 10:05:22 2006 From: pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:05:22 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another tritium in gw article. In-Reply-To: <002a01c683f6$9d28fb60$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> References: <002a01c683f6$9d28fb60$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> Message-ID: <447C0AD202000036000026AC@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us> Another tritium in gw article. don't shoot me (this is not my area of expertise), I just pass em along... http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-29-02.asp Phil Egidi EPS III Radiation Management Unit Radiation Control Program Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division CDPHE NEW ADDRESS: 222 S. 6th St. Rm. 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 (970) 248-7162 (970) 248-7198 fax alternate numbers: (303)692-3447 (303)759-5355 (fax) From Cehn at aol.com Tue May 30 13:14:03 2006 From: Cehn at aol.com (Cehn at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 14:14:03 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stoessel report on TV Message-ID: <247.bb308e9.31ade56b@aol.com> I have a VHS tape of the report that John Stoessel did on ABC. Can someone convert it to a PC format (.wmv or .mpg)? If so, I'll send you the tape. Joel I. Cehn joelc at alum.wpi.edu From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 31 03:06:05 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 01:06:05 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: [DU-WATCH] Latest Gulf War Illness Research Message-ID: <010d01c68489$140389c0$0100007f@roger1> Compliments of one of the least factually accurate anti-DU crusaders Irving Hall http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/Minutes_Dec2005_Text.pdf > > DU discussion from official minutes of the Dec. 2005 > meeting of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' > Illnesses: Some of you might like to attend the next one of these meetings so that there would be some balance .. From maurysis at ev1.net Wed May 31 05:57:49 2006 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 05:57:49 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Wired 14.06: Don't Try This at Home Message-ID: <447D76AD.7060207@ev1.net> Regarding nuclear energy and rational, empirical risk analysis: http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry_pr.html The above is a link to one more sad situation which is developing from our collective urge for security. No relief from this kind of thing is in sight; thus we continue to encourage intellectual eunuchs who will become intellectually sterile scientists, engineers, and politicians. This impotence is part of the overall loss or decline of functional science and engineering in the US. For increasingly illogical reasons, we continue to demand freedom form dependence on 'foreign' oil and energy even as we compromise this freedom in the use of an infinitude of other products. We are dependent upon foreign TVs and an overwhelming array of electronic gadgets; upon foreign automobiles, vehicles and vessels. We are dependent upon foreign components and parts which are necessary for conducting all kinds of military operations. We cannot even produce our own vaccines anymore! But we will NOT depend on foreign petrol! The United States can no longer harvest its own head lettuce or build its own automobiles. But by George, we will not depend on foreign petroleum products. At the same time, we must ensure that our views of land and seascapes remain uncluttered and that we do not risk any damage to our beaches. Better that we drill those gas wells here within our cities where we can really keep a close eye on the wells and new city tax revenues at all times. (This is happening now throughout the Ft. Worth Dallas metroplex). And Heaven forbid that we risk any contamination of our air with additional petrol refineries or that we endanger our posteriors by building new nuclear power plants. At the same time, we try to impose upon ourselves the same prohibitions that we seek to impose on Iran. When we can get along without oil and nuclear power, then that's good enough for the rest of the world. Let those stupid French continue to supply 70% of their own electricity with their own nuclear power plants. In any event, we will make enough grain alcohol and import enough foreign drugs to continue our high living standards and enjoy our leisure time.. And in passing, note that we continue to ensure insufficient supplies of alcohol by keeping tariffs high enough to preclude any dependence on foreign alcohol. (Tee hee, just wait until our supplies of bourbon are depleted!!!) Anyway, by Allah if it's good enough for us, then by God, it's good enough for Iran. How could any collection of such good sense be more logical? What's wrong with this picture? Oh well. As some say, if you cannot eat it or make love to it, then urinate on it, blame someone else, and and get on with your safe life. At least, we elected these devils; they are not imported and they are ours! Natural and organic -- Jake and I love this sensible living. Cheers? Maury&Dog From theo at richel.org Wed May 31 16:15:07 2006 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:15:07 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stoessel report on TV In-Reply-To: <247.bb308e9.31ade56b@aol.com> Message-ID: <02d001c684f7$4b020550$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> I havent seen the program (I live in Holland where Stossel is not aired), but I do know where the radiation part of this film is based on. It is a book by Ed Hiserodt called 'Underexposed - What if radiation is actually good for you?' from last year. Strange enough no one has mentioned this book yet on the Radsafe-list. I think it is quite good and for this list it is exactly on topic. As a free lance journalist I write similar stories as are in that book, but as you understand pro-nuclear and other scare-debunking-stories are not exactly popular in the media so in order to supply my income I have decided to sell this book at my website. If you want to promote better reporting on radiation and health then here is your chance: buy the book. Read more about it here: http://www.richel.org/grk/bookshop/hiserodt/mailing.htm I hope no one is offended by this commercial abuse of this list. Regards Theo Richel Stationsstraat 43 4421 AK Kapelle theo at richel.org Tel. +31 (0)113330030 Fax +31 (0)113330031 http://www.richel.org/resume http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl http://www.huiselijkgeweld.info -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Namens Cehn at aol.com Verzonden: dinsdag 30 mei 2006 20:14 Aan: radsafe at radlab.nl Onderwerp: [ RadSafe ] Stoessel report on TV I have a VHS tape of the report that John Stoessel did on ABC. Can someone convert it to a PC format (.wmv or .mpg)? If so, I'll send you the tape. Joel I. Cehn joelc at alum.wpi.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/ From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 31 21:09:04 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:09:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] B-52 Fly By Message-ID: I verified this with USS Ranger Museum foundation website .. the encounter happened and picture is genuine .. Roger --- the forwarded message follows --- From rhelbig at california.com Mon May 1 05:45:41 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 03:45:41 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: [DU Information List] Mission acomplished, - by Felicity Arbuthnot Message-ID: <002a01c66d0c$66f4eb40$5d425142@roger1> Note how they build on the web of lies, starting with Busby's false claim of finding DU in England 9 days after the beginning of the initial bombing of Iraq in 2003 during which no DU munitions were used. DU would not have been used until attacks were being made on armored units, either by the A-10 aircraft's 30mm gun or by US/UK tanks and armored vehicles firing DU armor penetrating projectiles. There are no aerial bombs containing DU and aerial bombs were used in the initial "shock and awe" campaign against Baghdad. A-10 aircraft did not participate in that initial attack. Roger Helbig http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75774 Mission Accomplished' By Felicity Arbuthnot Most of us have woken in the witching hours and wondered: 'why did I ever say that ...' and known it would return to haunt. Most of us too, can spot the instant a public figure does the same. 'Watch my lips' no more tax rises, said George Bush Snr. Doomsday was sure to follow. 'I feel the hand of history on my shoulder' said Prime Minister Blair in Northern Ireland. The country's Parliament went into meltdown and remains a political Chernobyl sarcophagus. 'Mission accomplished', declared by George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1st 2003 may prove to be the Mother of all Blunders. The only small blessing is that he wasn't flying the plane which delivered him on the deck at one hundred and fifty miles an hour, given unfortunate encounters with quad bikes, ordinary bikes (near totalling a policeman at Gleneagles) and Pretzels. The ruins of lives, homes, towns, villages in Afghanistan and Iraq, the pollution of the region and the entire planet (Dr Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk found that radiation from weapons used in Iraq, travelled and quadrupled radiation readings in Europe in just nine days)* the ongoing destruction and estimation of as many as three hundred thousand subsequent violent deaths in Iraq, up to ninety five percent possibly at the hands of and certainly under the watch of, occupying forces or their cohorts and employees, the drip drip of dodgier and dodgier dossiers (there'll surely be more) to justify an entirely unjustifiable and illegal invasion; the disappearance of an entire sovereign government, up to thirty thousand people held in Iraq without trial. Hidden detention centres and disappeared flown around the globe to be tortured, un-named and untraced, denied all the legalities that painstaking, if imperfect, international Treaties and Conventions have committed to, built over generations. Missing $billions of sovereign moneys, squatted sovereign buildings, imposed puppet governments and no end in sight, on to Iran, the road to Damascus in an 'endless war' which, says the 'Pretzelly' challenged President, could last generations. We may, in fact not have the luxury of generations for war or even peace. I am indebted to Irving Wesley Hall of www.notinkansas.us for meticulous, referenced addition to the Depleted Uranium debate. They have army sources unavailable to most, a chilling inside track. The lie to the spin. Two stories of enormity which they have uncovered perhaps demonstrate the historically incomparable mess we are in. Bearing in mind that it is estimated that two thirds of those who served in the 1991 Gulf war are sick or on disability benefits, thought to be linked to DU and or untested inoculations and destruction of toxic sites, orders of magnitude more of DU has been used and continues to be used in Iraq. This time round though, no meaningful figures regarding DU contamination are obtainable. 'Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan have been threatened with ten thousand dollar fines and jail, if they talk about the soldier or their medical problems', states Hall. 'Reporters have been prevented access to more than fourteen thousand medical evacuees, flown nightly ... to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington DC. What is the DoD hiding?' He asks. Hall relates the sad, salutary tale which perhaps answers his own question. Sergeant Michael Lee Tosto, possibly 'first American victim of 2003's "Shock and Awe" ..' He died in Baghdad on June 17th 2003, aged twenty four. In common with a number of deaths reported at that time, he died, said the army, of pulmonary edema, or cardiac failure after showing flu like symptoms. His family said he was A1 fit and had never suffered any major illness. Dr Garth Nicholson of the Institute of Molecular Medicine, Huntingdon Beach, California and an expert of DU poisoning told Hall: 'We are witnessing the same symptoms of radioactive poisoning today as fifteen years ago. We are hearing the same denials of reality from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence ...' Michael's father wondered why his son was wearing white gloves, when his son was delivered for the funeral by the army. Michael's wife, Stephanie, reached under one glove and found his wedding ring was missing, queried, the army replied that it may have been 'contaminated'. Rather than send back his identifying 'dog tags', they sent back brand new ones. Were his, too, contaminated? Major Richard J, McNorton, specially charged by US Central Command to assist bloggers in obtaining accurate information has been remarkably reticent in replying to Hall's requests regarding the following US Army Central Command communique (June 2005.) It stated that ' ... soldiers of .. 62nd Quartermaster Company from Fort Hood, Texas', had been supplying water for showers to, ironically, 'Camp Forward Danger' in Iraq to men and women of the New York National Guard, with water from the Tigris river, untested for radiation. 'Our men and women just spent six months taking radioactive showers in a depleted uranium broth ... washing open wounds ... eating more than five hundred meals with food, plates, cutlery washed in hot water - in two senses of the word ..' An enraged soldier contacted Hall: 'I am sick and probably dying ... this was a suicide mission ..Bush. Cheney, Rumsfeld .. are no better than Bin Laden (we are on a ) suicide mission to murder innocent people (and) volunteering unwittingly to be nuked by DU.' Nuked Iraqis have additional to contend with. A letter from an Iraqi doctor, received yesterday, states in part : We are living in a complicated risky horrible deteriorating miserable unhappy life. Nobody dare to get out of house after sun set. No patient is able to go to a hospital at night even if this means dying at home. Our daily talk is who, and how many lives were ended by violence. Imagine, only in our street 10 people were killed ... If you want the mangnitude in our locality, the number probably exceeds 150. ... theft, darkness in view of interupted electricity, and sounds of explosions and gunfire at night .... life ending business is becoming the most profitable job these days. The forensic medicine dept receives an estimated number of three thousands bodies terminated by firearms per month in Baghdad only . The reasons cant be explained in this letter .... all are intended consequences in an invaded (sorry liberated) country. My neighbor, a young man (just like my son), was attacked by two bullets in his head just 200 meters away from our house at noon time when ... (my 8 years daughter) was back from school. When I returned Safia rushed with a hysterical smile: Daddy, daddy, you know our neighbor, Mr ...was dead after 2 shots in his brain. What shocked me is that she is smiling, not sad, not crying. Soon after this, Safia had difficulty in sleep ... and now she usually cant sleep alone unless in my bed holding me with her arms. The US Administration still hasn't bought that history of modern Iraq and failed foreign adventures there. Condoleeza (I've an oil tanker named after me) Rice and Donald Rumsfeld went to instruct the new 'Prime Minister' last week (having temporarily buried the hatchet not in each others heads.) His name is Nuri al Maliki. The last puppet Prime Minister was imposed by the British. His name too was Nuri ( Sa'ad.) He was murdered and dragged round the streets until he was referred to as Shish Kebab. Not much left. 'Mission accomplished'? * www.llrc.org.uk --------------------------------- Win tickets to the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany with Yahoo! Messenger. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 13:09:48 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' In-Reply-To: <44528641.9060701@icx.net> Message-ID: <20060501180948.13814.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 1 13:20:47 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:20:47 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jimm at WPI.EDU Mon May 1 13:41:22 2006 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:41:22 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E5DF@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Sandy et al., See below: "Lethal and Leaking" Regards, Jim Muckerheide ==================== > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of > Sandy Perle > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:21 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night > > This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I > know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final > product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State > Governor and others interviewed. > > Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our > Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? > > ------------------------------------- > Sandy Perle Lethal And Leaking April 30, 2006 CBS News Produced By Rich Bonin http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1553896.shtml Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, that's what critics accuse the U.S. Department of Energy of: making the same mistakes over and over in a project that has already squandered billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. But the risk here is far greater than financial, since it involves highly toxic nuclear waste. At stake are millions of gallons of radioactive liquid waste left over from the making of nuclear bombs, including the one that was dropped on Nagasaki. This waste has been sitting in underground tanks in Hanford, Wash., ever since, while the government tries to figure out how to clean it up. As correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, the waste is so lethal that a small cup of it would kill everyone in a crowded restaurant, in minutes. 60 Minutes recently visited Hanford, where the witches' brew is being stored. Hanford, located along the Columbia River, is home to the most contaminated piece of real estate in the world outside of Russia. It is contaminated by waste left over from the production of nuclear weapons. There are 53 million gallons of highly radioactive liquid waste stored in underground tanks that are now so old they have leaked one million gallons of the stuff. Some of it leaked into the groundwater, and it's heading right for the river. With a million people downstream, there's a sense of urgency about cleaning up the site, which is huge. It takes up 586 square miles in southeastern Washington. But for the Energy Department, which runs the project, it's been a case of easier said than done. In the nearly 16 years 60 Minutes has been covering this story, it's been one foul up after the next. Charles Anderson, the Energy Department's official overseeing nuclear clean up, gave Stahl a tour of what has been built so far at Hanford, starting with a replica of the underground tanks. "This is a model of tanks that are already built that have waste in them. Be careful with your head here as we go in," Anderson told Stahl during the tour. The tank can hold 750,000 gallons of waste. Many of the tanks, built for the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear weapons, are more than 60 years old. Anderson explains there are a total of 177 tanks holding "high-level" waste at this site. The plan is to pump the waste out of the tanks and route it through miles of pipes to a yet-to-be-completed pre-treatment facility. The idea is to convert the radioactive waste into glass logs. "This is where the radioactive waste will come from the tank farms, will come from those tanks and will come in here and be treated in different chemical processes and be turned into glass logs for final disposition to be disposed of in a landfill," Anderson explains. Stahl last visited the area in 2001, when the site was just a field. Anderson says significant progress has been made. "The plant's 35 percent complete in regard to construction," he says. But the place is a total ghost town. What happened? What happened here is that after three years of welding, pouring cement and laying miles of pipes and tons of steel, construction came to a screeching halt in 2005 because the Energy Department underestimated by 40 percent how strong the building must be to withstand an earthquake. We're talking about a building that would be full of radioactive liquid. "In a building like this, you need to build it to ensure that it withstands whatever an earthquake may pose - if there is one - because we absolutely do not want a breech of this radioactive material in the atmosphere," says Gene Aloise of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress' investigative arm. But here's what 60 Minutes has learned: that the Energy Department and the contractor, Bechtel, went ahead with the plant knowing their seismic standard might be off. Just as construction was about to begin in July 2002, an independent safety board sent a letter, warning the department. "Energy debated with the safety board for almost two years over the standards," says Aloise. "Ok, let me understand this. This is brought up as an issue in 2002. Instead of going back right then, they debate until 2005, during which time they're building the building?" Stahl asked Aloise. "They're building the building," he replied. They were building it using the wrong seismic standard. Because they did factor in some margin of safety, the contractor, Bechtel, has told the Energy Department there is no restructuring required on the foundation or the walls. But Aloise says what they do have to fix are the internal components of the building. "Hangers, piping, vessel supports, all of this interior of the building, where the technology's going to rest. That all has to be re-engineered," he explains. "They have to re-do tens of thousands of designs." The seismic miscalculation is costing at least $800 million and a two- to four-year delay in completing the building. This practice of pushing ahead with construction before the engineering is complete is known as "fast track." "The people in the state of Washington who are living with this thing, they don't want it to slow down, they want it to speed up," Stahl remarked. "But it doesn't work in our view on complex, technical nuclear facilities like the ones in Hanford," Aloise replied. Asked what he would tell the people of Washington, Aloise said, "That we need to do it right." Fast track was singled out as a major problem five years ago when 60 Minutes last reported on the cleanup. Gary Jones, a GAO investigator in 2001, told 60 Minutes that they had rushed ahead with construction of this building at a similar site in Idaho before the designs were finished. We asked about it back then. "You're saying they went ahead and built the building and then when they were finished making all the changes, the equipment wouldn't fit in the building?" Stahl asked Jones in the report five years ago. "The equipment for this particular process would not fit into the building as designed," Jones replied. Five years ago, 60 Minutes was assured the government had learned from its mistakes and things were finally under control. And yet, since then, costs have gone through the roof, up more than 150 percent, and the start date for making those glass logs has slipped seven years, to 2018. The seismic error was only one of several snafus. Tom Carpenter of the watchdog group called Government Accountability Project got hold of internal Energy Department and Bechtel documents which reveal a series of problems with a special tank for processing or scrubbing the nuclear waste. The problems began when Bechtel hired an outside vendor to build it. "They gave the wrong design specs to the manufacturer," says Carpenter. ... "They gave them a less strict nuclear design." According to the documents, when the tank arrived at Hanford it had "cracked stay welds." They were fixed. But then "different types of weld defects" were discovered. And yet Bechtel went ahead and installed the scrubber tank anyway. "They still said, 'We can fix those when the tank's installed.' So they went ahead and installed it with defects, all right?" Carpenter says. "Knowing it, okay. So at this point they, Bechtel, demanded and then received a $15 million bonus for meeting a milestone." Bechtel wouldn't give 60 Minutes an on-camera interview, but did say that the $15 million wasn't a "bonus," it was a fee. In any event, after they got the money, a "new deficiency was discovered" by "independent inspectors for Washington state." This new deficiency, says Carpenter, was discovered after the tank was installed. Carpenter says, "The red flag goes up and a full inspection is then ordered on the tank. Well, the full inspection should've been done at the factory where they built the tank." Asked whether this inspection was part of the contract, Carpenter says, "Sure." The full inspection finally led Bechtel to realize the tank was not up to specification. But Carpenter says that's not all. "The design flaws that led to this tank being deficient applied to 66 other vessels," Carpenter explains. "Seven of which had already been built.... And they had to go and redesign the ones that had not been built, and fix the ones that had been built. It really raises a big question about, well, what have they not caught out there? What other equipment or tools, or machine, is installed maybe under feet of concrete that these programs failed to catch? Because their programs failed. The contractor failed. The Department of Energy failed. It took an independent inspector to find new deficiencies. Where is the adult supervision here? We're talking a nuclear facility handling some of the worst waste in the world, and they're fast tracking it? Excuse me." 60 Minutes asked Charles Anderson of the Department of Energy about this. "When you hear they gave the wrong design specifications - you almost can't believe it - on one piece of equipment, and then when you hear it's been repeated over and over, I mean, that doesn't sound like the Department of Energy is managing the situation very well," Stahl said. "There's a number of those issues that have occurred. Those issues have been identified and corrected but there's also a large, large percentage of equipment where the specs have been correctly given, the equipment's been purchased correctly," Anderson replied. "But there shouldn't be mistakes like that in a plant like this, should there?" Stahl asked. "Well, Lesley, in a large complex facility, a project like this, you do have mistakes," he replied. Anderson acknowledged they are big mistakes. "I would agree that there are big mistakes here that we are taking control of and we're correcting," he says. "You know, I'm getting a little deja vu here because when we were here in 2001 it was the same thing. 'We figured it out. It's better now. No problem any more.' Do you think, being candid with us, that the department's up to this?" Stahl asked. "Well here's what's different now. We've taken steps to provide increased oversight, to reach out for increased external reviews," Anderson replied. "To complete this important work of disposing of, stabilizing and then disposing of this waste." Anderson says that the leaking tanks have been stabilized and that there's virtually no chance of further seepage. But Christine Gregoire, the governor of Washington State, who has worked on this issue from the beginning, doesn't believe that for one minute. "Let me tell you the story. 1989: They told me there was zero chance that there would be any leakage and ground water contamination. Sixteen years later, we have confirmed 67 leakers, groundwater contamination. I told them then, 'Gravity works like this.' And I'll tell them again today: gravity means we are very vulnerable to the groundwater contamination and a plume that we now have moving towards the Columbia River, which is the lifeline of our Pacific Northwest," Gov. Gregoire says. Asked what she meant by a "plume," the governor said, "We've got an area that is contaminated in the groundwater and is migrating towards the Columbia River. And if it gets there, Lesley, we have an absolute disaster on our hands." She's worried about a move in Congress to cut the budget for the Hanford clean-up. "I can understand the frustration in Congress," the governor says. "Frankly, they are no more frustrated than me. But the last thing we need is to send a message to this country that it's OK to walk away. It is not. The chances of a catastrophic event over there are real. Time is not on our side. We need to get going." From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 14:32:53 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Unpublicized Radiation Protection Story In-Reply-To: <20060429172512.12322.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060501193253.79464.qmail@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, I am not sure if there are "hundreds" on Jim's Web site, and Jim should be able to give you a number. Many of the studies listed in this site were published in the open literature. Many are historical. Even the NCRP, UNSCEAR and BEIR committee reports note the existance of such work as the nuclear shipyard reports and others. You should also read their comments. There is no censorship. Of course, if you are looking for a conspiracy, you will find it. It is just difficult for you to accept the fact that everyone does not agree with you. --- howard long wrote: > Hundreds of studies showing support for this are > compiled at James Muckerheide . > > They are not published much, John J, because the > editors have a relationship with you bureaucrats who > keep jobs only by perpetuating the myth of LNT. > > Your "peer review" requirement is just censorship. > > Howard Long > > "Scott, Bobby" wrote: > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:44:47 -0600 > From: "Scott, Bobby" > To: > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Untold Radiation Protection > Story > > I thought readers of the Radsafe Digest may find the > radiation > protection story that follows to be of interest. Our > research relates > to stochastic biological effects of exposure of > mammalian cellular > communities to low doses of ionizing radiation. > These effects include > induced genomic instability, mutation, neoplastic > transformation, and > cancer in organisms. What we have learned about > exposure to low doses > and dose rates of low-LET radiations such as X and > gamma rays is that > doses above varying thresholds (for different > individuals) appear to > activate a system of transient protective processes > that include high > fidelity (efficiency) DNA repair, an auxiliary > selective apoptosis > process (called the PAM process), and the immune > system. The high > fidelity repair when activated likely includes > repair of spontaneously > occurring DNA double-strand breaks and competes with > normal apoptosis > (cell suicide, when severely damaged). The > abbreviation PAM stands for > "protective apoptosis mediated". The PAM process, > which involves an > auxiliary apoptosis mechanism, when activated > removes existing > genomically unstable cells (spontaneous and other) > that arise from > misrepair of DNA damage (e.g., mutant and > neoplastically transformed > cells). +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Dickdubiel at msn.com Mon May 1 18:18:22 2006 From: Dickdubiel at msn.com (Dick Dubiel) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 16:18:22 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes Feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: I did not see the 60 Minutes feature on Hanford, but read with skepticism the messages posted on Radsafe. Having lived through 60 Minutes features (I was the RPM at Three Mile Island during the accident) as well as other media productions, I understand their approach. Truth and reasonableness are not the objective of the news magazine reports that are developed. The objective, or the message that is targeted, is pre-defined. Interviews are conducted with both audio and video of the interviewer and interviewee, but rarely together. Sound bites from the interviewer can be used anywhere in the final footage. Typically an answer to the interviewer's question is shown without the original question, but following a question posed differently to an "expert" with an alarmist's attitude. The result is a program that gets across the message intended by the producers while intelligent, dedicated and competent scientists and engineers are made to look foolish. I haven't watched a TV news magazine program from any network since 1980. I have reason to disbelieve every story that is produced. I have recently taken the time to be interviewed for a documentary on TMI that was originally presented as an unbiased documentary. Following the interview, I was asked to sign a release form. I specified that the network (PBS) could use footage only if I had the opportunity to review it before it was aired. None of my four hour interview was ever used. If any of you remember the program from a few years back, it was simply another alarmist presentation on the evils of nuclear power. Mike Nichols (I think that was his name), the author of the "China Syndrome", got the most air time. Without seeing the program, I can still feel for the management and staff at Hanford for the way they are portrayed in the write up. I can imagine it was no better on TV. Richard W. Dubiel, CHP Millennium Services, Inc. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 15:50:42 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060501205042.82008.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Sandy, I saw the story. I think the real issue was government's wasteful spending and lack of contract oversight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford > clean-up process. I > know how 60 Minutes can skew information and > manipulate the final > product. However, there were DOE Management, > Washington State > Governor and others interviewed. > > Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is > the take from our > Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? > > ------------------------------------- > Sandy Perle > Senior Vice President, Technical Operations > Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. > 2652 McGaw Avenue > Irvine, CA 92614 > > Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 > Fax:(949) 296-1144 > > E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com > E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net > > Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ > Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 1 15:53:32 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 13:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E5DF@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <20060501205332.27659.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> You really have to read beyond this first page to appreciate the fine work of DOE. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > Sandy et al., > > See below: "Lethal and Leaking" > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ==================== > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of > > Sandy Perle > > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:21 PM > > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford > last night > > > > This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford > clean-up process. I > > know how 60 Minutes can skew information and > manipulate the final > > product. However, there were DOE Management, > Washington State > > Governor and others interviewed. > > > > Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what > is the take from our > > Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Sandy Perle > > > Lethal And Leaking > > April 30, 2006 > CBS News > Produced By Rich Bonin > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1553896.shtml > > Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the > same thing over and over > again and expecting different results. Well, that's > what critics accuse the > U.S. Department of Energy of: making the same > mistakes over and over in a > project that has already squandered billions of > dollars in taxpayers' money. > But the risk here is far greater than financial, > since it involves highly > toxic nuclear waste. > > At stake are millions of gallons of radioactive > liquid waste left over from > the making of nuclear bombs, including the one that > was dropped on Nagasaki. > This waste has been sitting in underground tanks in > Hanford, Wash., ever > since, while the government tries to figure out how > to clean it up. As > correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, the waste is so > lethal that a small cup > of it would kill everyone in a crowded restaurant, > in minutes. > > > 60 Minutes recently visited Hanford, where the > witches' brew is being stored. > Hanford, located along the Columbia River, is home > to the most contaminated > piece of real estate in the world outside of Russia. > > It is contaminated by waste left over from the > production of nuclear weapons. > There are 53 million gallons of highly radioactive > liquid waste stored in > underground tanks that are now so old they have > leaked one million gallons of > the stuff. > > Some of it leaked into the groundwater, and it's > heading right for the river. > With a million people downstream, there's a sense of > urgency about cleaning > up the site, which is huge. It takes up 586 square > miles in southeastern > Washington. > > But for the Energy Department, which runs the > project, it's been a case of > easier said than done. In the nearly 16 years 60 > Minutes has been covering > this story, it's been one foul up after the next. > > Charles Anderson, the Energy Department's official > overseeing nuclear clean > up, gave Stahl a tour of what has been built so far > at Hanford, starting with > a replica of the underground tanks. > > "This is a model of tanks that are already built > that have waste in them. Be > careful with your head here as we go in," Anderson > told Stahl during the > tour. > > The tank can hold 750,000 gallons of waste. Many of > the tanks, built for the > Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear > weapons, are more than 60 > years old. > > Anderson explains there are a total of 177 tanks > holding "high-level" waste > at this site. > > The plan is to pump the waste out of the tanks and > route it through miles of > pipes to a yet-to-be-completed pre-treatment > facility. The idea is to convert > the radioactive waste into glass logs. > > "This is where the radioactive waste will come from > the tank farms, will come > from those tanks and will come in here and be > treated in different chemical > processes and be turned into glass logs for final > disposition to be disposed > of in a landfill," Anderson explains. > > Stahl last visited the area in 2001, when the site > was just a field. Anderson > says significant progress has been made. "The > plant's 35 percent complete in > regard to construction," he says. > > But the place is a total ghost town. What happened? > > What happened here is that after three years of > welding, pouring cement and > laying miles of pipes and tons of steel, > construction came to a screeching > halt in 2005 because the Energy Department > underestimated by 40 percent how > strong the building must be to withstand an > earthquake. We're talking about a > building that would be full of radioactive liquid. > > > "In a building like this, you need to build it to > ensure that it withstands > whatever an earthquake may pose - if there is one - > because we absolutely do > not want a breech of this radioactive material in > the atmosphere," says Gene > Aloise of the Government Accountability Office > (GAO), Congress' investigative > arm. > > But here's what 60 Minutes has learned: that the > Energy Department and the > contractor, Bechtel, went ahead with the plant > knowing their seismic standard > might be off. Just as construction was about to > begin in July 2002, an > independent safety board sent a letter, warning the > department. > > "Energy debated with the safety board for almost two > years over the > standards," says Aloise. > > "Ok, let me understand this. This is brought up as > an issue in 2002. Instead > of going back right then, they debate until 2005, > during which time they're > building the building?" Stahl asked Aloise. > > "They're building the building," he replied. > > They were building it using the wrong seismic > standard. Because they did > factor in some margin of safety, the contractor, > Bechtel, has told the Energy > Department there is no restructuring required on the > foundation or the walls. > > But Aloise says what they do have to fix are the > internal components of the > building. "Hangers, piping, vessel supports, all of > this interior of the > building, where the technology's going to rest. That > all has to be > re-engineered," he explains. "They have to re-do > tens of thousands of > designs." > > The seismic miscalculation is costing at least $800 > million and a two- to > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 1 16:02:48 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 14:02:48 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <20060501205042.82008.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <44561508.16619.180F0E7@sandyfl.earthlink.net> On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > I think the real issue was > government's wasteful spending and lack of contract oversight. John, That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" specifications and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with construction. I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From loc at icx.net Mon May 1 17:09:49 2006 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 18:09:49 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RadTown Message-ID: <4456872D.6030907@icx.net> Pretty cool toy. --Susan Gawarecki New Interactive Web Site is Totally Rad (Washington, D.C. ? May 1, 2006) From seeing a stadium laser light show to receiving an x-ray, radiation is part of our lives. That's why EPA is launching RadTown USA, a new web site that uses an animated town to provide basic information on radiation in the environment. RadTown USA is a virtual community showing the wide variety of radiation sources commonly encountered in everyday life. The RadTown site features houses, a school, stadium, construction site, flying plane, moving train and much more to highlight and explain the many common sources of radiation. The information is organized in a series of easy-to-understand fact sheets, with links to additional information resources. Every fact sheet includes the types of radiation sources at the location, the important roles that federal, state and local governments play in protection and control, and normal steps that individuals can take to protect themselves, such as applying sun block or installing radon detectors in homes. Discover RadTown USA: http://www.epa.gov/radtown Contact: Roxanne Smith, (202) 564-4355 / smith.roxanne at epa.gov From jimm at WPI.EDU Mon May 1 17:53:05 2006 From: jimm at WPI.EDU (Muckerheide, James) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 18:53:05 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E673@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Sandy, John, et al. I sent the 60 minutes piece because it was the subject. We all know here that the pejorative crap is typical media staging, especially by the TV newsmags. Here's another cut at the info, also rather biased. But this and other recent info/reports indicate that this seems to be yet another DOE project boondoggle. DOE hasn't shown any substantial engineering and project management ability since before Clinch River and ERDA. See full article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html Regards, Jim Muckerheide ==================== SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if Congress will pay Monday, May 1, 2006 By LISA STIFFLER AND CHARLES POPE P-I REPORTERS It's costing Americans $1.4 million a day to build a facility to safely treat millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste stored in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's leak-prone underground tanks. [Related article - Evidence of new leaks, group reports] When the project is completed, the bill could total $38 for every man, woman and child in the nation -- that's if the $11.3 billion price tag doesn't swell even further. It has nearly tripled in less than six years, making it a massive taxpayer burden. This is a critical time for the project. An increasingly impatient Congress is now deciding how much money to contribute to the effort -- considered the most important step in the cleanup of the sprawling desert site on the Columbia River. Some fear lawmakers could simply wash their hands of it and walk away. "The whole house of cards is ready to collapse," said Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group. ? [Photo File ?These double-walled tanks at Hanford each hold 1 million gallons of highly radioactive nuclear waste from bomb making. Built in 1984, they were later covered with 5 feet of dirt. The liquid waste that's inside them is slated to be pumped out and turned into glass. The challenge of safely disposing of 53 million gallons of deadly waste left over from decades of plutonium production has caused the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors to stumble repeatedly.] Weak -- even negligent -- management has pushed the project's completion from 2011 back to 2017 or later and driven costs up by billions, according to reports from government agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers and watchdog groups. At the same time, environmental and health risks are mounting. The corrosive waste weakens the walls of the tanks and the risk of leaks keeps growing, regulators admit. The federal officials running the Hanford cleanup and their contractors apologize for the delays and errors in cost calculations. They promise to do better. "Everything that I do on this project each day is to identify with certainty what the costs and schedule basis is, and to restore confidence and credibility in this project," said John Eschenberg, the Energy Department's manager for the project. Construction is under way on the massive "vitrification" project, which one day would turn the waste into a glassy compound that will trap the radioactive material for safe storage. But the department's contractor -- construction giant Bechtel National Inc. -- has had to put the brakes on most of the building due to safety and technical problems. Countless additional factors have helped drive up costs. They include the initial miscalculation of the amount and cost of materials needed for the project and underestimation of the technical and regulatory hurdles facing the facility. In March, a team of experts identified more than two dozen issues that could prevent the plant from working as planned. The plant was expected to operate for nearly two decades. The mounting setbacks have sent state leaders recently to Washington, D.C., to beseech lawmakers to keep funding the costly endeavor near Richland. Next week government officials will come to Seattle to explain publicly how much money is needed to support the Hanford cleanup, including the vitrification project, and to get feedback on where it's being spent. The case is getting harder to make. Some worry Congress or the Energy Department could scrap the vitrification project, perhaps opting to build new storage tanks and putting the waste there. Another option is using a cheaper, but less safe, technology for treating the waste plaguing Hanford -- a key player in World War II's Manhattan Project. Comments at an April 6 congressional hearing examining Hanford's problems heightened that fear. "I'm convinced now that after learning about the failures of project management, the neglect of nuclear safety quality assurances and the uncontrollable costs we will hear about today that this project is on a fast road to failure," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. Hobson's dark opinion is important because he chairs the subcommittee providing money for cleaning up Hanford and other Energy Department plants. Everyone agrees the project is challenging. In the decades since Hanford fired up the first reactor in 1944, a mishmash of waste has been dumped into 177 tanks in the quest for weapons-grade plutonium. The tanks -- which some say may have leaked recently -- store millions of gallons of chemically complex liquids, sludge and chunky salt cake. Those responsible for problems with the vitrification project frequently put much of the blame on its unique nature. "After all, it was a first of a kind, never been built anywhere in the world, much less in the United States," Tom Hash, Bechtel's president of systems and infrastructure, told Hobson's subcommittee. That statement, however, was not entirely accurate. Savannah River echoes Hanford isn't the Energy Department's only radioactive headache. South Carolina's Savannah River Site was established in the early 1950s to produce plutonium and radioactive hydrogen to arm nuclear weapons. In 1983, the department began the process of building a vitrification plant there to treat 37 million gallons of dangerous waste that also had been stored in buried, leak-prone tanks. At Savannah River, just as at Hanford, Bechtel was a prime partner in building the facility. And just as at Hanford, the project was beset by major cost overruns, poor management and technical problems. In a 1992 report that is similar in tone and findings to recent reviews of the Hanford project, the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) itemized the problems. The cost, the GAO said, had soared from an estimated $2.1 billion to $4 billion. The project fell behind schedule. Ineffective management "has been a principal factor contributing to the tremendous cost growth of the (waste facility) program and the schedule delays," reported the government investigators. "Other factors, such as system testing that identified technical problems and equipment and design deficiencies" also affected the program's cost and schedule, the GAO said. As with Hanford, DOE officials and the contractors repented and vowed to do better. The plant finally opened in 1996 -- three years late. It has produced 2,200 canisters of glassified waste since then, but lingering technical problems have limited its effectiveness, allowing the capture of only small amounts of radioactive material per canister. DOE estimates the plant will finish the job in 2026. Savannah River has struggled to develop a process that separates high-level waste from less lethal, low-level waste. Once the process works, it will speed cleanup because only the worst waste will be sent to the vitrification plant. A citizens advisory board said last month that the delay could add $1 billion to cleanup costs. While concerns raised about the operations are disturbingly similar, some say comparisons between Hanford and Savannah River are unfair because the Washington operation is much larger and more complicated. John Britton, spokesman for Bechtel's Hanford project, said of Savannah: "It's a very small plant in comparison." 'Ready, shoot, aim' Not long before the first drop of concrete was poured at Hanford's vitrification plant in the summer of 2002, the desert site was flush with optimism. "This really is a watershed year," said Harry Boston, the Energy Department's manager for the project at the time. "A lot of hard work has been done over many years and now we are in a position to reap the rewards." Today, construction essentially has stopped on two of the vitrification project's three main facilities. While 1,700 builders bustled there a year ago, that number has withered to about 375. The project has embraced a "design-build" strategy in which chunks of the facility are engineered and construction starts before the overall blueprint is completed. Critics call it the "ready, shoot, aim" approach, but supporters say it's a smart, accepted practice. Engineering problems have plagued the effort over the years. Last year, the government finally heeded earthquake-related concerns raised in 2002 by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board -- the independent government board charged with monitoring DOE programs. That again forced Bechtel engineers to review their plans to make sure the facility could withstand a potential temblor. Construction already had started, but because the plans were "conservative," Britton said, "we haven't had to tear anything down or do anything over." But fixes to some of the equipment may be necessary, said A.J. Eggenberger, the board's chairman. And more information about the area's earthquake potential is still needed, he said at last month's subcommittee hearing, resulting in "continued uncertainty." That keeps the cost estimates and timelines for completion on shaky ground. Bechtel's original contract was for a $4.3 billion project -- a figure that has ballooned since 2000, topping $11.3 billion. The causes for the price inflation and delays are many. First, the initial cost estimates were too low. Bechtel officials admit they overestimated the potential productivity of workers and engineers, failing to account for the decades that had passed since a large-scale, U.S. nuclear project was launched. The cost of concrete and steel shot up globally since the effort started. Original expectations for the amount of materials needed also were too low. The project underestimated technical challenges. The list goes on. To help correct for the setbacks, watchdogs are calling for more outside oversight, such as bringing in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- the national agency responsible for nuclear safety. There are calls to back off the design-build approach so that plans are closer to completion before the hammering begins. The GAO recommends that plans are 90 percent finished before building happens. Currently, they're 65 percent complete. Clearly, something needs to happen to keep Congress on board. At the April hearing, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said Congress was frustrated with Hanford's slow progress, usually driven "after we whack them in some way." "There's a lot of taxpayer money out here ...," he said. "In the private sector, we're concerned about timeliness, waste of money." In response to those concerns, Washington state lawmakers and Gov. Christine Gregoire have launched an aggressive charm campaign to calm the nerves of those holding the purse strings. This summer, another analysis is due from the Army Corps that will more definitely set the costs and timing for the project. Many folks are not expecting good news. "What we can't afford is another cut" in the vitrification plant budget, Gregoire said last week after meeting with Senate leaders and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "Every one of these delays costs us time, money and hurts the environment." ABOUT THE TANKS Single-shell * There are 149 single-shell storage tanks at Hanford. * They were built between 1943 and 1964. * They are at least 30 years past their life expectancy. * All liquid that can be pumped out has been transferred to double-shell tanks. * 67 tanks have leaked. * 30 million gallons of waste remain in the tanks Double-Shell * There are 28 double-shell tanks at Hanford. * They were built between 1968 and 1986. * Designed to last 25-50 years, the oldest are past their life expectancy. * None is known to have leaked. * 23 million gallons of waste remain in the tanks. HANFORD CLEANUP The public can comment on Hanford's planned in two ways: * Attend a public hearing May 9 at the Talaris Conference Center, 4000 N.E. 41st St. (near University Village). Open house at 6 p.m., discussion at 7 p.m. www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/budget.htm">See an agenda. * Submit written comments to: The Department of Energy, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99352, or Theodore_E_Erik_Olds at orp.doe.gov or Karen_Lutz at rl.gov. ________________________________________ P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler at seattlepi.com. See the P-I's environment blog at www.datelineearth.com. ? 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon May 1 19:45:58 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 19:45:58 -0500 Subject: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] MILINET: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWkiyEA Message-ID: <002301c66d81$c73cd7e0$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> There are actually two "Stars and Stripes" newspapers. One is the overseas version and one is based in DC and has a distinct activist bent on a lot of issues. This is probably the DC based organization. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 5:56 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] MILINET: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA See how bad science spreads; now it has made Stars and Stripes, which has generally steered clear of the anti-DU crusaders nonsense. The science in question does not show that depleted uranium can damage DNA, but now that it is approaching a mainstream source to the troops, plenty will follow. Roger Helbig ----- Original Message ----- From: MAJUSMCRET at aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients: Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 4:43 AM Subject: MILINET: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA Mideast Stars and Stripes April 15, 2006 Study: Depleted Uranium Could Damage DNA DOD officials say exposure not a health risk to troops By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes WASHINGTON - Depleted uranium, used to harden vehicles and armor-piercing munitions, might cause damage to DNA in ways previously not understood by health officials, according to a recently released study from Northern Arizona University. The research could again raise questions about the military's use of depleted uranium, a practice Defense Department officials insist does not present health risks to troops. The dense metal is a by-product of the nuclear fuel enrichment process. Theories connecting Gulf War Syndrome to radiation exposure from uranium-laced battlefields have persisted for years. Defense Department studies show no lingering exposure danger, officials said. A 2004 study by the Defense Department concluded that the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are "very low" in combat situations. But the new study, conducted by biochemist Diane Stearns shows that, separate from any radiation risks, cells exposed to uranium can bond with the heavy metal particles. That biochemical reaction can cause genetic mutations, which in turn can curtail cell growth and potentially cause cancer. Stearns said the research is too preliminary to prove that uranium-treated ammunition can cause harmful side effects. "But it does raise the question of whether we're testing for the right things when we look at the health effects," she said. "If we're not seeing radioactivity in people being tested, maybe that's not what we should be looking for." If bullets coated with DU are used on a battlefield, their impact on a target could potentially send miniature metal fragments into the air. Stearns said her work shows the long-term effects on what those particles could do to the human cellular system have not been fully researched. A statement from the Defense Department on Friday said the department has investigated the toxic properties of uranium as a heavy metal, and that no evidence exists to show that that Gulf War veterans have suffered any chromosomal or genetic damage from DU exposure. "(Stearns') studies add another piece to the puzzle, but there is already a lot of information in this area," the statement said. Past studies reviewed by the Pentagon have shown that uranium at high levels can cause kidney damage in animal experiments, but have not shown a link between the lower levels of exposure from DU munitions and veterans' health. A Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center research team has been tracking 80 soldiers from the first Gulf War whose vehicles were peppered with DU rounds during combat, all of whom had some inhalation exposure to the heavy metal. Officials said that, to date, none of them has developed kidney problems or uranium-related cancers. In addition, the group has fathered 68 children, none of whom has birth defects. Still, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., has been petitioning for more extensive testing on DU for more than a year, and recently called on Congress to renew discussions on the issue at a rally featuring Physicians for Social Responsibility and the punk-rock group Anti-Flag. "All I'm really asking for is an independent study," he said in an interview earlier this month. "It's clear this issue about the health effects is out there and floating around. But it's also clear the Pentagon does not want to study it." Last summer, McDermott introduced legislation which would mandate a series of research projects on the material's effects on troops, civilians and the environment. The bill hasn't moved since then. A Defense Department spokeswoman said a number of independent groups - including the United Nations, researchers from the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Rand Corporation - have all published studies in recent years supporting the Pentagon's conclusion that depleted uranium munitions are not a health risk for U.S. troops. Misinformation about the supposed dangers continues to be a problem, the spokesman said, despite the department's own extensive testing of troops. Since May 2003, 2,122 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who may have been exposed to DU have undergone radiation screenings. Only eight showed elevated levels, all of whom were still within prescribed health standards, and all of them had munitions fragments in their body at the time. Defense officials said they have no plans to phasing out the use of DU munitions or a ban on its use. _______________________________________________ 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/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon May 1 20:45:21 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 20:45:21 -0500 Subject: [SPAM]Re: [ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, WashingtonState Se... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXktiEA Message-ID: <002801c66d8a$12f5c950$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I believe that most of the people pushing this are trying to do what they believe is best. They hear a clamoring from the anti-DU activists and they hear the other side and the middle-ground, the safe-ground seems to be what is proposed, but it is not. The one issue that needs to be considered is the very real harm caused by this unjustified and non-scientific focus on DU. This type of monitoring should not be done because of the very real harm this kind of unwarranted monitoring causes. First and foremost is the impact on the soldier and family. I have heard first-hand how the false claims that form the rationale for this monitoring impact these good people in real, measurable and treatable ways. Second, this constant drumbeat is diverting state and federal funds, resources and legislative energy from those projects that would actually improve the health and well-being of our soldiers and their families. These are very real and to my mind unacceptable costs. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP Colonel, USA(Ret) From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Mon May 1 22:56:19 2006 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 20:56:19 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> References: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20060501205253.02fe91b0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 11:20 AM 5/1/2006, Sandy Perle wrote: >This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I >know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final >product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State >Governor and others interviewed. ****************************************** May 1, 2006 My personal experience with "60-Minutes" has led me to believe that probably they first write their inflammatory story, and then they collect and select sound and picture bites to support their pre-planned thesis. Otto ********************************************** Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP Center for Health & the Environment University of California One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu Phone: (530) 752-7754 FAX: (530) 758-6140 *********************************************** From ellison1 at localnet.com Tue May 2 04:14:04 2006 From: ellison1 at localnet.com (Karl Ellison) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray Exposure ? Message-ID: Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis treatments that began a year ago? (below) | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a prophylactic | hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this purpose; | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. | | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these prophylactic | hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. | | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings were 2.0 | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. We | exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd intercostal | space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these AP exposures were | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine required 165 | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. | | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can calculate the | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After the | exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light workout) for | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. | | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low dose | radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone which he sees | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He would like | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list of | references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. | | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial generated, | settings for the machine. | Best wishes, | Jay Caplan From krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil Tue May 2 07:53:33 2006 From: krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil (Krzesniak, Michael F) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 07:53:33 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gamma Irradiation Costs Message-ID: Radsafe, I am trying to find approximate costs charged for gamma irradiation, especially cobalt-60. Am mostly interested in US facilities and costs per hour or per dose. I was able to find on-line food sterilization costs as low as $1.00/kg. That seemed very low. thank you Michael Krzesniak Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane) Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter Code 6054 Bldg. 3059 300 Highway 361 Crane, IN 47522-5001 Ph: 812.854.6086 Fax: 812.854.3008 Email: krzesniak at atd.crane.navy.mil From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Tue May 2 11:06:13 2006 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 09:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] How to clean-up Hanford in 60 minutes. Message-ID: <20060502160613.9908.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Sandy, First time, I have heard about Hanford from my professor in early 80's, he visited it in early 60's. My self, I have not been in Hanford but...I think that CH2M and a bunch of Bartlett techs ;-) would do the job and clean that place up in no time. How do I know? :-) Well, it was done in Rocky Flats, it took 4 years and under the cost (period) Lessons learned: Incentives is the motivation. Good day for everyone. Emil. Message: 11 Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:20:47 -0700 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50 at sandyfl.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Tue May 2 11:23:13 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 09:23:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: How to clean-up Hanford in 60 minutes. In-Reply-To: <20060502160613.9908.qmail@web51613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44572501.22807.5A6FAFB@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Thanks Emil, One of the major problems has to do with the construction of new high level waste for storage, pumping the waste from degrading tanks to the new facilities. The new facilities have, for some of the work, been discontinued due to erroneous assumptions for the structure, erroneous specifications. I've been to Rocky Flats and their clean-up project was a scope significantly less than Hanford. Different issues, different solutions. While DOE spokes-person Andersen acknowledged errors, whether or not the 60 Minutes piece was slated, totally or partially, remains unanswered. Regards, Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Tue May 2 13:03:16 2006 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:03:16 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night References: <4455EF0F.18167.EC3D50@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Sandy Perle wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Mon 5/1/2006 11:20 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ===================== I did not see the 60 minutes piece, having quit watching it and network news, in general, about 25 years ago, when CBS illustrated TMI with a graphic of a containment dome with a pan of water with a fire under it inside the dome and complemented that by introducing Ernest Sternglass as an expert commentator. Sternglass commented, "Run for the hills, you're all going to die", or words to that effect. The cause for the Vit plant stop work was new seismic information that suggested that parts of the plant might not designed (and in some cases already built) to rigorous enough seismic standards. Older Hanford buildings wera all built to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 2 standards. Hanford was generally considered a low seismic area, with an instrumental record of fairly frequent small (Richter 3 and change) onsite quakes and a Richter 5+ quake a few decades ago about 50 miles north at Smyrna on the other side of the Saddle Mountains anticline. An extended period of seismicity perhaps 5 to 15 million years ago is reflected in two separate families of anticlines/synclines, one East-West trending and the other Northwest-Southeast trending. Pretty quiet now, though. An interesting question mark on Hanford seismicity is the Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, a seismic feature that runs from the Olympic Peninsula, directly underneath the middle of the Seattle area, over Snoqualmie Pass (and, in all probability, the reason for the existence of Snoqualmie Pass), down through the upper Yakima River Valley, under several East-West trending anticlines, directly in front of Rattlesnake Mountain (on the Hanford site(, and on southeast under the Blue Mountains in Oregon, ending at the Wallowa Mountains in norhteastern Oregon. If you want to see geologists collectively scratching their heads, google "Olympic Wallowa Lineament". Nobody knows whether it will support current seismicity. I have placed my bets by building a house a couple hundred yards from the OWL. I haven't followed the details of the Vit plant seismic reanalysis, so I did a little digging. The most plausible description of the problem I found was in the minutes of the 14 April 2005 meeting of the Tank Waste Committee of the Hanford Advisory Board. The HAB is an interesting critter -- a collection of stakeholders comprising anti-nuclear activitists, Hanford site employees, and representatives of interested governmental and non-governmental organizations, including at least one RADSAFE contributor. The HAB committee reports are available at . Quoting from the HAB committee report: "Lew Miller, DOE-ORP, updated the committee on the seismic report for the WTP. He provided the context for seismic concerns, and explained how improvements in computer measuring techniques for measuring how earthquakes in other areas could impact the WTP have created the need for further analysis. The initial seismic study tried to model the 200 East and 200 West areas, using an assumption of 500 feet of sand and gravel beneath the sites. There is actually closer to 600 feet of sand and gravel under the WTP, which has an absorbing effect on earthquake impacts. Underneath the sand and gravel there are layers of basalt bedrock, with interspersed layers of mudstone and siltstone. The bedrock layers have an attenuating effect on earthquake impacts, however, no measurements were taken of seismic wave movements through these layers in the initial study. In 1996, the assumptions was that the layers are more like soldi bedrock; with the identified layers of mudstone and siltstone, the area of bedrock is now actually believed to attenuate earthquake impacts less. The new seismic report used models that accounted for the layers attenuating less, which amounts to a 40% increas in impacts where buildings are most sensitive." "Lew explained how DOE plans to utilize the new data in the design of the WTP to meet new seismic standards. Depending on what state the design is in determines what type of corrective action needs to be taken. Most design work that has been done is robust enough to account for new seismic data, so few changes need to be made in those areas." "A dynamic analysis will be coming out soon, which will model the entire building to show how an earthquake would impact the entire building. Modeling can also be done component by component to assess seismic impacts." Subsequent HAB committee meetings have focussed more on the budget and schedule impact of the seismic reanalysis. A comment on the rather trashy coverage by our local big-city newspapers and comments by our governor (who I voted for and rather like). Christine Gregoire sounds the alarm about tank waste in the groundwater and moving -- gasp -- toward the Columbia River. This is not science (well, perhaps, political science). The flow of the Columbia River is three to four orders of magnitude greater than the flow of Hanford groundwater into the Columbia. During all the years of Hanford contamination of the Columbia, radionuclide contamination has never been above EPA drinking water standards and will not be in the future. Hanford radionuclide contributions to the Columbia are in the noise of the natural radionuclides coming down out of the mountains. I am on a well now, but drank Columbia River water (downstream from Hanford) for 25 years. You should all have such nice water. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Tue May 2 13:31:29 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 14:31:29 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: Sandy, Jim et al. Same situation at Savannah River Site (SRS) ... the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) raised seismic issues re: the design and construction of the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) at SRS ... resulting in at least a 2-year delay in facility startup, and an increase in life-cycle cost of more than $1 billion. Of particular interest to us are DOE's plans to implement a program called "Interim Salt Processing" to remove some of the lower activity salt-waste from HLW tanks, treat it so that it meets the concentration limits for Class C low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and dispose of it on-site as grout inside near-surface vaults. I'm aware that DOE is working to revise plans ... the last numbers I saw indicated that 3,000,000 - 5,000,000 Ci of Cs-137 might be disposed on-site until the startup of SWPF. My $0.02 worth ... Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Dukelow, James S Jr" 5/2/2006 14:03:16 >>> Sandy Perle wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Mon 5/1/2006 11:20 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ===================== I did not see the 60 minutes piece, having quit watching it and network news, in general, about 25 years ago, when CBS illustrated TMI with a graphic of a containment dome with a pan of water with a fire under it inside the dome and complemented that by introducing Ernest Sternglass as an expert commentator. Sternglass commented, "Run for the hills, you're all going to die", or words to that effect. The cause for the Vit plant stop work was new seismic information that suggested that parts of the plant might not designed (and in some cases already built) to rigorous enough seismic standards. Older Hanford buildings wera all built to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 2 standards. Hanford was generally considered a low seismic area, with an instrumental record of fairly frequent small (Richter 3 and change) onsite quakes and a Richter 5+ quake a few decades ago about 50 miles north at Smyrna on the other side of the Saddle Mountains anticline. An extended period of seismicity perhaps 5 to 15 million years ago is reflected in two separate families of anticlines/synclines, one East-West trending and the other Northwest-Southeast trending. Pretty quiet now, though. An interesting question mark on Hanford seismicity is the Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, a seismic feature that runs from the Olympic Peninsula, directly underneath the middle of the Seattle area, over Snoqualmie Pass (and, in all probability, the reason for the existence of Snoqualmie Pass), down through the upper Yakima River Valley, under several East-West trending anticlines, directly in front of Rattlesnake Mountain (on the Hanford site(, and on southeast under the Blue Mountains in Oregon, ending at the Wallowa Mountains in norhteastern Oregon. If you want to see geologists collectively scratching their heads, google "Olympic Wallowa Lineament". Nobody knows whether it will support current seismicity. I have placed my bets by building a house a couple hundred yards from the OWL. I haven't followed the details of the Vit plant seismic reanalysis, so I did a little digging. The most plausible description of the problem I found was in the minutes of the 14 April 2005 meeting of the Tank Waste Committee of the Hanford Advisory Board. The HAB is an interesting critter -- a collection of stakeholders comprising anti-nuclear activitists, Hanford site employees, and representatives of interested governmental and non-governmental organizations, including at least one RADSAFE contributor. The HAB committee reports are available at . Quoting from the HAB committee report: "Lew Miller, DOE-ORP, updated the committee on the seismic report for the WTP. He provided the context for seismic concerns, and explained how improvements in computer measuring techniques for measuring how earthquakes in other areas could impact the WTP have created the need for further analysis. The initial seismic study tried to model the 200 East and 200 West areas, using an assumption of 500 feet of sand and gravel beneath the sites. There is actually closer to 600 feet of sand and gravel under the WTP, which has an absorbing effect on earthquake impacts. Underneath the sand and gravel there are layers of basalt bedrock, with interspersed layers of mudstone and siltstone. The bedrock layers have an attenuating effect on earthquake impacts, however, no measurements were taken of seismic wave movements through these layers in the initial study. In 1996, the assumptions was that the layers are more like soldi bedrock; with the identified layers of mudstone and siltstone, the area of bedrock is now actually believed to attenuate earthquake impacts less. The new seismic report used models that accounted for the layers attenuating less, which amounts to a 40% increas in impacts where buildings are most sensitive." "Lew explained how DOE plans to utilize the new data in the design of the WTP to meet new seismic standards. Depending on what state the design is in determines what type of corrective action needs to be taken. Most design work that has been done is robust enough to account for new seismic data, so few changes need to be made in those areas." "A dynamic analysis will be coming out soon, which will model the entire building to show how an earthquake would impact the entire building. Modeling can also be done component by component to assess seismic impacts." Subsequent HAB committee meetings have focussed more on the budget and schedule impact of the seismic reanalysis. A comment on the rather trashy coverage by our local big-city newspapers and comments by our governor (who I voted for and rather like). Christine Gregoire sounds the alarm about tank waste in the groundwater and moving -- gasp -- toward the Columbia River. This is not science (well, perhaps, political science). The flow of the Columbia River is three to four orders of magnitude greater than the flow of Hanford groundwater into the Columbia. During all the years of Hanford contamination of the Columbia, radionuclide contamination has never been above EPA drinking water standards and will not be in the future. Hanford radionuclide contributions to the Columbia are in the noise of the natural radionuclides coming down out of the mountains. I am on a well now, but drank Columbia River water (downstream from Hanford) for 25 years. You should all have such nice water. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV Tue May 2 13:57:13 2006 From: Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV (Conklin, Al (DOH)) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:57:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB247@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Jim covered the seismic issues well, and I didn't see the 60 minutes thing either, mostly for the same reasons Jim didn't. I do, however license the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant for radioactive air emissions (we regulate their controls and monitoring systems), having given them a construction authorization, which has been modified several times to accommodate changing design. We will ultimately issue an operational license (hopefully in my lifetime). I stay out of the politics, since I work for them here in Washington, but I can at least comment on the contractor (Bechtel National). I don't know if they've made seismic related design mistakes or not, but my dealings with them have been very positive. They are very proactive in getting design changes to us and working closely with us to keep the project going. They have been very professional and excellent to work with. We also work closely with the Department of Energy's Office of River Protection, who we also work closely with, and who seems to me to be trying to do the right thing the right way. I should also add that not all tank wastes will go through this plant. Some of the wastes are TRU and will be retrieved and go to WIPP. Some are low level wastes, which will go through supplemental technology. There are no plans to do anything with what has already leaked into the ground, but, as Jim said, once it hits the river, its so dilute, it can't be seen down stream. Plus most of the waste is tied up in the vadose zone below the tanks, so I question whether most of it will ever reach the river. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dukelow, James S Jr Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 11:03 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy Perle wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Sandy Perle Sent: Mon 5/1/2006 11:20 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night This was a scathing report on DOE and the Hanford clean-up process. I know how 60 Minutes can skew information and manipulate the final product. However, there were DOE Management, Washington State Governor and others interviewed. Haven't seen this mentioned on Radsafe, so, what is the take from our Hanford colleagues regarding the telecast? ===================== I did not see the 60 minutes piece, having quit watching it and network news, in general, about 25 years ago, when CBS illustrated TMI with a graphic of a containment dome with a pan of water with a fire under it inside the dome and complemented that by introducing Ernest Sternglass as an expert commentator. Sternglass commented, "Run for the hills, you're all going to die", or words to that effect. The cause for the Vit plant stop work was new seismic information that suggested that parts of the plant might not designed (and in some cases already built) to rigorous enough seismic standards. Older Hanford buildings wera all built to Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 2 standards. Hanford was generally considered a low seismic area, with an instrumental record of fairly frequent small (Richter 3 and change) onsite quakes and a Richter 5+ quake a few decades ago about 50 miles north at Smyrna on the other side of the Saddle Mountains anticline. An extended period of seismicity perhaps 5 to 15 million years ago is reflected in two separate families of anticlines/synclines, one East-West trending and the other Northwest-Southeast trending. Pretty quiet now, though. An interesting question mark on Hanford seismicity is the Olympic-Wallowa Lineament, a seismic feature that runs from the Olympic Peninsula, directly underneath the middle of the Seattle area, over Snoqualmie Pass (and, in all probability, the reason for the existence of Snoqualmie Pass), down through the upper Yakima River Valley, under several East-West trending anticlines, directly in front of Rattlesnake Mountain (on the Hanford site(, and on southeast under the Blue Mountains in Oregon, ending at the Wallowa Mountains in norhteastern Oregon. If you want to see geologists collectively scratching their heads, google "Olympic Wallowa Lineament". Nobody knows whether it will support current seismicity. I have placed my bets by building a house a couple hundred yards from the OWL. I haven't followed the details of the Vit plant seismic reanalysis, so I did a little digging. The most plausible description of the problem I found was in the minutes of the 14 April 2005 meeting of the Tank Waste Committee of the Hanford Advisory Board. The HAB is an interesting critter -- a collection of stakeholders comprising anti-nuclear activitists, Hanford site employees, and representatives of interested governmental and non-governmental organizations, including at least one RADSAFE contributor. The HAB committee reports are available at . Quoting from the HAB committee report: "Lew Miller, DOE-ORP, updated the committee on the seismic report for the WTP. He provided the context for seismic concerns, and explained how improvements in computer measuring techniques for measuring how earthquakes in other areas could impact the WTP have created the need for further analysis. The initial seismic study tried to model the 200 East and 200 West areas, using an assumption of 500 feet of sand and gravel beneath the sites. There is actually closer to 600 feet of sand and gravel under the WTP, which has an absorbing effect on earthquake impacts. Underneath the sand and gravel there are layers of basalt bedrock, with interspersed layers of mudstone and siltstone. The bedrock layers have an attenuating effect on earthquake impacts, however, no measurements were taken of seismic wave movements through these layers in the initial study. In 1996, the assumptions was that the layers are more like soldi bedrock; with the identified layers of mudstone and siltstone, the area of bedrock is now actually believed to attenuate earthquake impacts less. The new seismic report used models that accounted for the layers attenuating less, which amounts to a 40% increas in impacts where buildings are most sensitive." "Lew explained how DOE plans to utilize the new data in the design of the WTP to meet new seismic standards. Depending on what state the design is in determines what type of corrective action needs to be taken. Most design work that has been done is robust enough to account for new seismic data, so few changes need to be made in those areas." "A dynamic analysis will be coming out soon, which will model the entire building to show how an earthquake would impact the entire building. Modeling can also be done component by component to assess seismic impacts." Subsequent HAB committee meetings have focussed more on the budget and schedule impact of the seismic reanalysis. A comment on the rather trashy coverage by our local big-city newspapers and comments by our governor (who I voted for and rather like). Christine Gregoire sounds the alarm about tank waste in the groundwater and moving -- gasp -- toward the Columbia River. This is not science (well, perhaps, political science). The flow of the Columbia River is three to four orders of magnitude greater than the flow of Hanford groundwater into the Columbia. During all the years of Hanford contamination of the Columbia, radionuclide contamination has never been above EPA drinking water standards and will not be in the future. Hanford radionuclide contributions to the Columbia are in the noise of the natural radionuclides coming down out of the mountains. I am on a well now, but drank Columbia River water (downstream from Hanford) for 25 years. You should all have such nice water. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue May 2 14:44:27 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 12:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <71A6142F930A1E4C9300D4088D9765C8B3E673@EXCHDB.admin.wpi.edu> Message-ID: <20060502194427.34462.qmail@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. --- "Muckerheide, James" wrote: > Sandy, John, et al. > > I sent the 60 minutes piece because it was the > subject. We all know here that > the pejorative crap is typical media staging, > especially by the TV newsmags. > > > Here's another cut at the info, also rather biased. > But this and other > recent info/reports indicate that this seems to be > yet another DOE project > boondoggle. DOE hasn't shown any substantial > engineering and project > management ability since before Clinch River and > ERDA. > > See full article at: > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ==================== > > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/268605_hanford01.html > > Hanford cleanup cost soars to $11.3 billion ... if > Congress will pay > Monday, May 1, 2006 > By LISA STIFFLER AND CHARLES POPE > P-I REPORTERS > > It's costing Americans $1.4 million a day to build a > facility to safely treat > millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste > stored in the Hanford > Nuclear Reservation's leak-prone underground tanks. > > [Related article > - Evidence of new leaks, group reports] > > > When the project is completed, the bill could total > $38 for every man, woman > and child in the nation -- that's if the $11.3 > billion price tag doesn't > swell even further. It has nearly tripled in less > than six years, making it a > massive taxpayer burden. > > This is a critical time for the project. An > increasingly impatient Congress > is now deciding how much money to contribute to the > effort -- considered the > most important step in the cleanup of the sprawling > desert site on the > Columbia River. Some fear lawmakers could simply > wash their hands of it and > walk away. > > "The whole house of cards is ready to collapse," > said Gerald Pollet, director > of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog > group. > ? > > [Photo File > ?These double-walled tanks at Hanford each hold 1 > million gallons of highly > radioactive nuclear waste from bomb making. Built in > 1984, they were later > covered with 5 feet of dirt. The liquid waste that's > inside them is slated to > be pumped out and turned into glass. > The challenge of safely disposing of 53 million > gallons of deadly waste left > over from decades of plutonium production has caused > the U.S. Department of > Energy and its contractors to stumble repeatedly.] > > > Weak -- even negligent -- management has pushed the > project's completion from > 2011 back to 2017 or later and driven costs up by > billions, according to > reports from government agencies, the Army Corps of > Engineers and watchdog > groups. > > At the same time, environmental and health risks are > mounting. The corrosive > waste weakens the walls of the tanks and the risk of > leaks keeps growing, > regulators admit. > > The federal officials running the Hanford cleanup > and their contractors > apologize for the delays and errors in cost > calculations. They promise to do > better. > > "Everything that I do on this project each day is to > identify with certainty > what the costs and schedule basis is, and to restore > confidence and > credibility in this project," said John Eschenberg, > the Energy Department's > manager for the project. > > Construction is under way on the massive > "vitrification" project, which one > day would turn the waste into a glassy compound that > will trap the > radioactive material for safe storage. But the > department's contractor -- > construction giant Bechtel National Inc. -- has had > to put the brakes on most > of the building due to safety and technical > problems. > > Countless additional factors have helped drive up > costs. They include the > initial miscalculation of the amount and cost of > materials needed for the > project and underestimation of the technical and > regulatory hurdles facing > the facility. In March, a team of experts identified > more than two dozen > issues that could prevent the plant from working as > planned. The plant was > expected to operate for nearly two decades. > > The mounting setbacks have sent state leaders > recently to Washington, D.C., > to beseech lawmakers to keep funding the costly > endeavor near Richland. > > Next week government officials will come to Seattle > to explain publicly how > much money is needed to support the Hanford cleanup, > including the > vitrification project, and to get feedback on where > it's being spent. > > The case is getting harder to make. Some worry > Congress or the Energy > Department could scrap the vitrification project, > perhaps opting to build new > storage tanks and putting the waste there. Another > option is using a cheaper, > but less safe, technology for treating the waste > plaguing Hanford -- a key > player in World War II's Manhattan Project. > Comments at an April 6 congressional hearing > examining Hanford's problems > heightened that fear. > > "I'm convinced now that after learning about the > failures of project > management, the neglect of nuclear safety quality > assurances and the > uncontrollable costs we will hear about today that > this project is on a fast > road to failure," said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio. > > Hobson's dark opinion is important because he chairs > the subcommittee > providing money for cleaning up Hanford and other > Energy Department plants. > > Everyone agrees the project is challenging. In the > decades since Hanford > fired up the first reactor in 1944, a mishmash of > waste has been dumped into > 177 tanks in the quest for weapons-grade plutonium. > The tanks -- which some > say may have leaked recently -- store millions of > gallons of chemically > complex liquids, sludge and chunky salt cake. > > Those responsible for problems with the > vitrification project frequently put > much of the blame on its unique nature. > > "After all, it was a first of a kind, never been > built anywhere in the world, > much less in the United States," Tom Hash, Bechtel's > president of systems and > infrastructure, told Hobson's subcommittee. > > That statement, however, was not entirely accurate. > > Savannah River echoes > > Hanford isn't the Energy Department's only > radioactive headache. > South Carolina's Savannah River Site was established > in the early 1950s to > produce plutonium and radioactive hydrogen to arm > nuclear weapons. > > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From uniqueproducts at comcast.net Tue May 2 15:28:31 2006 From: uniqueproducts at comcast.net (Jay Caplan) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:28:31 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 Message-ID: <19e301c66e26$faa46c10$6401a8c0@JAY> Dr. Ellison, Thank you for your inquiry. I have had calculations re this first exposure that it was approximately 4 R. Later smaller exposures I have used three times about 2 months apart beginning in the early fall were on a smaller machine at a more convenient location at a lower dosage, these were 70 kVP, 10 mA, 10 seconds, 90 cm from torso. I have been in perfect health without illness this entire year period. Anecdotally, I suspect immune function has been increased as there were two occasions over the year where I had low grade fevers in the evening for 2-3 days that never progressed into any illness or flu, almost like the fever had pre-empted the illness. Additionally, a bruise injury to the thigh generated a lot more swelling and a small evening fever for several days, when this type of injury never would have reacted this much pre-radiation. Best wishes, Jay Caplan > Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 > From: "Karl Ellison" > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray > Exposure ? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis > treatments that began a year ago? (below) > > | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a prophylactic > | hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I > | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this > purpose; > | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. > | > | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months > | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my > | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin > | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these prophylactic > | hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. > | > | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings were 2.0 > | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. We > | exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd intercostal > | space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these AP exposures were > | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine required > 165 > | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. > | > | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can calculate the > | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After the > | exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light workout) for > | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. > | > | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low dose > | radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone which he sees > | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He would like > | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list of > | references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I > | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. > | > | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial > generated, > | settings for the machine. > | Best wishes, > | Jay Caplan From sandyfl at earthlink.net Tue May 2 15:34:30 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:34:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB247@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <44575FE6.24682.68D1372@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Thanks Jim and Al. It was refreshing to see a another perspective, from those who also have access to real evidence. I was particularly interested Jim's comments regarding the Columbia and potential adverse effects for future generation's drinking water, as stated by Governor Christine Gregoire. It's too bad, but not unexpected, to not see both sides of an argument, based on data, and not just speculation. I've learned a lot, and I expect other have as well, and that is one of the purposes of Radsafe, to educate. Thanks again! Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Tue May 2 15:57:30 2006 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:57:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: John Jacobus wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. ================== What John says about the public might be true, but only because the public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk fashion, responding to the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and DOE. I am puzzled to be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly criticized for a number of sins of omission and commission over the years, but, if you look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number of worthwhile cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, ahead of schedule and under budget. To a certain extent they have been picking the low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- clean out of K-Basins, completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste through the Vit Plant, and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the Vit Plant -- will be significantly more difficult. The general approach, however, strikes me as reasonable. John, can you suggest a significant form of societal waste that has been better sequestered and has had LESS public health and environmental impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet Union, at least, which had a horrendous radwaste accident several decades ago? Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From loc at icx.net Tue May 2 16:25:22 2006 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:22 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED Message-ID: <4457CE42.6060909@icx.net> A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED on April 24. Called the CASEnergy Coalition, the group is cochaired by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. CASEnergy (short for "clean and safe energy") describes itself as a "large, diverse group that will work to unite consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations, business groups, professional organizations, family advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders who support nuclear energy's ability to enhance America's energy security, attain cleaner air, and improve the quality of life, health, and economic well-being for all Americans." More information is available at the organization's Web site, . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News From loc at icx.net Tue May 2 16:30:50 2006 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit Message-ID: <4457CF8A.4090402@icx.net> Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 3 01:04:30 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED Message-ID: <004f01c66e79$8ff2f3c0$61405142@roger1> California introduces legislation encouraging moratorium on use of DU, probably not worth the paper it might be printed on, but totally infused with false premises. I became aware of it thanks to Steve Sugarman, Executive Director of umbrella non-profit International Humanities Center which provides funding to the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund which claims that Afghani children have birth defects due to US use of DU munitions and from the "multi-pronged remedial containment" at the end of this blurb that solicits donations really seems to just be a scam. http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html (what munition is depicted in the photo on this page .. does it even contain DU?) - it looks like some sort of laser guided smart bomb. Afghan DU & Recovery Fund is established to clean DU (depleted uranium) from areas in Afghanistan bombed by the US-UK forces. Our goal is to establish monitoring stations for monitoring uranium dust in Afghanistan and pave the way for ameliorative actions amounting to cleanup. We have formulated a strategy that would constitute a new approach to the 'cleanup' of such disasters. In fact, the word 'cleanup' has no operational value in this scenario; hence, we call our approach a Multi-Prong Remedial Containment. : www.afghandufund.org Roger Helbig http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104_introduced.html From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 3 07:41:42 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <44561508.16619.180F0E7@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060503124142.80691.qmail@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE > spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you > have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that > they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years > added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still > continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I > saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know > more of the > intimate details. I am sure that this episode will > attract more > negative media attention, also considering the > Chernobyl 20th > Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov Mon May 1 13:30:04 2006 From: edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:30:04 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDB96@orsnewea002.fda.gov> I believe the only impairment is from people using them while driving. They are concentrating on their calls and not the road. FDA has done studies on the cell phone and found no effects. I agree with Susan Gawarecki on the risks. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:10 PM To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 3 07:48:20 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060503124820.97624.qmail@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, >From the prespective of a tax paying citizen, I have not impressed with milestones. I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. As a health physicist, I recognize that the risks are small. Nevertheless, as a health physicist I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. (These comments are mine. My employer and spouse have no idea what I am up to.) --- "Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote: > > John Jacobus wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Jim, > I would say it is hard to convince people that we > know how to handle > nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. > > ================== > > What John says about the public might be true, but > only because the > public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk > fashion, responding to > the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and > DOE. I am puzzled to > be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly > criticized for a > number of sins of omission and commission over the > years, but, if you > look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number > of worthwhile > cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, > ahead of schedule and > under budget. To a certain extent they have been > picking the > low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- > clean out of K-Basins, > completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste > through the Vit Plant, > and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the > Vit Plant -- will be > significantly more difficult. The general approach, > however, strikes me > as reasonable. > > John, can you suggest a significant form of societal > waste that has been > better sequestered and has had LESS public health > and environmental > impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet > Union, at least, > which had a horrendous radwaste accident several > decades ago? > > Best regards. > > Jim Dukelow > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory > Richland, WA > Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed > and/or approved by my > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV Wed May 3 09:56:33 2006 From: Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV (Conklin, Al (DOH)) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:56:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ From Danb at DNFSB.GOV Wed May 3 11:15:38 2006 From: Danb at DNFSB.GOV (Dan Burnfield) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:15:38 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <44589EEA.0EE1.00C8.0@DNFSB.GOV> I would agree with Al, Environmentally things are improving at Hanford. It is slow progress but there is progress. There is a much bigger more insidious problem lurking here. Looking at the major nuclear construction projects that have been scheduled over the past several years, most have experienced significant safety related problems. Many of these problems seem to be caused by a lack of an adequate nuclear construction contractor base. If we are having trouble building chemical plants to treat waste, experimental laboratories, and warehouses, we better be ready to put significant technical oversight into reactor plant construction. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov >>> "Conklin, Al (DOH)" 5/3/2006 10:56:33 am >>> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ From hflong at pacbell.net Wed May 3 14:23:00 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit In-Reply-To: <4457CF8A.4090402@icx.net> Message-ID: <20060503192300.3396.qmail@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Fear of nuclear annialhation - then and now- motivates actions to prevent worse problems. Preventive medicine is not as much appreciated as pain relief. Cleaning up Hanford or Iraq or Iran is likely less than evils prevented. Howard Long Susan Gawarecki wrote: Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 3 14:38:18 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night In-Reply-To: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <20060503193818.42908.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Al, Thanks for personal prespective and updating. --- "Conklin, Al (DOH)" wrote: > The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they > used to be. While > DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat > haphazardly over > much of Hanford's history since World War II, things > are no longer as > bad as they once were. > > 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The > standing liquids have > been removed so further leakage will be minor until > the waste can be > removed. > > Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 > tanks have been > pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks > also. As funding > improves, they have plans in place to do them big > time, running the > waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and > store in double shell > tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They > may have to build a > few additional tanks). > > Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch > list, for explosive > levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other > constituents that > made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. > That has been > resolved. > > Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of > the waste close to the > Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in > the middle of the site > in lined trenches. > > TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped > to WIPP. > > I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a > position of defending > DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I > regulate them (and > used to work for them). They used to be absolutely > dismal in the 70s and > 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, > most are anyway). > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM > To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Sandy, > What I consider important is that after X number of > years, we still have > the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in > sight. > > --- Sandy Perle wrote: > > > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > > > I think the real issue was > > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > > contract oversight. > > > > John, > > > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE > spokes-person didn't > > do himself any favours when he stated that when > you have these large > > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that > they were talking > > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 > years added on after > > scrapping most of the work due to lack of > "correct" > > specifications > > and non-approval of the construction, while still > continuing with > > construction. > > > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what > I saw. THere are > > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know > more of the intimate > > > details. I am sure that this episode will attract > more negative media > > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th > Anniversary. > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to > live in New York City." > ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay > College of Criminal > Justice, on murder trends in the city. > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed May 3 15:57:37 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 13:57:37 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated Message-ID: <4458B6D1.20709.BC8CF99@sandyfl.earthlink.net> The most current agenda for the upcoming 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference is now posted at: http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Draft%20Agenda.htm ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Wed May 3 16:02:52 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:02:52 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CORRECTED LINK: 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated In-Reply-To: <4458B6D1.20709.BC8CF99@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4458B80C.29123.BCD9D6A@sandyfl.earthlink.net> http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Agenda.htm ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From stanford at stanforddosimetry.com Wed May 3 16:15:29 2006 From: stanford at stanforddosimetry.com (Neill Stanford) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:15:29 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium andNational Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated In-Reply-To: <4458B6D1.20709.BC8CF99@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <014401c66ef6$b6646200$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> I think that this link works better: http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Agenda.htm Neill Stanford, CHP ----------------------------------------------------- Stanford Dosimetry, LLC NEW ADDRESS Feb 27 2315 Electric Ave. Bellingham, WA 98229 www.stanforddosimetry.com 360 527-2627 (voice) 360 715 1982 (fax) 360 770-7778 (cell) ------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:58 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium andNational Dosimetry Records Conference - agenda updated The most current agenda for the upcoming 25th Annual International Dosimetry Symposium and National Dosimetry Records Conference is now posted at: http://www.dosimetryresources.com/2006%20Draft%20Agenda.htm ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From srh at esper.com Wed May 3 19:04:56 2006 From: srh at esper.com (Shawn Hughes (Road2)) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:04:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 Message-ID: Did you do that with photoshop??? If you composited the images, they are EXCELLENT. If you stuck a gnome in your field, then its' just funny. If either the gnome or the field wasn't yours, then it was cool. Extra points for nudity..... You should consider a series two where miniG pokes the gnome with a rifle or something! -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl Sent: None To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 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. Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 (Jay Caplan) 2. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Sandy Perle) 3. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dukelow, James S Jr) 4. A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED (Susan Gawarecki) 5. More on Hanford - GAO audit (Susan Gawarecki) 6. AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED (Roger Helbig) 7. Re: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 8. RE: Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' (Baratta, Edmond J) 9. Re: On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... (James Salsman) 10. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 11. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Conklin, Al (DOH)) 12. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dan Burnfield) 13. Re: More on Hanford - GAO audit (howard long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:28:31 -0500 From: "Jay Caplan" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 To: , Message-ID: <19e301c66e26$faa46c10$6401a8c0 at JAY> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dr. Ellison, Thank you for your inquiry. I have had calculations re this first exposure that it was approximately 4 R. Later smaller exposures I have used three times about 2 months apart beginning in the early fall were on a smaller machine at a more convenient location at a lower dosage, these were 70 kVP, 10 mA, 10 seconds, 90 cm from torso. I have been in perfect health without illness this entire year period. Anecdotally, I suspect immune function has been increased as there were two occasions over the year where I had low grade fevers in the evening for 2-3 days that never progressed into any illness or flu, almost like the fever had pre-empted the illness. Additionally, a bruise injury to the thigh generated a lot more swelling and a small evening fever for several days, when this type of injury never would have reacted this much pre-radiation. Best wishes, Jay Caplan > Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 > From: "Karl Ellison" > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray > Exposure ? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis > treatments that began a year ago? (below) > > | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a > | prophylactic hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I > | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this > purpose; > | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. > | > | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months > | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my > | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin > | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these > | prophylactic hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. > | > | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings > | were 2.0 > | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. > | We exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd > | intercostal space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these > | AP exposures were > | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine > | required > 165 > | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. > | > | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can > | calculate the > | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After > | the exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light > | workout) for > | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. > | > | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low > | dose radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone > | which he sees > | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He > | would like > | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list > | of references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I > | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. > | > | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial > generated, > | settings for the machine. > | Best wishes, > | Jay Caplan ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:34:30 -0700 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" , , "Conklin, Al \DDOH\"" Message-ID: <44575FE6.24682.68D1372 at sandyfl.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Thanks Jim and Al. It was refreshing to see a another perspective, from those who also have access to real evidence. I was particularly interested Jim's comments regarding the Columbia and potential adverse effects for future generation's drinking water, as stated by Governor Christine Gregoire. It's too bad, but not unexpected, to not see both sides of an argument, based on data, and not just speculation. I've learned a lot, and I expect other have as well, and that is one of the purposes of Radsafe, to educate. Thanks again! Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:57:30 -0700 From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: John Jacobus , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii John Jacobus wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. ================== What John says about the public might be true, but only because the public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk fashion, responding to the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and DOE. I am puzzled to be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly criticized for a number of sins of omission and commission over the years, but, if you look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number of worthwhile cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, ahead of schedule and under budget. To a certain extent they have been picking the low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- clean out of K-Basins, completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste through the Vit Plant, and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the Vit Plant -- will be significantly more difficult. The general approach, however, strikes me as reasonable. John, can you suggest a significant form of societal waste that has been better sequestered and has had LESS public health and environmental impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet Union, at least, which had a horrendous radwaste accident several decades ago? Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:22 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CE42.6060909 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED on April 24. Called the CASEnergy Coalition, the group is cochaired by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. CASEnergy (short for "clean and safe energy") describes itself as a "large, diverse group that will work to unite consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations, business groups, professional organizations, family advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders who support nuclear energy's ability to enhance America's energy security, attain cleaner air, and improve the quality of life, health, and economic well-being for all Americans." More information is available at the organization's Web site, . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CF8A.4090402 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700 From: "Roger Helbig" Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED To: "radsafelist" Message-ID: <004f01c66e79$8ff2f3c0$61405142 at roger1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" California introduces legislation encouraging moratorium on use of DU, probably not worth the paper it might be printed on, but totally infused with false premises. I became aware of it thanks to Steve Sugarman, Executive Director of umbrella non-profit International Humanities Center which provides funding to the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund which claims that Afghani children have birth defects due to US use of DU munitions and from the "multi-pronged remedial containment" at the end of this blurb that solicits donations really seems to just be a scam. http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html (what munition is depicted in the photo on this page .. does it even contain DU?) - it looks like some sort of laser guided smart bomb. Afghan DU & Recovery Fund is established to clean DU (depleted uranium) from areas in Afghanistan bombed by the US-UK forces. Our goal is to establish monitoring stations for monitoring uranium dust in Afghanistan and pave the way for ameliorative actions amounting to cleanup. We have formulated a strategy that would constitute a new approach to the 'cleanup' of such disasters. In fact, the word 'cleanup' has no operational value in this scenario; hence, we call our approach a Multi-Prong Remedial Containment. : www.afghandufund.org Roger Helbig http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104_int roduced.html ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: Sandy Perle , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124142.80691.qmail at web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE > spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you > have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that > they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years > added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still > continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I > saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know > more of the > intimate details. I am sure that this episode will > attract more > negative media attention, also considering the > Chernobyl 20th > Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:30:04 -0400 From: "Baratta, Edmond J" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' To: "'John Jacobus'" , "Susan Gawarecki" , "RADSAFE" Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDB96 at orsnewea002.fda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain I believe the only impairment is from people using them while driving. They are concentrating on their calls and not the road. FDA has done studies on the cell phone and found no effects. I agree with Susan Gawarecki on the risks. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:10 PM To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 9 Date: 29 Apr 2006 21:06:31 -0000 From: James Salsman Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060429210631.92772.qmail at bovik.org> > if they are asymptomatic, what treatment would you give them? A good first step would be to stop assuming that aerosol dusts are the only route of uranium oxide exposure, and start testing for signs and symptoms of uranyl oxide gas, which disperses further and in very different patterns than the aerosol. In the opinion of uranium oxidation expert Carl Alexander, who has been publishing scientific studies of uranium trioxide gas since 1960, the UO3 gas is the most likely combustion product, stable, and likely toxic. We won't know until the authorities consider the possibility -- why haven't they after all these decades? Sincerely, James Salsman ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124820.97624.qmail at web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Jim, >From the prespective of a tax paying citizen, I have not impressed with milestones. I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. As a health physicist, I recognize that the risks are small. Nevertheless, as a health physicist I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. (These comments are mine. My employer and spouse have no idea what I am up to.) --- "Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote: > > John Jacobus wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Jim, > I would say it is hard to convince people that we > know how to handle > nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. > > ================== > > What John says about the public might be true, but > only because the > public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk > fashion, responding to > the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and > DOE. I am puzzled to > be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly > criticized for a > number of sins of omission and commission over the > years, but, if you > look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number > of worthwhile > cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, > ahead of schedule and > under budget. To a certain extent they have been > picking the > low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- > clean out of K-Basins, > completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste > through the Vit Plant, > and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the > Vit Plant -- will be > significantly more difficult. The general approach, > however, strikes me > as reasonable. > > John, can you suggest a significant form of societal > waste that has been > better sequestered and has had LESS public health > and environmental > impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet > Union, at least, > which had a horrendous radwaste accident several > decades ago? > > Best regards. > > Jim Dukelow > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory > Richland, WA > Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed > and/or approved by my > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:56:33 -0700 From: "Conklin, Al \(DOH\)" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "John Jacobus" , "Sandy Perle" , Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 12 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:15:38 -0400 From: "Dan Burnfield" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Al Conklin" , Message-ID: <44589EEA.0EE1.00C8.0 at DNFSB.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I would agree with Al, Environmentally things are improving at Hanford. It is slow progress but there is progress. There is a much bigger more insidious problem lurking here. Looking at the major nuclear construction projects that have been scheduled over the past several years, most have experienced significant safety related problems. Many of these problems seem to be caused by a lack of an adequate nuclear construction contractor base. If we are having trouble building chemical plants to treat waste, experimental laboratories, and warehouses, we better be ready to put significant technical oversight into reactor plant construction. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov >>> "Conklin, Al (DOH)" 5/3/2006 10:56:33 am >>> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: howard long Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: Susan Gawarecki , RADSAFE Message-ID: <20060503192300.3396.qmail at web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Fear of nuclear annialhation - then and now- motivates actions to prevent worse problems. Preventive medicine is not as much appreciated as pain relief. Cleaning up Hanford or Iraq or Iran is likely less than evils prevented. Howard Long Susan Gawarecki wrote: Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 ************************************** From lmatthews at isoray.com Thu May 4 16:05:04 2006 From: lmatthews at isoray.com (Lemuel Matthews) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:05:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Message-ID: <22CDE3A23A396645BDBCEC163D92E38221371A@isomail1.isoray.net> Hello; I spent seven years on the site under 2 different contractors and am now thankfully private sector. I did not see the report but there are two facts that are germain. 1. No news program will say something that will cause their audience to change channels regardless of any inconveniences like the truth. 2. DOE is purely a politically based beauracrocy. To say DOE is inefficient would be extremly kind. I could not sleep at night towards the end of my stay due to pangs of conscience both as a health physics professional and as a taxpayer. Based purely on what I imagine a waste of time like 60 minutes would say about DOE I would imagine %99 of it to be correct. Hanford cleanup is not without its accomplishments such as stabilization of the discharge ponds and reactor entombment. I will not venture to guess what the future health effects of workers will be or the multiple that would describe the inflated costs. Anyone detect a note of bitterness? Lemuel Matthews From kulpjb at wsu.edu Thu May 4 17:33:54 2006 From: kulpjb at wsu.edu (Kulp, Jeffrey B) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 15:33:54 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Glove box qualification Message-ID: All, The institution I work for has a user of radioactive materials who wants to use transuranic isotopes in highly concentrated acid in a glove box. Does anyone out there have any suggestions for where I might go to find specifications for testing the glove box (i.e. vacuum drop test, or hydrostatic test)? What materials should be avoided due to the acidic environment? Are there any other things I should be aware of? Thanks, Jeff Kulp Health Physicist Washington State University Radiation Safety Office Pullman, WA 99164 (509) 335-8175 From dgranber at net-link.net Thu May 4 20:38:38 2006 From: dgranber at net-link.net (Dick Granberg) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 21:38:38 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition Message-ID: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> I was contacted by a retired Air Force pilot looking for some help in trying to make a case for getting his emphysema-related condition recognized as service-connected (he is a non-smoker). He suspects that radiation exposure from his duties in the 1960's as a pilot on atmospheric test plume sampling missions contributed to the condition. He stated that they were not provided film badges or other monitors, but did have a meter of some sort in the cockpit so they knew when they were in the plume. He said he was turned down once, and is looking for some technical support from the HP community. From what he told me, I don't think he's going to be successful in relating the condition to radiation exposure, but weapons testing hasn't been one of my areas. I wonder if there is someone in Radsafe land who is either familiar enough with his specific exposure situation to help him resolve this in his mind, or knows of a specific individual or office that he should be in contact with? I'd like to give him some type of helpful feedback. Thanks, Dick Granberg dgranber at net-link.net From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Thu May 4 20:59:56 2006 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 21:59:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition In-Reply-To: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> References: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> Message-ID: <445AB19C.7040008@chartertn.net> Dick Granberg wrote: >I was contacted by a retired Air Force pilot looking for some help in trying to make a case for getting his emphysema-related condition recognized as service-connected (he is a non-smoker). He suspects that radiation exposure from his duties in the 1960's as a pilot on atmospheric test plume sampling missions contributed to the condition. He stated that they were not provided film badges or other monitors, but did have a meter of some sort in the cockpit so they knew when they were in the plume. > >He said he was turned down once, and is looking for some technical support from the HP community. From what he told me, I don't think he's going to be successful in relating the condition to radiation exposure, but weapons testing hasn't been one of my areas. I wonder if there is someone in Radsafe land who is either familiar enough with his specific exposure situation to help him resolve this in his mind, or knows of a specific individual or office that he should be in contact with? I'd like to give him some type of helpful feedback. > >Thanks, > >Dick Granberg >dgranber at net-link.net >_______________________________________________ >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/ > > > Based on my experience measuring filters from sampling missions in the late 50's, I would guess that since he was the pilot and not the guy switching filters and marking and labeling and storing, then carrying them to the analytical lab, he got very little exposure. Those doing the filter changing were badged as I recall. It also depends on where he was stationed and what type of sampling he was doing. For my part, I never saw samples that were hot enough to cause a radiation area to be posted. Some were very interesting, though. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From edaxon at satx.rr.com Thu May 4 21:23:46 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 21:23:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWkyCEA Message-ID: <000001c66fea$effe5210$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Compensation is a VA issue. The DoD is required to provide the VA with the information concerning exposure so the VA can make a determination of service related or not using probability of causation. He qualifies as an atomic veteran and should contact the Defense Threat Reduction Agency http://www.dtra.mil/ and they will enroll him in their program and will reconstruct his dose. The VA is very lenient on how it uses PC tables but this one is unlikely because, the last time I checked an emphysema-related condition is not radiogenic. Eric Daxon From Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au Thu May 4 22:25:18 2006 From: Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au (Rogers Brent) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:25:18 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: experts debate economic viability of new nuclear power plants Message-ID: The following is public domain, published by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Links to the first two articles in the series are posted under "See also:" at the bottom of the piece. No need to reply to me, I'm merely passing it on... Regards Brent Rogers Manager Radiation Operations Unit NSW Environment Protection Authority Department of Environment and Conservation *+61 2 9995 5986 *+61 2 9995 6603 * PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 WASHINGTON FILE U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs 04 May 2006 Experts Debate Economic Viability of New Nuclear Power Plants Proponents of nuclear energy argue for initial government subsidies By Andrzej Zwaniecki Washington File Staff Writer This is the third in a series of articles on nuclear energy. Washington -- As the nuclear power industry moves forward with plans to expand its reach into the U.S. energy market, a debate on whether the new plants will be viable economically continues. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy industry group, nuclear power plants planned for construction in the next decade will be competitive with other electricity sources. "Once we get past the uncertainties and some of the hurdles associated with first-of-a-kind construction, nuclear can be seen as a very competitive technology," Steve Kerekes, a NEI spokesman said in a March 23 interview. Many experts support the industry's view. A 2004 study by the University of Chicago concluded that new nuclear power plants are economically competitive with other types of large-scale electricity generation once initial engineering costs are absorbed, construction experience gained and other near-term financing issues resolved. CAPITAL COSTS AND PUBLIC GOOD Those opposed to nuclear energy, however, question whether the industry will ever be competitive because of high construction costs. "I don't think there will be a lot of capacity added because of [high capital] costs," Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a separate March interview. These costs range from $1,400 to $2,000 per kilowatt (kW), according to various sources. Thus, building a 1,000 megawatt (MW) plant would require at least $1.4 billion-$2.0 billion in initial costs. With multiple orders for nuclear reactors, however, capital costs can be brought down to $1,100-$1,200 per kW, Kerekes said. By comparison, capital costs for coal-fired plants are around $1,300 per kW and those of gas-fired plants around $600 per kW, according to industries' sources. Kerekes said nuclear power capital costs are comparable with those of clean-coal technology designed to produce electricity with few harmful emissions. (Nuclear power produces no harmful emissions.) The investors and utilities that order new plants also consider production costs, which for nuclear power, mostly due to lower fuel costs, are a bit below those of coal-fired plants and roughly about one-third of gas-fired plants, he said. Industry analyses indicate that in the United States nuclear power can be competitive with electricity generated from natural gas when gas prices go over $5 - $6 per million British thermal units (Btu). In recent months, these prices have consistently exceeded $7 per million Btu. A 2005 study by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency concluded that in countries that consider commissioning new nuclear plants by 2010-2015, nuclear electricity is the cheapest potential energy source nearly everywhere. Andrew Paterson, an Energy Department policy analyst, says another factor should be added to cost analysis. In an April 20 interview, he argued that public good created by nuclear power in the form of reduced air pollution should be priced and included in cost estimates to make comparisons among energy sources genuinely fair. Financial markets, which for a long time have ignored nuclear power, have been showing more enthusiasm for the industry since it consolidated and became competitive. Stocks of leading nuclear-energy companies such as Exelon and Entergy have been rising, and some financial analyses view the industry's expansion as inevitable. "It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear plants," Fitch Ratings Ltd., a leading global credit rating agency, said in a March report. "Now, the discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and when." CASE FOR SUBSIDIES Some environmental groups argue, however, that the industry is in a position to grow only because the federal government, by providing subsidies, distorts market forces and gives it an unfair competitive edge over clean-energy rivals. "The [energy] companies recognize that if they make no commitment to build a new [nuclear] plant, the administration will continue to feed them with an ever-increasing sum of taxpayer-supported largesse," Cochran said in 2005 remarks. Amory Lovins, the head of Rocky Mountain Institute, said in a 2005 commentary that these subsidies amount to a government "bail-out" of a "failed but still powerful industry." But James Muckerheide, a nuclear engineer and professor at the Worchester Polytechnical Institute in Massachusetts, argues that the U.S. government heavily was involved in large infrastructure projects before, including The Tennessee Valley Authority, which in the 1930s brought electricity to thousands of mostly rural residents. Paterson said government financing for the first few new reactors is necessary to help the industry address the risks regulated by the government such as commissioning and regulatory uncertainties. He said other forms of energy development also are subsidized, some of them heavily, including oil exploration and renewable energy. The U.S. government has invested billions of dollars in solar research since the 1970s and offered production tax credits for wind power since 1992. See also "Nuclear Gaining Favor as Clean Energy Source for World" http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/May/03-382182.html and "U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Sees Expansion in Near Future" http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/May/03-212802.html. For additional information, see Energy Policy http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/global_issues/energy_policy.html. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete it immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW). From cwbecker at umich.edu Thu May 4 23:07:39 2006 From: cwbecker at umich.edu (Christopher W. Becker) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 00:07:39 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Looking for Type A Package for Liquids (Tritium) Message-ID: <000001c66ff9$7bcb2ad0$6501a8c0@Office> All, Looking in the US for a Type A package or overpack for 55 gallon drums of tritium loaded heavy water. Any suggestions on a "off the shelf product" or Type A overpack. All assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Respectfully, Christopher W. Becker Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Manager University of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor - Phoenix Memorial Laboratory Ann Arbor, Michigan Phone: 734.764.6224 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 5 07:29:33 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question about a service-connected condition In-Reply-To: <004d01c66fe4$a6059c50$0301a8c0@pc8100> Message-ID: <20060505122933.63818.qmail@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Dick, Here is some information that may help. http://www.va.gov/pressrel/radfs02.htm Of couse, there are other risk factors for developing emphysema. http://www.lung.ca/diseases-maladies/a-z/emphysema-emphyseme/index_e.php http://www.emedicinehealth.com/emphysema/page2_em.htm http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/e/emphysema/causes.htm --- Dick Granberg wrote: > I was contacted by a retired Air Force pilot looking > for some help in trying to make a case for getting > his emphysema-related condition recognized as > service-connected (he is a non-smoker). He suspects > that radiation exposure from his duties in the > 1960's as a pilot on atmospheric test plume sampling > missions contributed to the condition. He stated > that they were not provided film badges or other > monitors, but did have a meter of some sort in the > cockpit so they knew when they were in the plume. > > He said he was turned down once, and is looking for > some technical support from the HP community. From > what he told me, I don't think he's going to be > successful in relating the condition to radiation > exposure, but weapons testing hasn't been one of my > areas. I wonder if there is someone in Radsafe land > who is either familiar enough with his specific > exposure situation to help him resolve this in his > mind, or knows of a specific individual or office > that he should be in contact with? I'd like to give > him some type of helpful feedback. > > Thanks, > > Dick Granberg > dgranber at net-link.net > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Douglas.Minnema at nnsa.doe.gov Fri May 5 08:31:32 2006 From: Douglas.Minnema at nnsa.doe.gov (Minnema, Douglas) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:31:32 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Glove box qualification Message-ID: <38982F237333D5119E6100508BB0CC6D0CA76F93@nsgtnexch1.ns.doe.gov> Jeff, I haven't seen it discussed much here on RADSAFE, but there is an organization that I'm sure can help you - the American Glovebox Society (AGS). Try http://www.gloveboxsociety.org/. They develop industry consensus standards (I'm on the committee) for both radiological and non-rad glovebox applications, have a very broad international membership including vendors, and are happy to provide any assistance they can. In your case, they are working on testing standards, but they also have a guideline book that provides all sorts of information that will be helpful to you. Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP NNSA US DOE -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Kulp, Jeffrey B Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 6:34 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Glove box qualification All, The institution I work for has a user of radioactive materials who wants to use transuranic isotopes in highly concentrated acid in a glove box. Does anyone out there have any suggestions for where I might go to find specifications for testing the glove box (i.e. vacuum drop test, or hydrostatic test)? What materials should be avoided due to the acidic environment? Are there any other things I should be aware of? Thanks, Jeff Kulp Health Physicist Washington State University Radiation Safety Office Pullman, WA 99164 (509) 335-8175 _______________________________________________ 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/ From roseb at gdls.com Fri May 5 08:42:36 2006 From: roseb at gdls.com (roseb at gdls.com) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 09:42:36 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Question about a service-connected condition - Ext. vs Int. Expose Meas. Message-ID: 05/04/2006 09:59 PM John Andrews wrote: >Based on my experience measuring filters from sampling missions in the late 50's, I would guess that since he was the pilot and not the guy switching filters and marking and labeling and storing, then carrying them to the analytical lab, he got very little exposure. Those doing the filter changing were badged as I recall. >It also depends on where he was stationed and what type of sampling he was doing. For my part, I never saw samples that were hot enough to cause a radiation area to be posted. Some were very interesting, though. John: The pilot as a member of the flight crew flying through the plume under study, could have been exposed to airborne concentrations of radioactive contaminant. Pressurization and breathing air is supplied to the aircraft (assuming the aircraft was pressurized) from the compressor stage of a jet engine, or the supercharger of a reciprocating engine. Either means of air supply to the aircraft would have drawn and concentrated contaminated air from the plume. It would seem that whatever the sampling filters collected, the flight crews would be exposed to the same contamination collected by the sample filters. Although flight crews and support personnel might have been "badged" with either film badges, sealed ionization chambers (pocket dosimeters), or other dosimeters, or a "radiation meter" for external radiation exposure, such dosimeters would not have necessarily been effective in accounting for internal exposures. Other than obtain dosimeter readings for the flight crews, did the Air Force, Army, Navy, or other agencies that were doing similar plume sampling conduct any post-mission contamination surveys of the aircraft (cabin or exterior), the crew air masks, or, were any internal dosimetry studies of aircrews involved in collecting plume samples performed? (Obviously, I have not done a search of the literature on this subject!) A sample would not necessarily have to be "... hot enough to cause a radiation area to be posted...." to preclude individuals breathing in air from the plume from receiving intakes and uptakes of contamination from the plume. Henry Rose Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist Corporate Radiation Safety Officer General Dynamics Land Systems 38500 Mound Road Mail Zone 436-10-75 Sterling Heights, MI 48310-3269 Tel: 586 825 4503 Fax: 586 825 4015 E-mail: roseb at gdls.com This is an e-mail from General Dynamics Land Systems. It is for the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and privileged information. No one else may read, print, store, copy, forward or act in reliance on it or its attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, please return this message to the sender and delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Your cooperation is appreciated. From srh at esper.com Fri May 5 10:17:11 2006 From: srh at esper.com (Shawn Hughes (Road2)) Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:17:11 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: gnome pictures Message-ID: Ah, Apparently, this email somehow got sent to all of you. I apologize for the comments, and hope I haven't interrupted everyone's day too much. I've seen where others have done this, and always thought it amusing. Now I have the right to laugh at them.... Apologies all, and returning to lurking. -Shawn Hello Shawn, I'm curious as to what pictures you are referring to? You've peaked my interest. Thanks, xxx -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Shawn Hughes (Road2) Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 8:05 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 Did you do that with photoshop??? If you composited the images, they are EXCELLENT. If you stuck a gnome in your field, then its' just funny. If either the gnome or the field wasn't yours, then it was cool. Extra points for nudity..... You should consider a series two where miniG pokes the gnome with a rifle or something! -Shawn -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl Sent: None To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 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. Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 (Jay Caplan) 2. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Sandy Perle) 3. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dukelow, James S Jr) 4. A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED (Susan Gawarecki) 5. More on Hanford - GAO audit (Susan Gawarecki) 6. AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED (Roger Helbig) 7. Re: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 8. RE: Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' (Baratta, Edmond J) 9. Re: On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... (James Salsman) 10. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (John Jacobus) 11. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Conklin, Al (DOH)) 12. RE: 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night (Dan Burnfield) 13. Re: More on Hanford - GAO audit (howard long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:28:31 -0500 From: "Jay Caplan" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3 To: , Message-ID: <19e301c66e26$faa46c10$6401a8c0 at JAY> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dr. Ellison, Thank you for your inquiry. I have had calculations re this first exposure that it was approximately 4 R. Later smaller exposures I have used three times about 2 months apart beginning in the early fall were on a smaller machine at a more convenient location at a lower dosage, these were 70 kVP, 10 mA, 10 seconds, 90 cm from torso. I have been in perfect health without illness this entire year period. Anecdotally, I suspect immune function has been increased as there were two occasions over the year where I had low grade fevers in the evening for 2-3 days that never progressed into any illness or flu, almost like the fever had pre-empted the illness. Additionally, a bruise injury to the thigh generated a lot more swelling and a small evening fever for several days, when this type of injury never would have reacted this much pre-radiation. Best wishes, Jay Caplan > Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 05:14:04 -0400 > From: "Karl Ellison" > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray > Exposure ? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Would Jay Caplan give the group an update to his radiation hormesis > treatments that began a year ago? (below) > > | This Wednesday at an orthopaedic surgeon's office I had a > | prophylactic hormetic X-ray treatment for immune function stimulus/cancer prevention. I > | do not know if this is the first one ever done exclusively for this > purpose; > | if anyone else is doing similar, let's share our protocol with everyone. > | > | I have read all the literature I could find over the last 9 months > | concerning radiation and chemical hormesis, and that hope posting my > | experiences will help us get over our fear of low dose radiation and begin > | using it for health purposes. I intend to continue these > | prophylactic hormetic treatements or similar on a quarterly basis, as a minimum. > | > | The machine was a Medicor M325 Milestone. No film used. Settings > | were 2.0 > | seconds, 100 mA, and 125 kVp which were the maximum for the machine. > | We exposed a field 49.5 cm full torsal width x 50.0 cm from 2nd > | intercostal space to 2 inches below the iliac crest.. Five of these > | AP exposures were > | made consecutively. Head and throat lead protected. The machine > | required > 165 > | seconds to cool off after each exposure before re-exposure was possible. > | > | We had hoped these totaled 1+R exposure, perhaps someone can > | calculate the > | amount delivered. I am 51 yrs, 73 inches, 201 lb, good health. After > | the exposures, slight fatigue was noticed (similar to after light > | workout) for > | about 30 minutes and then normal. No other immediate symptoms. > | > | The surgeon was more interested vis his practice in the use of low > | dose radiation for antibiotic resistant infection within the bone > | which he sees > | commonly and generally means more surgery and/or amputation. He > | would like > | to use this in his practice, so if anyone can provide me with a list > | of references that cover radiation for infection, it would be most helpful. I > | can report his experiences to the list as his results come in. > | > | Glad to hear from anyone, especially dosage, exposure this trial > generated, > | settings for the machine. > | Best wishes, > | Jay Caplan ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:34:30 -0700 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" , , "Conklin, Al \DDOH\"" Message-ID: <44575FE6.24682.68D1372 at sandyfl.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Thanks Jim and Al. It was refreshing to see a another perspective, from those who also have access to real evidence. I was particularly interested Jim's comments regarding the Columbia and potential adverse effects for future generation's drinking water, as stated by Governor Christine Gregoire. It's too bad, but not unexpected, to not see both sides of an argument, based on data, and not just speculation. I've learned a lot, and I expect other have as well, and that is one of the purposes of Radsafe, to educate. Thanks again! Sandy ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:57:30 -0700 From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: John Jacobus , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii John Jacobus wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Jim, I would say it is hard to convince people that we know how to handle nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. ================== What John says about the public might be true, but only because the public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk fashion, responding to the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and DOE. I am puzzled to be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly criticized for a number of sins of omission and commission over the years, but, if you look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number of worthwhile cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, ahead of schedule and under budget. To a certain extent they have been picking the low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- clean out of K-Basins, completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste through the Vit Plant, and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the Vit Plant -- will be significantly more difficult. The general approach, however, strikes me as reasonable. John, can you suggest a significant form of societal waste that has been better sequestered and has had LESS public health and environmental impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet Union, at least, which had a horrendous radwaste accident several decades ago? Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:25:22 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CE42.6060909 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED on April 24. Called the CASEnergy Coalition, the group is cochaired by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. CASEnergy (short for "clean and safe energy") describes itself as a "large, diverse group that will work to unite consumers, conservationists, academics, health care advocates, labor organizations, business groups, professional organizations, family advocates, environmentalists, and community leaders who support nuclear energy's ability to enhance America's energy security, attain cleaner air, and improve the quality of life, health, and economic well-being for all Americans." More information is available at the organization's Web site, . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400 From: Susan Gawarecki Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: RADSAFE Message-ID: <4457CF8A.4090402 at icx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700 From: "Roger Helbig" Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED To: "radsafelist" Message-ID: <004f01c66e79$8ff2f3c0$61405142 at roger1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" California introduces legislation encouraging moratorium on use of DU, probably not worth the paper it might be printed on, but totally infused with false premises. I became aware of it thanks to Steve Sugarman, Executive Director of umbrella non-profit International Humanities Center which provides funding to the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund which claims that Afghani children have birth defects due to US use of DU munitions and from the "multi-pronged remedial containment" at the end of this blurb that solicits donations really seems to just be a scam. http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html (what munition is depicted in the photo on this page .. does it even contain DU?) - it looks like some sort of laser guided smart bomb. Afghan DU & Recovery Fund is established to clean DU (depleted uranium) from areas in Afghanistan bombed by the US-UK forces. Our goal is to establish monitoring stations for monitoring uranium dust in Afghanistan and pave the way for ameliorative actions amounting to cleanup. We have formulated a strategy that would constitute a new approach to the 'cleanup' of such disasters. In fact, the word 'cleanup' has no operational value in this scenario; hence, we call our approach a Multi-Prong Remedial Containment. : www.afghandufund.org Roger Helbig http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_39_bill_20060104 _int roduced.html ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:41:42 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: Sandy Perle , radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124142.80691.qmail at web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:30:04 -0400 From: "Baratta, Edmond J" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' To: "'John Jacobus'" , "Susan Gawarecki" , "RADSAFE" Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDB96 at orsnewea002.fda.gov> Content-Type: text/plain I believe the only impairment is from people using them while driving. They are concentrating on their calls and not the road. FDA has done studies on the cell phone and found no effects. I agree with Susan Gawarecki on the risks. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 2:10 PM To: Susan Gawarecki; RADSAFE Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' I still think the greatest risk is cell phone use in cars by the drivers. --- Susan Gawarecki wrote: > I'd be interested in seeing more detail on the study > design and results. > > --Susan Gawarecki > > Phone radiation 'impairs thinking' > http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18955808-5001022,00.html > April 28, 2006 > > RADIATION from mobile phones affects brain function, > research suggests. > > Scientists at Melbourne's Swinburne University of > Technology studied the > performances of 120 healthy volunteers on a series > of psychological > tests during 30 minutes of exposure to mobile phone > emissions. The same > volunteers were also tested during a "sham" > condition, in which the > phone was not emitting radiation. > > Neither the scientists, nor the participants, were > aware when the mobile > phone was turned on. Lead researcher Con Stough said > they found the > subjects' reaction times and information processing > were impaired by the > mobile phone emissions. > > "The study showed evidence of slower response times > for participants > undertaking simple reactions and more complex > reactions," Professor > Stough said. "Mobile phones do seem to affect brain > function. They seem > to be fairly small effects but nevertheless, > something's happening." > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 9 Date: 29 Apr 2006 21:06:31 -0000 From: James Salsman Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] On-Line Posting to Senator Rosa Franklin, Washington State Se... To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060429210631.92772.qmail at bovik.org> > if they are asymptomatic, what treatment would you give them? A good first step would be to stop assuming that aerosol dusts are the only route of uranium oxide exposure, and start testing for signs and symptoms of uranyl oxide gas, which disperses further and in very different patterns than the aerosol. In the opinion of uranium oxidation expert Carl Alexander, who has been publishing scientific studies of uranium trioxide gas since 1960, the UO3 gas is the most likely combustion product, stable, and likely toxic. We won't know until the authorities consider the possibility -- why haven't they after all these decades? Sincerely, James Salsman ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 05:48:20 -0700 (PDT) From: John Jacobus Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <20060503124820.97624.qmail at web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Jim, >From the prespective of a tax paying citizen, I have not impressed with milestones. I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. As a health physicist, I recognize that the risks are small. Nevertheless, as a health physicist I am impressed that the issue of Hanford waste disposal still exists. (These comments are mine. My employer and spouse have no idea what I am up to.) --- "Dukelow, James S Jr" wrote: > > John Jacobus wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of John Jacobus > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:44 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on > Hanford last night > > Jim, > I would say it is hard to convince people that we > know how to handle > nuclear waste when we have DOE on our side. > > ================== > > What John says about the public might be true, but > only because the > public has been taught to react in a knee-jerk > fashion, responding to > the "conventional wisdom" on radiation issues and > DOE. I am puzzled to > be found defending DOE, which has been deservedly > criticized for a > number of sins of omission and commission over the > years, but, if you > look at the Hanford cleanup, for instance, a number > of worthwhile > cleanup milestones are being met -- in some cases, > ahead of schedule and > under budget. To a certain extent they have been > picking the > low-hanging fruit and the rest of the cleanup -- > clean out of K-Basins, > completing the Vit Plant, processing tank waste > through the Vit Plant, > and processing Cs and Sr capsule waste through the > Vit Plant -- will be > significantly more difficult. The general approach, > however, strikes me > as reasonable. > > John, can you suggest a significant form of societal > waste that has been > better sequestered and has had LESS public health > and environmental > impact than radioactive waste -- outside the Soviet > Union, at least, > which had a horrendous radwaste accident several > decades ago? > > Best regards. > > Jim Dukelow > Pacific Northwest National Laboratory > Richland, WA > Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > > These comments are mine and have not been reviewed > and/or approved by my > management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:56:33 -0700 From: "Conklin, Al \(DOH\)" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "John Jacobus" , "Sandy Perle" , Message-ID: <46C89C7B1C707349B7EF750C6847622C021CB24E at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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: 12 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 12:15:38 -0400 From: "Dan Burnfield" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night To: "Al Conklin" , Message-ID: <44589EEA.0EE1.00C8.0 at DNFSB.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I would agree with Al, Environmentally things are improving at Hanford. It is slow progress but there is progress. There is a much bigger more insidious problem lurking here. Looking at the major nuclear construction projects that have been scheduled over the past several years, most have experienced significant safety related problems. Many of these problems seem to be caused by a lack of an adequate nuclear construction contractor base. If we are having trouble building chemical plants to treat waste, experimental laboratories, and warehouses, we better be ready to put significant technical oversight into reactor plant construction. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov >>> "Conklin, Al (DOH)" 5/3/2006 10:56:33 am >>> The issues are no longer the same, or as bad as they used to be. While DOE and its predecessors disposed of waste somewhat haphazardly over much of Hanford's history since World War II, things are no longer as bad as they once were. 67 of 177 high level waste tanks had leaked. The standing liquids have been removed so further leakage will be minor until the waste can be removed. Removal has started. Several of the smaller 55,000 tanks have been pumped and a couple of the bigger 750,000 tanks also. As funding improves, they have plans in place to do them big time, running the waste through an evaporator to remove liquid and store in double shell tanks until the vitrification plant is ready. (They may have to build a few additional tanks). Ten years ago, many of these tanks were on a watch list, for explosive levels of hydrogen build-up, ferrocyanide, and other constituents that made several of the tanks explosive or flammable. That has been resolved. Most old reactors have been cocooned, and much of the waste close to the Columbia River has been removed and deposed of in the middle of the site in lined trenches. TRU waste is being removed, repackaged and shipped to WIPP. I could go on, but that's the idea. I'm not in a position of defending DOE. I know their faults better than most, since I regulate them (and used to work for them). They used to be absolutely dismal in the 70s and 80s. They are orders of magnitude better now. (Well, most are anyway). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 5:42 AM To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night Sandy, What I consider important is that after X number of years, we still have the same issues of waste at Hanford. With no end in sight. --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 1 May 2006 at 13:50, John Jacobus wrote: > > > I think the real issue was > > government's wasteful spending and lack of > contract oversight. > > John, > > That too was my perception. I think that the DOE spokes-person didn't > do himself any favours when he stated that when you have these large > projects, mistakes will be made, considering that they were talking > billions of dollars wasted and another 5 to 10 years added on after > scrapping most of the work due to lack of "correct" > specifications > and non-approval of the construction, while still continuing with > construction. > > I don't know the facts and can only evaluate what I saw. THere are > those out there (and here on Radsafe) who do know more of the intimate > details. I am sure that this episode will attract more negative media > attention, also considering the Chernobyl 20th Anniversary. > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:23:00 -0700 (PDT) From: howard long Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit To: Susan Gawarecki , RADSAFE Message-ID: <20060503192300.3396.qmail at web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Fear of nuclear annialhation - then and now- motivates actions to prevent worse problems. Preventive medicine is not as much appreciated as pain relief. Cleaning up Hanford or Iraq or Iran is likely less than evils prevented. Howard Long Susan Gawarecki wrote: Below is more on the Hanford controversy. I expect the real problem is cause number 3--after all they are trying to do something completely new on a huge scale. Also, the initial cost estimate was developed when design was at 10% completion, so that couldn't have been accurate and was likely optimistic. Realistically, if the actual expense was stated up front, do you suppose it ever would have been funded? Just like a certain war we're dealing with. --Susan Gawarecki THE COST OF BUILDING HANFORD'S WASTE TREATMENT PLANT has ballooned to $11 billion, an increase of about 150 percent over the initial cost estimates made in 2000, and the project's completion date has been extended from 2011 to 2017 or later. The federal Government Accountability Office performed an audit of the Department of Energy's construction project at Hanford for Congress and in April reported on the results. According to the audit report, there are three main causes for the cost increases and construction delays. First, the DOE's contractor--Bechtel National, Inc.--displayed "performance shortcomings" in developing project estimates and implementing nuclear safety requirements. Second, the DOE, which manages the Hanford Site, near Richland, Wash., has provided inadequate oversight of Bechtel's performance. Third, the technical challenges have been more difficult than expected. Hanford's waste treatment plant project is a massive effort to stabilize and prepare for disposal 55 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous wastes currently held in underground tanks. To achieve better control of the construction project, the GAO recommended that the DOE consider the feasibility of completing 90 percent of the facility design or facility component design before restarting construction. Further, the GAO said the DOE should ensure that the revised project baseline fully reflects remaining uncertainties and should improve management controls. The audit report, Contractor and DOE Management Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety Concerns (GAO-06-602T), is available online at . Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News _______________________________________________ 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/ ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4 ************************************** _______________________________________________ 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/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Fri May 5 11:05:26 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 19:05:26 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] =?windows-1255?q?Nuclear_accident_exercise_reveals_?= =?windows-1255?q?=91fatal_flaws=92?= Message-ID: <000201c670c5$fa4a7650$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> SUNDAY HERALD Nuclear accident exercise reveals ?fatal flaws? By Rob Edwards Environment Editor MISTAKES made during a major nuclear accident exercise held in Edinburgh last year would have left real casualties trapped in vehicles and spread deadly radioactive contamination, an official report has revealed. http://www.sundayherald.com/55448 Jose Julio Rozental joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel From hflong at pacbell.net Sat May 6 13:29:46 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 11:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Message-ID: <20060506182946.37430.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ALARA kills! 100,000 + abortions were caused by Chernobyl fear- mongering. Why else would data like this be suppressed than to preserve jobs, John J? " - the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not to the flesh, but to the minds." Howard Long Jerry Cuttler wrote: From: "Jerry Cuttler" To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" , "ANS Member Exchange Listserv" , "RAD-SCI-L" Subject: Op-ed article on Chernobyl accident by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:27:46 -0400 It seems this article could not get published in the "media". Not politically correct. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHERNOBYL: THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN Zbigniew Jaworowski Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland For twenty years the drama of the Chernobyl accident at the end of April 1986 has persisted. Vivid worldwide in the memory of the public, even now it affects millions in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. On the night of 25-26 April 1986, an enormous quantity of radioactive dust was released into the air from the melting reactor core of the badly-built and poorly-maintained Soviet reactor at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine. It put out as much radioactivity as 0.5% of all previous 543 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. The Chernobyl dust covered all Europe and Northern Hemisphere. It penetrated up into the lower stratosphere and fell even at the South Pole. Nothing worse could happen with a power reactor: a total meltdown of its core, and a ten days free release of radioactive material into the open air. Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not by radiation, and not to the flesh, but to the minds. In terms of human losses (31 early deaths), the accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was a minor event compared with many other man-made catastrophes. In 1984, about 15,000 died from the eruption of a fertilizer factory in Bhopal in India; the collapse of a Chinese dam on the Banqiao river in 1975 caused some 230,000 fatalities. Counted per electricity units produced, which is the only practical comparison, fatalities in Chernobyl were lower than from most other energy sources: three times lower than oil-fired power stations, 13 times lower than liquefied gas, and 15 times lower than hydroelectric stations. But the political, economic, social and psychological impact of Chernobyl was enormous. Let us have a look at what happened, starting with my personal experience. About 9 a.m. on Monday 28 April 1986 at the entrance to my institute in Warsaw I was greeted by a colleague saying: "Look, at 07:00h we received a telex from a monitoring station in northern Poland saying that the radioactivity of air there is 550,000 times higher than a day before. A similar increase I found in the air filter from the station in our backyard, and the pavement here is highly radioactive". This was a terrible shock. It is curious that all my attention was concentrated on this enormous rise of "total beta activity" used to detect radioactivity, although I knew that the actual dose rate of external radiation penetrating our bodies was only three times higher than the day before and was similar to the average natural radiation dose which we all receive from the ground and cosmic radiation. This "Chernobyl" dose was more than 100 times lower than the natural radiation level in some other areas of the world, where no adverse health effects among inhabitants have ever been observed. But in 1986 the impact of a dramatic increase in atmospheric radioactivity dominated the thinking of me and everybody else. This state of mind led to immediate consequences. First there were various hectic actions, such as ad hoc setting of different limits for radiation in food, water etc. These limits varied between countries by a factor of many thousands, reflecting the emotional state of decision-makers and political and mercenary factors. For example, Sweden allowed for 30 times more radioactivity in imported vegetables than in domestic ones and Israel allowed less radioactivity in food from Eastern than from Western Europe. The limit of cesium-137 concentration in vegetables imposed in the Philippines was 8,600 times lower than in the more pragmatic United Kingdom. Most of these restrictions were meaningless from the point of view of human health but their costs were enormous. As an example, Norwegian authorities introduced a limit for cesium-137 concentration in reindeer meat and game that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose in some regions of Norway. The costs of this false protection climbed to over US$51 million. Other countries were no better. Professor Klaus Becker from the German Institute for Standards estimated recently that this kind of practice, together with its consequences for nuclear industry, meant that the costs of the Chernobyl accident in Western Europe probably exceed US$100 billion. The most nonsensical action, however, was the evacuation of 336,000 people from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union, where the radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about twice the natural dose. Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below the natural level and was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central Station in New York. "Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level of radioactive cesium-137 in the ground ten times lower than the level of natural radioactive matter in the soil. The evacuation caused great harm to the populations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. It led to mass psychosomatic disturbances, great economic losses and traumatic social consequences. According to Academician Leonid A. Ilyin, the leading Russian authority on radiation protection, the mass relocation was implemented by the Soviet government under the pressure of populists, ecologists and self-appointed "specialists", against the advice of the best Soviet scientists. Besides the 28 fatalities among rescue workers and the employees of the power station due to extremely high doses of radiation, and three immediate deaths due to other reasons (the UN's Chernobyl Forum gives "less than 50" by adding in some later deaths from causes not related to radiation, such as lung tuberculosis, fat thrombosis, car accident, suicide etc. In fact, the mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation sickness, at 1.09%, was much lower than the mortality rates for the whole population of Belarus of 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%), the only real adverse health consequence of the Chernobyl catastrophe among about five million people living in the contaminated regions is the epidemic of psychosomatic diseases. These diseases were not due to irradiation with Chernobyl fallout but were caused by "radiophobia", an irrational fear of radiation, aggravated by wrong administrative decisions. These decisions made several million people believe that they are "victims of Chernobyl", although the average dose they receive from Chernobyl radiation is only about one third of the average dose from Nature. This was the main factor behind the economic losses caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe, estimated to have reached US$148 billion by 2000 for the Ukraine, and to reach US$235 billion by 2016 for Belarus. Psychological factors, and neglect of radiological protection in the curriculum of medical students, led to some 100,000 to 200,000 wanted pregnancies aborted soon after the accident in Western Europe, where physicians wrongly advised patients that Chernobyl radiation posed a health risk to unborn children. In 2000 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the most authoritative body in these matters, and in 2006 also the UN Chernobyl Forum, stated that, except for thyroid cancers, in the highly contaminated areas no increase in the incidence of solid cancers and leukemia was observed. As for the thyroid cancers, I believe that the increased discovery is due to a screening effect. In normal populations there is a very high incidence of "occult" thyroid cancers (with no clinical symptoms), which is up to 28% in Japan and 35% in Finland, and a hundred to a thousand times higher than the incidence of "Chernobyl" cancers. After the accident more than 90% of children in contaminated areas started to be tested for thyroid cancers every year. It is obvious that such vast screening resulted in finding the normally undetected occult cancers. What is really surprising, however, is that data collected by UNSCEAR and the Forum show 15% to 30% fewer cancer deaths among the Chernobyl emergency workers and about 5% lower solid cancer incidence among the people in the Bryansk district (the most contaminated in Russia) in comparison with the general population. In most irradiated group of these people (mean dose of 40 mSv) the deficit of cancer incidence was 17%. Nor did the incidence of hereditary disorders increase. These epidemiological data should be used as a proper basis for realistic projection of the future health of millions of people officially labeled "victims of Chernobyl", rather than an assumption (LNT) on linear no-threshold relationship between irradiation and medical effect. This assumption tells that even near zero radiation dose can lead no cancer death and hereditary disorders. LNT assumption was used by Chernobyl Forum to estimate 4000 to 9336 future cancer deaths among people who received low radiation doses, lower than lifetime natural doses in many regions of the world. Greenpeace had less hesitations and in its report of April 2006 calculated six million cancer deaths due to Chernobyl event. Dr. Lauriston Taylor, the late president of the U.S. National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements deemed such practice to be "a deeply immoral use of our scientific heritage". UNSCEAR's sober conclusion is that the people living in "contaminated regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine "need not live in fear of serious health consequences", and forecasts that "generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail." In centuries to come, the catastrophe will be remembered as a proof that nuclear power is a safe means of energy production. ------------------------- Zbigniew Jaworowski MD PhD DSc is a Professor Emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw and former Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Zbigniew Jaworowski To: Ludwig E. Feinendegen ; Marjorie Hecht ; Sergiey Igumnov ; Leonid A. Ilyin ; Andre Prof. Maisseu ; Donald T. Oakley dom ; Oakley, Donald T ; Peiser, Benny ; Myron Pollycove ; Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker ; Per Wethe ; Maurice Tubiana ; Gunnar Walinder ; Sergey Rovny ; Ted Rockwell ; Jerry Cuttler ; Jim Muckerheide ; Muckerheide, James ; Muckerheide Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:18 AM Subject: Fw: Dear Friends, IPN asked me to write an op-ed on Chernobyl, which they hoped to place in a few leading western journals. I sent them the text in February, they posed an embargo on disseminating the draft, and they finished editing it only few days ago, too late. You may use it as you like. Best wishes, Zbigniew From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sat May 6 13:44:38 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:44:38 -0500 Subject: =?us-ascii?Q?RE:_=5B_RadSafe_=5D_Nuclear_accident_exercise_reveals_'fatal?= =?us-ascii?Q?_flaws'?= In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVkzCEA Message-ID: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I read the article and could not really assess how bad the exercise was or was not but I did find a statement that really says it all about the standard used to assess risk of the incident and how they came up with the adjective - deadly. <"Many thousands of people would be put at risk," said Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire. "If they get a speck of plutonium in their lungs, the probability is fatal lung cancer."> The statement could be parsed to be accurate but the message to the non-health physicist is clear. These kinds of statements actually increase the risk and the harm caused by a real incident. Many on this list have had "specks" of plutonium. Eric Daxon From chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za Sat May 6 15:44:36 2006 From: chris.hofmeyr at webmail.co.za (Chris Hofmeyr) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 22:44:36 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear accident exercise reveals 'fatal flaws' In-Reply-To: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Eric, The question is, what is the spec of a speck? (I couldn't resist). I suspect Dr B. subscribes to the one-photon brigade. Chris.Hofmeyr at webmail.co.za On Sat, 6 May 2006 13:44:38 -0500 "Eric D" wrote: >I read the article and could not really assess how bad the >exercise was or >was not but I did find a statement that really says it all >about the >standard used to assess risk of the incident and how they >came up with the >adjective - deadly. > ><"Many thousands of people would be put at risk," said Dr >Frank Barnaby, a >nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons >Establishment at >Aldermaston in Berkshire. "If they get a speck of >plutonium in their lungs, >the probability is fatal lung cancer."> > >The statement could be parsed to be accurate but the >message to the >non-health physicist is clear. These kinds of statements >actually increase >the risk and the harm caused by a real incident. Many on >this list have had >"specks" of plutonium. > >Eric Daxon > >_______________________________________________ >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/ ___________________________________________________________________ For super low premiums, click here http://www.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service From fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk Sat May 6 16:51:41 2006 From: fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 22:51:41 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear accident exercise reveals 'fatal flaws' References: <000601c6713d$20e77020$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <002d01c67157$423b16e0$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> You should look at the Senator exercise report at the following link http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/Reports/OtherPublications/DSC/ExerciseSenatorAllAgencyReport.htm http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D67C3E5-AF31-4115-ACF3-BAF2DF802E56/0/Ex_Senator_All_Agency_Report.pdf Fred Dawson New Malden Surrey. KT3 5BP England My Blog http://freds-take-on-the-world.blogspot.com/ My web pages http://www.fred-dawson.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric D" To: "'Jose Julio Rozental'" ; "'Radsafe'" Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear accident exercise reveals 'fatal flaws' >I read the article and could not really assess how bad the exercise was or > was not but I did find a statement that really says it all about the > standard used to assess risk of the incident and how they came up with the > adjective - deadly. > > <"Many thousands of people would be put at risk," said Dr Frank Barnaby, a > nuclear physicist who used to work at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at > Aldermaston in Berkshire. "If they get a speck of plutonium in their > lungs, > the probability is fatal lung cancer."> > > The statement could be parsed to be accurate but the message to the > non-health physicist is clear. These kinds of statements actually > increase > the risk and the harm caused by a real incident. Many on this list have > had > "specks" of plutonium. > > Eric Daxon > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au Sun May 7 21:29:41 2006 From: Brent.Rogers at environment.nsw.gov.au (Rogers Brent) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:29:41 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 4th in the series of US State Department articles on nuclear ener gy Message-ID: This series is public domanin Regards Brent Rogers Manager Radiation Operations Unit NSW Environment Protection Authority Department of Environment and Conservation *+61 2 9995 5986 *+61 2 9995 6603 * PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 WASHINGTON FILE U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs 05 May 2006 U.S. Public More Friendly Toward Nuclear Power Despite Risks Clean-air, energy benefits seen as outweighing safety concerns By Andrzej Zwaniecki Washington File Staff Writer This is the fourth in a series of articles on nuclear energy. Washington -- Growing concerns about global warming and more favorable public views of nuclear energy are bolstering U.S. efforts to revitalize nuclear power as a reliable source of large-scale and clean electricity. Various public opinion polls conducted over the last several years indicate that 60 percent to 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear power. Among those living near nuclear plants the share is even higher. "Even more significant is the widening gap between those who strongly favor and strongly oppose nuclear energy," according to a May 2005 report by Bisconti Research Inc. "Those who strongly favor (32 percent) nuclear energy outnumber those who are strongly opposed (10 percent) by a three-to-one margin." Concerns about meeting rising energy demands and worries about the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that contribute to global warming have been weakening the once-formidable sway of nuclear energy opponents, according to officials and experts. For example, public resistance to renewal of licenses for 16 existing reactors in seven states, expected by many market observers a few years ago, has never materialized. Coal-fired plants are a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Nuclear plants emit no pollution. A number of prominent environmentalists, such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and former Rocky Mountain Institute director Peter Schwartz, have broken ranks with their colleagues and embraced nuclear energy as the best solution to global warming. Even though U.S. and Asian publics seem primed to move forward with nuclear, continued public opposition in some other parts of the world continues to hamper expansion of nuclear energy, says Luis Ech?varri, the head of the Nuclear Energy Agency in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "Addressing social concerns about nuclear energy remains an important goal for the industry stakeholders and governmental bodies," he told a 2005 international conference. So far no major environmental organization has embraced nuclear energy without reservations. NUCLEAR VERSUS RENEWABLES The Rocky Mountain Institute and some other environmental groups claim that the U.S. government has skewed competition among different forms of clean-electricity by lavishing hefty subsidies on nuclear power. Institute Director Amory Lovins has argued that conservation, use of renewable sources and cogeneration can together curb the growth of greenhouse emissions faster and at a lower cost than nuclear power. Cogeneration is electricity production combined with utilization of waste heat. U.S. officials and the industry say, however, that renewables and cogeneration are not substitutes for nuclear power. Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an energy industry group, says attributes of nuclear power make it suitable for providing a large-scale, steady and dependable energy supply all year round. "You cannot run the subway system in New York City or chemical plants on renewable energy," he said in a March 23 interview. NUCLEAR SAFETY AND SECURITY Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense say that, in principle, they are not opposed to nuclear energy and will support it as part of the clean energy portfolio if the industry and the government address major uncertainties, including weapons proliferation and safety. These risks are being addressed, officials and the industry say. For example, half of the nuclear fuel used by the U.S. nuclear power industry comes from Soviet nuclear warheads dismantled as a result of strategic arms treaties, Andrew Paterson, an Energy Department policy analyst, says. "If this does not reduce the proliferation risk, then I don't know what does," he said in an April 20 interview. The industry says its safety record speaks for itself. No one has ever died as a result of an accident at a U.S. nuclear plant, and new reactors will be even safer, according to the NEI. Most experts believe that a Chernobyl-type accident could have never happened in the United States because U.S. plant construction and operational procedures as safer than those use at Chernobyl. Even Thomas Cochran of the NRDC acknowledged in a March 23 interview that safety of the U.S. nuclear industry has improved "somewhat" since a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. More recently, some experts and groups have expressed concern about potential terrorists attacks on nuclear plants. Patrick Moore, now the head of an environmental consulting firm, said the thick concrete containment structure protects the reactor well. "Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode," he recently told The Washington Post. WASTE STORAGE AND EXPANSION Neither the industry nor environmentalists are happy with the progress of a governmental plan for permanent storage for U.S. nuclear waste and spent fuel that has been beset by delays and tied up in litigation since it was launched in the 1980s. The Yucca Mountain underground repository in Nevada was initially scheduled to open in 1998. But the project has not proceeded '"at the pace that we in the industry would like to see," Kerekes said. Some experts and at least one industry executive, John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon, have expressed fear that a lack of safe permanent storage may complicate the industry's expansion in the future. In April, the Bush administration sent to Congress a legislative proposal that it said would speed the process of opening the Yucca Mountain facility by removing a number of legal and regulatory barriers. See also "Nuclear Gaining Favor as Clean Energy Source for World" http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/May/03-382182.html, "U.S. Nuclear Power Industry Sees Expansion in Near Future" http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/May/03-212802.html, and "Experts Debate Economic Viability of New Nuclear Power Plants" http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=M ay&x=20060504161639SAikceinawz0.41737&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html. For additional information, see Energy Policy Message-ID: <20060508144025.3110.qmail@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> I just love this convoluted accident scenarios. --- Jose Julio Rozental wrote: > SUNDAY HERALD > Nuclear accident exercise reveals ?fatal flaws? > By Rob Edwards > Environment Editor > > MISTAKES made during a major nuclear accident > exercise held in Edinburgh > last year would have left real casualties trapped in > vehicles and spread > deadly radioactive contamination, an official report > has revealed. > > http://www.sundayherald.com/55448 > > > Jose Julio Rozental > joseroze at netvision.net.il > Israel > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 8 10:26:44 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski In-Reply-To: <20060506182946.37430.qmail@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060508152644.53240.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, I am quite secure in my job. I do not have to use "fear-mongering." I hope that your comments are not a personal indictment against what I say. The accident at Chernobyl is not related to the issue of ALARA. The response to accidents is quite different as personnel would be expected in their response to get higher, but not lethal, doses. Of course, since you are not a professional in radiation safety and health, I would not expect you to know the difference. Personally, I think that the claims of over 100,000 abortions were performed in Europe as a result of Chernobyl are an exaggeration. ------------ See, for example: Biomed Pharmacother. 1991;45(6):225-8. Incidence of legal abortion in Sweden after the Chernobyl accident. Odlind V, Ericson A. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Uppsala, Academic Hospital, Sweden. The number of legal abortions in Sweden increased around the time of the Chernobyl accident, . . . However, seen over a longer time perspective, the increase in the number of abortions started before and continued far beyond the time of the accident. . . . Therefore, it seems unlikely that fear of the consequences of radioactive fall-out after the Chernobyl accident resulted in any substantial increase of the number of legal abortions in Sweden. ------------- As noted at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1986USSR1.html " . . . studies suggest about 100 excess abortions in Italy and 400 excess abortions in Denmark in the months following the accident. . . ." [My comment is that this is certainly not thousands! It also contradicts the previous paper.] --------------- See Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Oct;167(4 Pt 1):1025-31. Related Articles, Links The influence of the post-Chernobyl fallout on birth defects and abortion rates in Austria. Haeusler MC, Berghold A, Schoell W, Hofer P, Schaffer M. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria. OBJECTIVES: We analyzed the influence of the radioactive fallout after the Chernobyl disaster on the rate and regional distribution of birth defects and abortion rates in southern Austria. . . .RESULTS: No significant changes in the incidence of birth defects, abortion rate, or counseling rate at pregnancy termination clinics were observed. . . . -------------- Dr. Long, do you have any proof that the claim of +100,000 abortions were due to Chernobyl is true? Please TRY to get your facts straight. --- howard long wrote: > ALARA kills! > 100,000 + abortions were caused by Chernobyl fear- > mongering. > Why else would data like this be suppressed than > to preserve jobs, John J? > > " - the worst harm was caused not by radiation, > and not to the flesh, but to the minds." > > Howard Long > > Jerry Cuttler wrote: > From: "Jerry Cuttler" > To: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" > , > "ANS Member Exchange Listserv" > , > "RAD-SCI-L" > Subject: Op-ed article on Chernobyl accident by Dr. > Zbigniew Jaworowski > Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 09:27:46 -0400 > > It seems this article could not get published in the > "media". > Not politically correct. > > Jerry > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > CHERNOBYL: THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN > Zbigniew Jaworowski > Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, > Warsaw, Poland > > > For twenty years the drama of the Chernobyl accident > at the end of April > 1986 has persisted. Vivid worldwide in the memory of > the public, even now it > affects millions in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. > > On the night of 25-26 April 1986, an enormous > quantity of radioactive dust > was released into the air from the melting reactor > core of the badly-built > and poorly-maintained Soviet reactor at Chernobyl, > in the Ukraine. It put > out as much radioactivity as 0.5% of all previous > 543 nuclear explosions in > the atmosphere. The Chernobyl dust covered all > Europe and Northern > Hemisphere. It penetrated up into the lower > stratosphere and fell even at > the South Pole. Nothing worse could happen with a > power reactor: a total > meltdown of its core, and a ten days free release of > radioactive material > into the open air. > > Surprisingly, however, the worst harm was caused not > by radiation, and not > to the flesh, but to the minds. > > In terms of human losses (31 early deaths), the > accident in the Chernobyl > nuclear power plant was a minor event compared with > many other man-made > catastrophes. In 1984, about 15,000 died from the > eruption of a fertilizer > factory in Bhopal in India; the collapse of a > Chinese dam on the Banqiao > river in 1975 caused some 230,000 fatalities. > Counted per electricity units > produced, which is the only practical comparison, > fatalities in Chernobyl > were lower than from most other energy sources: > three times lower than > oil-fired power stations, 13 times lower than > liquefied gas, and 15 times > lower than hydroelectric stations. But the > political, economic, social and > psychological impact of Chernobyl was enormous. Let > us have a look at what > happened, starting with my personal experience. > > About 9 a.m. on Monday 28 April 1986 at the entrance > to my institute in > Warsaw I was greeted by a colleague saying: "Look, > at 07:00h we received a > telex from a monitoring station in northern Poland > saying that the > radioactivity of air there is 550,000 times higher > than a day before. A > similar increase I found in the air filter from the > station in our backyard, > and the pavement here is highly radioactive". > > This was a terrible shock. It is curious that all my > attention was > concentrated on this enormous rise of "total beta > activity" used to detect > radioactivity, although I knew that the actual dose > rate of external > radiation penetrating our bodies was only three > times higher than the day > before and was similar to the average natural > radiation dose which we all > receive from the ground and cosmic radiation. This > "Chernobyl" dose was more > than 100 times lower than the natural radiation > level in some other areas of > the world, where no adverse health effects among > inhabitants have ever been > observed. > > But in 1986 the impact of a dramatic increase in > atmospheric radioactivity > dominated the thinking of me and everybody else. > This state of mind led to > immediate consequences. First there were various > hectic actions, such as ad > hoc setting of different limits for radiation in > food, water etc. These > limits varied between countries by a factor of many > thousands, reflecting > the emotional state of decision-makers and political > and mercenary factors. > For example, Sweden allowed for 30 times more > radioactivity in imported > vegetables than in domestic ones and Israel allowed > less radioactivity in > food from Eastern than from Western Europe. The > limit of cesium-137 > concentration in vegetables imposed in the > Philippines was 8,600 times lower > than in the more pragmatic United Kingdom. > > Most of these restrictions were meaningless from the > point of view of human > health but their costs were enormous. As an example, > Norwegian authorities > introduced a limit for cesium-137 concentration in > reindeer meat and game > that was about 200 times lower than the natural dose > in some regions of > Norway. The costs of this false protection climbed > to over US$51 million. > > Other countries were no better. Professor Klaus > Becker from the German > Institute for Standards estimated recently that this > kind of practice, > together with its consequences for nuclear industry, > meant that the costs of > the Chernobyl accident in Western Europe probably > exceed US$100 billion. > > The most nonsensical action, however, was the > evacuation of 336,000 people > from the contaminated regions of the former Soviet > Union, where the > radiation dose from Chernobyl fallout was about > twice the natural dose. > Later, the officially acceptable limit was set below > the natural level and > was five times lower than radiation at Grand Central > Station in New York. > "Contaminated regions" were defined, using a level > of radioactive cesium-137 > in the ground ten times lower than the level of > natural radioactive matter > in the soil. The evacuation caused great harm to the > populations of Belarus, > Russia and Ukraine. It led to mass psychosomatic > disturbances, great > economic losses and traumatic social consequences. > According to Academician > Leonid A. Ilyin, the leading Russian authority on > radiation protection, the > mass relocation was implemented by the Soviet > government under the pressure > of populists, ecologists and self-appointed > "specialists", against the > advice of the best Soviet scientists. > > Besides the 28 fatalities among rescue workers and > the employees of the > power station due to extremely high doses of > radiation, and three immediate > deaths due to other reasons (the UN's Chernobyl > Forum gives "less than 50" > by adding in some later deaths from causes not > related to radiation, such as > lung tuberculosis, fat thrombosis, car accident, > suicide etc. In fact, the > mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation > sickness, at 1.09%, was > much lower than the mortality rates for the whole > population of Belarus of > 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%), the only > real adverse health > === message truncated === +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 8 10:49:33 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: The Untold Story of Israel's Bomb Message-ID: <20060508154933.17571.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> With all the discussions about Iran and nuclear weapon development, I thought that this would be of interest. It is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801326.html ------------------ The Untold Story of Israel's Bomb By Avner Cohen and William Burr Sunday, April 30, 2006; B01 On Sept. 9, 1969, a big brown envelope was delivered to the Oval Office on behalf of CIA Director Richard M. Helms. On it he had written, "For and to be opened only by: The President, The White House." The precise contents of the envelope are still unknown, but it was the latest intelligence on one of Washington's most secretive foreign policy matters: Israel's nuclear program. The material was so sensitive that the nation's spymaster was unwilling to share it with anybody but President Richard M. Nixon himself. The now-empty envelope is inside a two-folder set labeled "NSSM 40," held by the Nixon Presidential Materials Project at the National Archives. (NSSM is the acronym for National Security Study Memorandum, a series of policy studies produced by the national security bureaucracy for the Nixon White House.) The NSSM 40 files are almost bare because most of their documents remain classified. With the aid of With the aid ofrecently declassified documents , we now know that NSSM 40 was the Nixon administration's effort to grapple with the policy implications of a nuclear-armed Israel. These documents offer unprecedented insight into the tense deliberations in the White House in 1969 -- a crucial time in which international ratification of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was uncertain and U.S. policymakers feared that a Middle Eastern conflagration could lead to superpower conflict. Nearly four decades later, as the world struggles with nuclear ambitions in Iran, India and elsewhere, the ramifications of this hidden history are still felt. Israel's nuclear program began more than 10 years before Helms's envelope landed on Nixon's desk. In 1958, Israel secretly initiated work at what was to become the Dimona nuclear research site. Only about 15 years after the Holocaust, nuclear nonproliferation norms did not yet exist, and Israel's founders believed they had a compelling case for acquiring nuclear weapons. In 1961, the CIA estimated that Israel could produce nuclear weapons within the decade. The discovery presented a difficult challenge for U.S. policymakers. From their perspective, Israel was a small, friendly state -- albeit one outside the boundaries of U.S. security guarantees -- surrounded by larger enemies vowing to destroy it. Yet government officials also saw the Israeli nuclear program as a potential threat to U.S. interests. President John F. Kennedy feared that without decisive international action to curb nuclear proliferation, a world of 20 to 30 nuclear-armed nations would be inevitable within a decade or two. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations fashioned a complex scheme of annual visits to Dimona to ensure that Israel would not develop nuclear weapons. But the Israelis were adept at concealing their activities. By late 1966, Israel had reached the nuclear threshold, although it decided not to conduct an atomic test. By the time Prime Minister Levi Eshkol visited President Lyndon B. Johnson in January 1968, the official State Department view was that despite Israel's growing nuclear weapons potential, it had "not embarked on a program to produce a nuclear weapon." That assessment, however, eroded in the months ahead. By the fall, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul C. Warnke concluded that Israel had already acquired the bomb when Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin explained to him how he interpreted Israel's pledge not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. According to Rabin, for nuclear weapons to be introduced, they needed to be tested and publicly declared. Implicitly, then, Israel could possess the bomb without "introducing" it. The question of what to do about the Israeli bomb would fall to Nixon. Unlike his Democratic predecessors, he and his national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, were initially skeptical about the effectiveness of the NPT. And though they may have been inclined to accommodate Israel's nuclear ambitions, they would have to manage senior State Department and Pentagon officials whose perspectives differed. Documents prepared between February and April 1969 reveal a great sense of urgency and alarm among senior officials about Israel's nuclear progress. As Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird wrote in March 1969, these "developments were not in the United States' interests and should, if at all possible, be stopped." Above all, the Nixon administration was concerned that Israel would publicly display its nuclear capabilities. Apparently prompted by those high-level concerns, Kissinger issued NSSM 40 -- titled Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program -- on April 11, 1969. In it he asked the national security bureaucracy for a review of policy options toward Israel's nuclear program. In the weeks that followed, the issue was taken up by a senior review group (SRG), chaired by Kissinger, that included Helms, Undersecretary of State Elliot Richardson, Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard and Joint Chiefs Chairman Earle Wheeler. The one available report of an SRG meeting on NSSM 40 suggests that the bureaucracy was interested in pressuring Israel to halt its nuclear program. How much pressure to exert remained open. Kissinger wanted to "avoid direct confrontation," while Richardson was willing to apply pressure if an investigation to determine Israel's intentions showed that some key assurances would not be forthcoming. In such circumstances, the United States could tell the Israelis that scheduled deliveries of F-4 Phantom jets to Israel would have to be reconsidered. By mid-July 1969, Nixon had let it be known that he was leery of using the Phantoms as leverage, so when Richardson and Packard summoned Rabin on July 29 to discuss the nuclear issue, the idea of a probe that involved pressure had been torpedoed. Although Richardson and Packard emphasized the seriousness with which they viewed the nuclear problem, they had no threat to back up their rhetoric. Richardson posed three issues for Rabin to respond to: the status of Israel's NPT deliberations; assurances that "non-introduction" meant "non-possession" of nuclear weapons; and assurances that Israel would not produce or deploy the Jericho ballistic missile. Rabin, however, was unresponsive except to say that the NPT was still "under study." Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir would have to address the nuclear issue when they met in late September. Perhaps the most fateful event of this tale was Nixon's one-on-one meeting with Meir in the Oval Office on Sept. 26, 1969. In the days before Meir's visit, the State Department produced background papers suggesting that the horse was already out of the barn: "Israel might very well now have a nuclear bomb" and certainly "already had the technical ability and material resources to produce weapon-grade material for a number of weapons." If that was true, it meant that events had overtaken the NSSM 40 exercise. In later years, Meir never discussed the substance of her private conversation with Nixon, saying only, "I could not quote him then, and I will not quote him now." Yet, according to declassified Israeli documents, since the early 1960s, Meir had been convinced that "Israel should tell the United States the truth [about the nuclear issue] and explain why." Even without the record of this meeting, informed speculation is possible. It is likely that Nixon started with a plea for openness. Meir, in turn, probably acknowledged -- tacitly or explicitly -- that Israel had reached a weapons capability, but probably pledged extreme caution. (Years later, Nixon told CNN's Larry King that he knew for certain that Israel had the bomb, but he wouldn't reveal his source.) Meir may have assured Nixon that Israel thought of nuclear weapons as a last-resort option, a way to provide her Holocaust-haunted nation with a psychological sense of existential deterrence. Subsequent memorandums from Kissinger to Nixon provide a limited sense of what the national security adviser understood happened at the meeting. Kissinger noted that the president had emphasized to Meir that "our primary concern was that the Israeli [government] make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program." Thus, Israel would be committed to conducting its nuclear affairs cautiously and secretly; their status would remain uncertain and unannounced. On Feb. 23, 1970, Rabin told Kissinger privately that he wanted the president to know that, in light of the Meir-Nixon conversation, "Israel has no intention to sign the NPT." Rabin, Kissinger wrote, "wanted also to make sure there was no misapprehension at the White House about Israel's current intentions." Kissinger informed Nixon that he told Rabin that he would notify the president. And with that, the decade-long U.S. effort to curb Israel's nuclear program ended. That enterprise was replaced by understandings negotiated at the highest level, between the respective heads of state, that have governed Israel's nuclear conduct ever since. That so little is known today about the tale of NSSM 40 is not surprising. Dealing with Israel's nuclear ambitions was thornier for the Nixon administration than for its predecessors because it was forced to deal with the problem at the critical time when Israel appeared to be crossing the nuclear threshold. Yet, even as Nixon and Kissinger enabled Israel to flout the NPT, NSSM 40 allowed them to create a defensible record. As was his typical modus operandi, Kissinger used NSSM 40 to maintain control over key officials who wanted to take action on the problem. Politically, the Nixon-Meir agreement allowed both leaders to continue with their old public policies without being forced to openly acknowledge the new reality. As long as Israel kept the bomb invisible -- no test, declaration, or any other act displaying nuclear capability -- the United States could live with it. Over time, the tentative Nixon-Meir understanding became the foundation for a remarkable U.S.-Israeli deal, accompanied by a tacit but strict code of behavior to which both nations closely adhered. Even during its darkest hours in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was cautious not to make any public display of its nuclear capability. Yet set against contemporary values of transparency and accountability, the Nixon-Meir deal of 1969 now stands as a striking and burdensome anomaly. Israel's nuclear posture is inconsistent with the tenets of a modern liberal democracy. The deal is also burdensome for the United States, provoking claims about double standards in U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy. It is especially striking to compare the Nixon administration's stance toward Israel in 1969 with the way Washington is trying to accommodate India in 2006. As problematic as the proposed nuclear pact with New Delhi is, it at least represents an effort to deal openly with the issue. Unlike the case of Iran today -- where a nation is publicly violating its NPT obligations and where the United States and the international community are acting in the open -- the White House in 1969 addressed the Israeli weapons program in a highly secretive fashion. That kind of deal-making would be impossible now. Without open acknowledgment of Israel's nuclear status, such ideas as a nuclear-free Middle East, or even the inclusion of Israel in an updated NPT regime, cannot be discussed properly. It is time for a new deal to replace the Nixon-Meir understandings of 1969, with Israel telling the truth and finally normalizing its nuclear affairs. cohenavner at msn.com mailto:%20nsarchiv at gwu.edu Avner Cohen is a senior research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland and author of "Israel and the Bomb" (Columbia University Press). William Burr is a senior analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. A longer version of this article appears in the May/June issue of theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists. ? 2006 The Washington Post Company +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rreif at whoi.edu Mon May 8 12:20:53 2006 From: rreif at whoi.edu (Ron Reif) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:20:53 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080@admin.whoi.edu> Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. ----- Ron Reif, P.E.,CHP,CIH EH&S Manager Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://ehs.whoi.edu p:508-289-3788 f:508-457-2015 From lewis at radonmine.com Mon May 8 13:37:31 2006 From: lewis at radonmine.com (Patricia Lewis) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 12:37:31 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another radonmine anecdote Message-ID: <001601c672ce$77784d00$b700a8c0@FEM> For those interested, A gal's personal account of her recent adventure to the Radon Mine (Boulder Montana USA), nicely done and entertaining - visit: http://h20girladventures.blogspot.com/ Don't forget to watch ABC's 20/20 special on Friday, May 18 at 10pm. In part, myths dispelled, by host John Stossel, about exposures to small amounts of radiation. Pat @the.radon.mine.in.question.... From LNMolino at aol.com Mon May 8 13:53:44 2006 From: LNMolino at aol.com (LNMolino at aol.com) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 14:53:44 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: <23d.b101bda.3190edb8@aol.com> Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 8 14:05:24 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:05:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? In-Reply-To: <23d.b101bda.3190edb8@aol.com> Message-ID: <445F3404.31247.1245A4E@sandyfl.earthlink.net> On 8 May 2006 at 14:53, LNMolino at aol.com wrote: > Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today > (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of > the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis, I found the following, KVOA, Tuscon SELIGMAN, Ariz. A tractor-trailer carrying low-level radioactive items rolled over today on Interstate 40 near this northern Arizona community after it rear-ended another vehicle. The Arizona Department of Public Safety says the accident wasn't threatening public health. The accident killed 55-year-old Jasper Brown of Missouri. The man he was traveling with, 25-year-old Tim Harig of Missouri, was critically injured and flown to a nearby hospital. No other injuries were reported. D-P-S says the truck was carrying protective clothing, towels, tools and other items used in processing radioactive material. The items, which contained low-levels of radioactive solid metal oxide, was on its way to Madison, were on their way to Madison, Pennsylvania to be destroyed. An eastbound section of the interstate was reopened. If the vehicle had been carrying radioactive waste, D-P-S says authorities would have shut down traffic in both directions. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 8 14:10:58 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:10:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? In-Reply-To: <23d.b101bda.3190edb8@aol.com> Message-ID: <445F3552.15900.12975E3@sandyfl.earthlink.net> More: May 7, 2006, 9:53PM Truck With Radioactive Material Rolls Over SELIGMAN, Ariz. - A tractor-trailer carrying low-level radioactive items rolled over Sunday on Interstate 40 near this northern Arizona community when it rear-ended another vehicle. The accident killed Jasper Brown, 55, of Conway, Mo., and critically injured Tim Harig, 25, of Springfield, Mo. Both were traveling together in the tractor trailer; Brown had been in a sleeping compartment of the vehicle. Harig was in critical condition at Kingman Regional Medical Center Sunday evening. The accident was not threatening public health, said Officer Tim Mason, spokesman for the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The truck was carrying protective clothing, towels, tools and other items used in processing radioactive material. The items, which contained low-levels of radioactive solid metal oxide, were scheduled to continue their journey from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in Avila Beach, Calif., to a Westinghouse Electric Co. service center in Madison, Pa., Mason said. =============== Truck with radioactive material overturns, I-40 closed May. 7, 2006 Getting across northern Arizona could be difficult for quite some time. The Arizona Department of Public Safety reports a tractor-trailer carrying radioactive material was traveling eastbound on Interstate 40 between Ash Fork and Seligman when it overturned Sunday morning. The driver was killed in the accident. Because of its cargo, a 75-foot perimeter has been established around the wreck. The highway has been closed eastbound and could remain closed until Monday morning. Traffic has been diverted to old route 66. The westbound lanes remain open. The accident scene is at milepost 131, a desolate area of Yavapai County near Picacho Butte. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From mpatterson at canberra.com Mon May 8 14:14:21 2006 From: mpatterson at canberra.com (PATTERSON Melissa) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:14:21 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: <70CE86C4CAFC894DAA8533F64783DE6A0968DF@AUSMERIMX01.adom.ad.corp> Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ From sandyfl at earthlink.net Mon May 8 14:21:36 2006 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:21:36 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? In-Reply-To: <1be.38aeb4f.3190f26c@aol.com> Message-ID: <445F37D0.523.13339C5@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Looks like from Diablo Canyon to Westinghouse in PA, not a WIPP shipment. ------------------------------------- Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Mon May 8 14:39:44 2006 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:39:44 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC0B84DB7F@mail.nymc.edu> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ From JGinniver at aol.com Mon May 8 14:46:55 2006 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver at aol.com) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:46:55 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <313.470d42d.3190fa2f@aol.com> I would appreciate being copied in on any replies to this query. Thanks, Julian From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Mon May 8 16:06:30 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 17:06:30 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Message-ID: Colleagues * The story I saw indicated that it was headed from PG&E in Avila Beach, CA (Diablo Canyon?) to Westinghouse in Madison, PA. Probably not a waste shipment but rather a shipment of contaminated tools and associated supplies. I have no information as to how the package(s) A couple of interesting things to me: 1) The fact that the truck was carrying radioactive materials got equal (if not greater) billing to the fact that there was one fatality and one serious injury in the accident. 2) I-40 remained closed until Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) folks, headquartered in Phoenix, some 250 miles away, could get there to survey. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Johnston, Thomas" 5/8/2006 15:39:44 >>> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Mon May 8 16:08:14 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 17:08:14 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? - RESEND Message-ID: Colleagues * The story I saw indicated that it was headed from PG&E in Avila Beach, CA (Diablo Canyon?) to Westinghouse in Madison, PA. Probably not a waste shipment but rather a shipment of contaminated tools and associated supplies. I have no information as to how the package(s) was/were labelled, and/or whether the shipment was placarded. A couple of interesting things to me: 1) The fact that the truck was carrying radioactive materials got equal (if not greater) billing to the fact that there was one fatality and one serious injury in the accident. 2) I-40 remained closed until Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) folks, headquartered in Phoenix, some 250 miles away, could get there to survey. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Johnston, Thomas" 5/8/2006 15:39:44 >>> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon May 8 22:49:22 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 22:49:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXEqiEA Message-ID: <000801c6731b$8eda24d0$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I am a little late in responding to this post and I apologize. The reference quoted by Mr. Salsman for describing the composition of the particles in the DU aerosol is dated (1979). A great deal of work has transpired since that time. I would like to discuss as many of the points below as I can. The most thorough study done to date is the recently released Depleted Uranium Capstone Study (2004). The aerosol analysis did look for and found small quantities of UO3 in the form of schoepite. For reasons that are beyond my expertise, separating UO3 from U3O8 was difficult and it was assumed in the study that UO3 was present whenever U3O8 was found. The Capstone Report can be found at http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/ I read the paper by Dr. Alexander and found it extremely useful for other projects that I am currently working on. The science is out of my comfort zone but the experimental setup and the purpose of the work were clearly stated in the article - study the uranium released in a LOC in a spent fuel storage facility by transpiration. The experiment determined the transpiration rates of uranium and the forms of uranium that occurred when dry air, dry argon and pure oxygen with and without water vapor at temperatures that ranged from over 1000K to over 2000K. The starting material was depleted fuel rod pellets (not uranium metal) that were crushed and then oxidized in a platinum crucible at 850K. In each case the starting material for the experiment was U3O8 or a mixture of U3O8 and UO2 (for the argon). The air experiments were done with dry air and air that contained 10% steam and 50% steam and a partial pressure of UO3 was measured for each condition. It was very clear from the paper that the environment was very well controlled. I am going to follow up with Dr. Alexander because it is some very interesting work. The issue of "uranyl oxide gas" and measurement of UO3 gas/vapor is mentioned throughout the discussion and each time it is mentioned in connection with "burning in air." Along with discussing this I would like to clear up the statement < More than 30% of such bullets' uranium metal burns in air when they are fired against hard targets.> This statement is partially correct. The work done by Gilchrist I believe had 30% but the amount varies based upon the hardness of the target. Not all of the expended portion of the penetrator ignites. The 30% refers to that portion of the round that is "expended" during penetration. The main difference is the environment the DU is in when it ignites. It is not the pristine air used in the experiment being quoted. From the moment of impact the DU "fire-flies" (colloquial term we used to describe the portion of the DU that ignited) are burning in a particle-rich environment that is a combination of all the materials in the armor, and once penetration occurs, all of the materials inside the vehicle. We were able to observe the dynamics inside the vehicle using ultra-high speed cameras and saw DU fire-flies for fractions of a second followed by a dense dark smoke that dissipated over time. These particles aid in rapid condensation. The particle morphology in the Capstone report is extremely interesting and in my personal opinion supports rapid condensation of vapors produced. < Inhalation of uranium combustion fumes is suspected in major illnesses reported in veterans and civilians of the February, 1991 Gulf War.> This is the first time I have seen the word "fumes" used in describing DU internalizations. All of the many US, International and UN, studies and independent reviews done to date are in direct conflict with this statement. There are good summaries of each at http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/ < But the portion of UO3 which doesn't condense disperses further and faster than the aerosols, and are absorbed directly into the bloodstream if inhaled, dissolving immediately to uranyl ions which cause chromosome damage leading to immunological disorders and congenital malformations in the children of the exposed.> The message this statement is conveying is incorrect. Rapid dispersal yields a rapidly reducing concentration which in turn rapidly reduces risk. >From a radiation dose perspective (chromosomal aberrations) a more soluble compound poses far less radiation risk then a compound of lesser solubility. There is no evidence supporting the claim of congenital malformations in children of people exposed to the low very levels of exposure that would occur. The evidence from the VA follow-up of veterans inside vehicles at the time the vehicles were struck is to the contrary. Immunological affects of very high concentrations of uranium in the body (as with embedded fragments) have been undertaken at AFRRI and the results are posted, I believe, on their web site. I would be interested in reading the studies that support this particular statement. Sorry for the long post. Eric Daxon From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue May 9 07:02:59 2006 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 08:02:59 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC0B84DB81@mail.nymc.edu> This information would be useful to me also. Thank you, Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of JGinniver at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:47 PM To: rreif at whoi.edu Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs I would appreciate being copied in on any replies to this query. Thanks, Julian _______________________________________________ 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/ From maldrich at rehs.rutgers.edu Tue May 9 08:15:51 2006 From: maldrich at rehs.rutgers.edu (Mary Aldrich) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:15:51 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs In-Reply-To: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC0B84DB81@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: For alpha's, scan MDC's get murky - this is discussed in Abelquist's text "Decommissioning Health Physics - A Handbook for MARSSIM Users" and section 6 of the MARSSIM manual. Essentially "it is not practical to determine a fixed MDC for scanning. Instead it is more useful to determine the probability of detecting an area of contamination at a predetermined DCGL for given scan rates." See Appendix J of MARSSIM manual for more. I do highly recommend Abelquist's text to all who enter the MARSSIM zone. Regards M. Aldrich -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Johnston, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 8:03 AM To: JGinniver at aol.com; rreif at whoi.edu Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs This information would be useful to me also. Thank you, Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of JGinniver at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:47 PM To: rreif at whoi.edu Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs I would appreciate being copied in on any replies to this query. Thanks, Julian _______________________________________________ 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/ From mclamb1 at niehs.nih.gov Tue May 9 08:15:34 2006 From: mclamb1 at niehs.nih.gov (McLamb, John (NIH/NIEHS) [E]) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:15:34 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs In-Reply-To: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080@admin.whoi.edu> Message-ID: <7930EE6CD7CA354D93B444D0433C0611024C5C37@NIHCESMLBX6.nih.gov> A copy of NUREG-1507 can be found at: http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/instrument/NUREG-1507.pdf I hope it helps. John John S. McLamb, CHP, RRPT Health Physicist NIEHS, MD F0-07 P.O. Box 12233 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: (919) 541-4235 Fax: (919) 541-1893 -----Original Message----- From: Ron Reif [mailto:rreif at whoi.edu] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:21 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: 'John Andrews'; 'steven pike'; 'Mary McGeoghegan' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. ----- Ron Reif, P.E.,CHP,CIH EH&S Manager Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://ehs.whoi.edu p:508-289-3788 f:508-457-2015 _______________________________________________ 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/ From pottert at erols.com Tue May 9 09:08:01 2006 From: pottert at erols.com (Thomas Potter) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:08:01 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NUREG-1507 PDF Message-ID: <000901c67371$fc38aff0$6401a8c0@DB44LX51> NUREG-1507 June 1998 version available in PDF at following site: http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/instrument/NUREG-1507.pdf Don't know why it is unavailable at NRC site. Tom Potter Original message: Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:20:53 -0400 From: "Ron Reif" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs To: Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Message-ID: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080 at admin.whoi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. From hflong at pacbell.net Tue May 9 12:11:35 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski In-Reply-To: <20060508152644.53240.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060509171136.95476.qmail@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation sickness, at 1.09%, was much lower [ LOWER] than the mortality rates for the whole population of Belarus of 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%)." (caps mine, Howard Long, MD MPH) John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, I am quite secure in my job. I do not have to use "fear-mongering." I hope that your comments are not a personal indictment against what I say. The accident at Chernobyl is not related to the issue of ALARA. The response to accidents is quite different as personnel would be expected in their response to get higher, but not lethal, doses. Of course, since you are not a professional in radiation safety and health, I would not expect you to know the difference. From contedu at hsph.harvard.edu Tue May 9 13:22:43 2006 From: contedu at hsph.harvard.edu (Harvard Health Professional Training) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 14:22:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20060509141451.02989e78@hsph.harvard.edu> Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication August 8 - 11, 2006 Boston, Massachusetts For complete details or to register: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/NEP.shtml Current events continue to make emergency planning an urgent concern. With major changes underway from both government and industry, emergency planners and emergency response team members face a host of new challenges in an era of unprecedented public scrutiny. This years offering of Radiological Emergency Planning (formerly Nuclear Emergency Planning) will respond to these important developments. Whether you are new or experienced, from a private facility or from government, this program will give you valuable insights that you can put to immediate use in your daily work. Taught by leaders in the field of Emergency Planning, this program combines lectures and case studies with access to faculty to provide a unique learning experience. Examine the latest principles and regulatory requirements for responding to a radiological emergency, and the newest roles and rules from federal and state agencies regarding: For more information on these or other programs offered by the Harvard School of Public Health, Center for Continuing Professional Education, please contact us at: Web: www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe CALL: 617-384-8692 EMAIL: contedu at hsph.harvard.edu From edaxon at satx.rr.com Tue May 9 23:41:59 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:41:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVk1CEA Message-ID: <002101c673ec$131e5970$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I had a discussion with Dr. Alexander and others on this issue and the primary issue is temperature. While the temperature of burning DU is high while it is burning, it rapidly cools (seconds) to ambient temperature which causes the rapid condensation of the vapor into U3O8. As shown in the phase graph in Dr. Alexander's paper, UO3 occurs at temperatures on the order of 1000K. The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 vapor poses a significant hazard is not. I would welcome any additional information on the topic. Eric Daxon From joseroze at netvision.net.il Wed May 10 00:06:49 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 08:06:49 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication References: <5.2.0.9.2.20060509141451.02989e78@hsph.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <00e701c673ef$8b8b0680$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> The note has mentioned "This years offering of Radiological Emergency Planning (formerly Nuclear Emergency Planning)" The Radiological Accident in Goiania was the worst radiological Accident in the world and the most important Laboratory to compare, (until now) with a RDD. All the recent International Congress on Security mention always Goiania, when referring to the country's necessity to be prepared to situations of city contamination and large group of public involvement. And this include, not only communicating with the media and public, including the many aspects of crisis communications, but also other's concerns and conflicts, political, social, economic, medical and psychological. The Goiania Accident, even after 20 years, present many lessons that were not yet learned. For this reason I think Goiania, not just a mention, also must be part of a course like your intention. I am working in the following paper: Radiological Accident in Goiania X RDD, Similarities and Differences Jose Julio Rozental General Coordinator to Respond the Goiania Accident and the Post Recovery Phase joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harvard Health Professional Training" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:22 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication > > Radiological Emergency Planning: Terrorism, Security, and Communication > > August 8 - 11, 2006 > > Boston, Massachusetts > > For complete details or to register: > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe/programs/NEP.shtml > > Current events continue to make emergency planning an urgent concern. With > major changes underway from both government and industry, emergency > planners and emergency response team members face a host of new challenges > in an era of unprecedented public scrutiny. This years offering of > Radiological Emergency Planning (formerly Nuclear Emergency Planning) will > respond to these important developments. Whether you are new or > experienced, from a private facility or from government, this program will > give you valuable insights that you can put to immediate use in your daily > work. Taught by leaders in the field of Emergency Planning, this program > combines lectures and case studies with access to faculty to provide a > unique learning experience. > > Examine the latest principles and regulatory requirements for responding to > a radiological emergency, and the newest roles and rules from federal and > state agencies regarding: > > For more information on these or other programs offered by the Harvard > School of Public Health, Center for Continuing Professional Education, > please contact us at: > > Web: www.hsph.harvard.edu/ccpe > CALL: 617-384-8692 > EMAIL: contedu at hsph.harvard.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/ > From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 10 01:17:21 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 23:17:21 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 Message-ID: <008201c67402$229e63c0$ad425142@roger1> I am sure if this person really wanted to learn about Tc-99 that they would come here .. instead it was posted to DU Watch .. a list just full of radiation "experts", but do feel free to comment. You can even join DU Watch at Yahoo Groups or respond directly to piotr.bein at imag.net - he probably is seriously interested in the subject. Roger Helbig --- R Rands wrote: > To: > From: "R Rands" > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:48:35 +1000 > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Subject: Tc-99 > > Subject: Tc-99 [Technetium isotope used for medical > imaging] > Hi Robert and Dave, could you please post the > following question to the networks. > Can someone comment and point to references on the > health effects or risks of intake of Tc-99 for a > bonescan? > Please respond to piotr.bein at imag.net. > > > Thanks. > Piotr Bein From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 10 08:37:08 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 06:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski In-Reply-To: <20060509171136.95476.qmail@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060510133708.41642.qmail@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Are these values within statistial limits? I assume that you know what that means. I do not mean the P value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value There were 134 ARS (acute radiation sickness) survivors at Chernobyl with 28 deaths. How does this compare to the age matched population of the three groups you list? What are your reference sources? And what does this have to do with ALARA? Why do you need to change the subject of the original e-mail thread? --- howard long wrote: > "mortality rate of survivors of the acute radiation > sickness, at 1.09%, > was much lower [ LOWER] than the mortality rates > for the whole population of Belarus > of 1.4%, Russia's 1.38%, and Ukraine's 1.65%)." > (caps mine, Howard Long, MD MPH) > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > I am quite secure in my job. I do not have to use > "fear-mongering." I hope that your comments are not > a > personal indictment against what I say. > > The accident at Chernobyl is not related to the > issue > of ALARA. The response to accidents is quite > different as personnel would be expected in their > response to get higher, but not lethal, doses. Of > course, since you are not a professional in > radiation > safety and health, I would not expect you to know > the > difference. > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 10 08:50:06 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 06:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 In-Reply-To: <008201c67402$229e63c0$ad425142@roger1> Message-ID: <20060510135006.71642.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> First of all, the radionuclide used in medicine in Tc-99m, not its decay product. For a specific answer, try http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q4220.html For more general informtion, see http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/dosesfrommedicalradiation.html and http://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/risk-benefitinfosheet.html --- Roger Helbig wrote: > I am sure if this person really wanted to learn > about Tc-99 that they would come here .. instead it > was posted to DU Watch .. a list just full of > radiation "experts", but do feel free to comment. > You can even join DU Watch at Yahoo Groups or > respond directly to piotr.bein at imag.net - he > probably is seriously interested in the subject. > > Roger Helbig > > --- R Rands wrote: > > > To: > > From: "R Rands" > > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:48:35 +1000 > > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Subject: Tc-99 > > > > Subject: Tc-99 [Technetium isotope used for > medical > > imaging] > > > Hi Robert and Dave, could you please post the > > following question to the networks. > > > Can someone comment and point to references on the > > health effects or risks of intake of Tc-99 for a > > bonescan? > > Please respond to piotr.bein at imag.net. > > > > > > Thanks. > > Piotr Bein +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lewis at radonmine.com Wed May 10 10:08:29 2006 From: lewis at radonmine.com (Patricia Lewis) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:08:29 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Correction to ABC program date - Message-ID: <002e01c67443$98a9bf10$b700a8c0@FEM> Friends, You've probably figured out that Friday is the 12th not the 18th as previously noted. Don't forget to watch ABC's 20/20 special on Friday, May 12 at 10pm. In part, myths dispelled, by host John Stossel, about exposures to small amounts of radiation. Mine guest interviews may be part of the broadcast. Enjoy the show, Patricia Lewis Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine PO Box 67 Boulder MT 59632 www.radonmine.com From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Wed May 10 11:11:12 2006 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:11:12 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mobile neutron sources for explosive detection Message-ID: Colleagues * Just ran across a press release from a company called HiEnergy Techologies ... they're marketing several explosive / SNM detectors using neutron-gamma reactions. The URL for the press release is http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-10-2006/0004358579&EDATE= and the website is www.hienergyinc.com They show on their website the use of a mobile fast-neutron source to search for car bombs ... is anyone familiar with the radiation safety aspects of this system? (i.e. what sort of neutron & gamma dose rates, etc.). I remember a demonstration of an accelerator / pulsed neutron system out at INEEL a couple of years ago, and you didn't want to be within 50 yards or so of the radiation source when operating. I also saw a similar system using a Cf-252 neutron source for remote interrogation of chemical weapons, and again, radiation safety was a HUGE concern. Anybody familar with this system? Jim Hardeman Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us From LMS1 at pge.com Wed May 10 11:45:24 2006 From: LMS1 at pge.com (Sewell, Linda) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:45:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? - RESEND Message-ID: Hi All, Sorry for the late post, but we are in a refueling outage and it's been busy. Jim and Sandy have correctly surmised that it was a shipment of contaminated tools from Diablo Canyon to the Westinghouse facility in Waltz Mill, PA. Two of our shipping folks arrived on scene late Monday/early Tuesday to make sure all was well before the shipment continued on east. I agree regarding Jim's comments. Linda Linda Sewell, CHP Dosimetry Supervisor Diablo Canyon Power Plant MS 119/1/122 PO Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.4315 (voice) 805.545.2618 (fax) mailto:lms1 at pge.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:08 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; mpatterson at canberra.com; Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? - RESEND Colleagues * The story I saw indicated that it was headed from PG&E in Avila Beach, CA (Diablo Canyon?) to Westinghouse in Madison, PA. Probably not a waste shipment but rather a shipment of contaminated tools and associated supplies. I have no information as to how the package(s) was/were labelled, and/or whether the shipment was placarded. A couple of interesting things to me: 1) The fact that the truck was carrying radioactive materials got equal (if not greater) billing to the fact that there was one fatality and one serious injury in the accident. 2) I-40 remained closed until Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency (ARRA) folks, headquartered in Phoenix, some 250 miles away, could get there to survey. Jim Hardeman, Manager Environmental Radiation Program Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30354 (404) 362-2675 Fax: (404) 362-2653 E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> "Johnston, Thomas" 5/8/2006 15:39:44 >>> A Google of "Arizona radiation accident" turned up 167 related articles. Thomas P. Johnston Radiation Safety Officer New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 914-594-4448 office 914-594-3665 fax 914-557-5950 mobile tom_johnston at nymc.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of PATTERSON Melissa Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 3:14 PM To: LNMolino at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Louis, I happened to catch something on our local NBC channel about this accident on the 11:00 news last night. The story included some photos of the truck and mentioned that it had radioactive equipment and waste materials headed for disposal. The photos showed a flatbed with covered and strapped equipment or possibly large components. Based on the packaging and lack of placards, my guess was that this was headed for Envirocare and not WIPP. It appeared that all of the damage was actually to the cab. The nice thing about the story was the lack of scare tactics and panic. It seemed to be just another factual account of a transportation accident. I looked for something on the web today but I didn't find anything. Perhaps someone else on the list has more information. Melissa Patterson In Vivo Systems Product Manager Canberra Industries -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of LNMolino at aol.com Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:54 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] AZ Accident? Anyone have anymore information on the accident as reported in USA Today (today's paper) regarding what sounds like a WIPP Shipment? I need to get to of the office and get a copy but I got a call about this and was wondering? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant LNMolino at aol.com 979-412-0890 (Cell Phone) 979-361-4636 (Home Phone) 979-690-7559 (IFW/TFW/FSS Office) 979-690-7562 (IFW/TFW/FSS Fax) "A Texan with a Jersey Attitude" "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people" Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962) The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Wed May 10 16:03:26 2006 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Message-ID: <20060510210326.29327.qmail@web51612.mail.yahoo.com> Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' No joke Emil. Some GM detectors, equipped with a thin mica window, would be able to measure high-energy alphas. For example, a pancake probe that is typically used for detecting contamination (e.g., betas from Co-60) can also detect alphas from uranium. Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emil Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:03 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Message-ID: <002101c674a7$41c77930$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous posts and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. I addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are incorrect and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM To: edaxon at satx.rr.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] >... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the > Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 > vapor poses a significant hazard is not. It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 where T2 < T1 This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses slower and less distant before settling. So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such as are present from natural uranium. Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and maybe even decades after exposure. Sincerely, James Salsman From trentino at iol.it Thu May 11 03:06:20 2006 From: trentino at iol.it (Mauro Campoleoni) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:06:20 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Message-ID: <002701c674d1$d01ee3b0$62f21fac@2000server.omm> Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 11 07:32:21 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 05:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow In-Reply-To: <002701c674d1$d01ee3b0$62f21fac@2000server.omm> Message-ID: <20060511123221.15362.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Mauro, This sounds like the "big problem" with computer CRTs or VDTs (depending on what you call them) that was reported in the 1980s. I remember reading an article around that time that said the statistically, there should me MORE reports of miscarriages based on the number of female workers. --- Mauro Campoleoni wrote: > Dear colleagues, > I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, > expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the > case > of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at > Heathrow.... > as I read in the Mirror: > http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html > > I'd like to exchange some info. > > Thanks. > > Mauro Campoleoni > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov Wed May 10 08:12:17 2006 From: edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov (Baratta, Edmond J) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:12:17 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 Message-ID: <2DCD5C7845865A4DA541502677F6CD569BDBA8@orsnewea002.fda.gov> Technetium-99m is used in nuclear medicine not Technetium-99. Edmond J. Baratta Radiation Safety Officer Tel. No. 781-729-5700 x 728 Fax: 781-729-3593 edmond.baratta at fda.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:17 AM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99 I am sure if this person really wanted to learn about Tc-99 that they would come here .. instead it was posted to DU Watch .. a list just full of radiation "experts", but do feel free to comment. You can even join DU Watch at Yahoo Groups or respond directly to piotr.bein at imag.net - he probably is seriously interested in the subject. Roger Helbig --- R Rands wrote: > To: > From: "R Rands" > Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 21:48:35 +1000 > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Subject: Tc-99 > > Subject: Tc-99 [Technetium isotope used for medical > imaging] > Hi Robert and Dave, could you please post the > following question to the networks. > Can someone comment and point to references on the > health effects or risks of intake of Tc-99 for a > bonescan? > Please respond to piotr.bein at imag.net. > > > Thanks. > Piotr Bein _______________________________________________ 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/ From james at bovik.org Wed May 10 01:07:57 2006 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 23:07:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] Message-ID: <4461833D.7050101@bovik.org> >... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the > Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 > vapor poses a significant hazard is not. It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 where T2 < T1 This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses slower and less distant before settling. So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such as are present from natural uranium. Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and maybe even decades after exposure. Sincerely, James Salsman From james at bovik.org Wed May 10 22:36:38 2006 From: james at bovik.org (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 20:36:38 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: <002101c674a7$41c77930$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <002101c674a7$41c77930$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <4462B146.9060608@bovik.org> Dear Colonel Daxon, You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to measure the gas products. Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different than that of the solid oxide particulates. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous posts > and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. I > addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have > also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of > "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are incorrect > and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM > To: edaxon at satx.rr.com > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] > > >>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. > > > It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as > it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense > -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): > http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf > > 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 > UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 > where T2 < T1 > > This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish > between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. > > There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't > condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial > amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it > happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed > immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving > UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses > slower and less distant before settling. > > So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious > isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not > just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because > the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions > are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will > not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such > as are present from natural uranium. > > Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the > production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic > absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl > ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and > maybe even decades after exposure. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu May 11 09:00:11 2006 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:00:11 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA8FB8D4@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com Thu May 11 10:03:32 2006 From: Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com (NIXON, Grant) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:03:32 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Message-ID: <35E44FDE74595F44B80A137FEBA29E6DBC3E28@SMXTRG-V31.mds.mdsinc.com> Hi Mahmoud: For a Bicron Surveyor 2000 portable survey meter equipped with a PGM pancake probe, the following conversion factors are typical: 872 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Co-60 1474 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Cs-137 2797 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of U-238 These figures are for scenarios approximating full 2 Pi geometry (i.e., pancake probe directly over the contaminated surface at zero height above surface. Because 185 Bq (5nCi) corresponds with 11100 DPM, only 5550 DPM would be detectable for the given geometry. The PGM's mica window material thickness is between 1.4-2.0 mg/cm2, the area is 15.5 cm2. Ron, the PGM quoted should be compatible with any +900V count rate meter. Best regards, Grant Grant I. Nixon, Ph. D., P. Phys. Radiation Physicist Engineering MDS Nordion Tel: (613) 592 3400 ext. 2869 Fax:( 613) 592 7423 -----Original Message----- From: Haleem, Mahmoud S. [mailto:HALEEM at cua.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:34 AM To: NIXON, Grant Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs I wonder what is the efficiency for such a system? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:22 PM To: Emil; radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs No joke Emil. Some GM detectors, equipped with a thin mica window, would be able to measure high-energy alphas. For example, a pancake probe that is typically used for detecting contamination (e.g., betas from Co-60) can also detect alphas from uranium. Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emil Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:03 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' A pancake will detect alphas but is not very efficient; it is certainly not the instrument of choice for performing alpha surveys, especially at or near typical release limits for transuranics, or when there is a mixture of alpha and beta emitters present. Remember that in the case of U-238, what is really being counted is the hard beta from Pa-234m. Glenn Marshall, CHP -----Original Message----- From: NIXON, Grant [mailto:Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:04 AM To: Haleem, Mahmoud S. Cc: Ron Reif; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Hi Mahmoud: For a Bicron Surveyor 2000 portable survey meter equipped with a PGM pancake probe, the following conversion factors are typical: 872 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Co-60 1474 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of Cs-137 2797 CPM=185 Bq (5nCi) of U-238 These figures are for scenarios approximating full 2 Pi geometry (i.e., pancake probe directly over the contaminated surface at zero height above surface. Because 185 Bq (5nCi) corresponds with 11100 DPM, only 5550 DPM would be detectable for the given geometry. The PGM's mica window material thickness is between 1.4-2.0 mg/cm2, the area is 15.5 cm2. Ron, the PGM quoted should be compatible with any +900V count rate meter. Best regards, Grant Grant I. Nixon, Ph. D., P. Phys. Radiation Physicist Engineering MDS Nordion Tel: (613) 592 3400 ext. 2869 Fax:( 613) 592 7423 -----Original Message----- From: Haleem, Mahmoud S. [mailto:HALEEM at cua.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:34 AM To: NIXON, Grant Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs I wonder what is the efficiency for such a system? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:22 PM To: Emil; radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs No joke Emil. Some GM detectors, equipped with a thin mica window, would be able to measure high-energy alphas. For example, a pancake probe that is typically used for detecting contamination (e.g., betas from Co-60) can also detect alphas from uranium. Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emil Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:03 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: Ron Reif Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs Ron, Is it a joke? Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas with GM detector??? The GM window thickness makes it impossible. Regards, Emil. @radlab.nl> Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Go to http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/5/5 From: PhysicsWeb Alerts [mailto:e-alert at physicsweb.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 10:01 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News Titan in pictures (May 9) http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/5/5 Have you ever wondered what it must have looked like to be aboard the Huygens probe as it hurtled towards the surface of Titan -- Saturn's largest moon -- in January last year? All is now revealed with a highly realistic new movie of the dramatic descent, released by the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA and the University of Arizona. The movie shows the proble's plunge through Titan's thick orange-brown atmosphere before landing on a soft, sandy riverbed. The film was put together from data collected by the Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) instrument during the probe's descent, which lasted 147 minutes. +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mcmahankl at ornl.gov Thu May 11 12:58:43 2006 From: mcmahankl at ornl.gov (McMahan, Kimberly L.) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:58:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Message-ID: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900207073B@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> Amen to your second paragraph. Here is a link to the product literature for the system in question. The manufacturer claims the dose to the scanned individual is about 3 microrem (30 nSv). They say it is a backscatter device that detects Compton scatters. No incident or representative backscattered spectrum is given that I could find. http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html [An aside: Because of the very low x-ray energies involved, an individual needs to be scanned twice - front and back - in order to be completely screened. However, in the spirit of Rainer's second paragraph I submit that the dose to the person is not doubled with the second screening. This might be a good side thread for discussion.] Page 29 of the following link discusses the backscatter technique but still does not give a spectrum. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183260.pdf The Mirror article could be taken as saying the dose to the passenger from a single screening is 1000 times the annual occupational dose of a security guard, since Terminal 4 handles international ("long haul") passengers. But in reading the "fact sheet" on the device where they highlight the in-flight dose to a passenger, I think you probably have the right comparison. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry 865.576.1566 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:00 AM To: trentino at iol.it; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From alstonchris at netscape.net Thu May 11 13:37:20 2006 From: alstonchris at netscape.net (alstonchris at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:37:20 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Measuring alphas with GM? Message-ID: <7DC47FDE.69FB4F70.48616B36@netscape.net> Emil Actually, the window on, e.g., a pancake GM tube, is typically less than 2 mg/sq.cm. So, you might see, e.g., 5% "4Pi" efficiency for Th-230, at not more than one cm distance. Of course, if betas are present, e.g., natural or depleted U, that's mostly what you're detecting (say, 25% efficiency, under same constraints). cheers cja Emil wrote: >Ron, >Is it a joke? >Not to offend anybody but I am wondering how do you measure alphas >with GM detector??? >The GM window thickness makes it impossible. __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From JGinniver at aol.com Thu May 11 14:26:14 2006 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver at aol.com) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:26:14 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Message-ID: <26a.a3e1808.3194e9d6@aol.com> Hmmm, pancake GMs are not as bad as many people think at detecting Alphas. Thermo quote 0.9 cps per Bq per cm2 for Pu-238 for the 900EP15 (contamination monitor) see _http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html_ (http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html) , this is generally fitted with an LND pancake GM e.g. 7311, 7312, 7313 or 7314 (depending on the connectors required and operating voltage). Ludlum quotes 15% (4pi) efficiency for Pu-239 for the 44-9, as this and other similar probes (e.g. Eberline HP260, Bicron PGM, Tech Assoc P15) all use a 15.5 cm2 pancake geiger similar to those listed above from LND (e.g. Canberra, St Gobain etc.) the performance for alpha monitoring will be broadly similar. Regards, Julian From GRMarshall at philotechnics.com Thu May 11 14:44:35 2006 From: GRMarshall at philotechnics.com (Glenn R. Marshall) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:44:35 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Message-ID: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC4A@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Ludlum also quotes 19% efficiency for Tc-99 (4-pi), and I've received pancakes from them with reported 4-pi efficiencies in excess of 20%. Everyone else gets 10-12%. I called their tech support people once and asked about it. The person on the other end of the phone said they put the source inside the recess of the probe, right up against the screen. Perhaps he was pulling my leg; if so, would somebody please tell me? I don't put much stock in advertised efficiency. In the field, under normal industrial conditions, alpha efficiency on a pancake is usually pretty crappy. Glenn _____ From: JGinniver at aol.com [mailto:JGinniver at aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:26 PM To: Glenn R. Marshall; Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com; HALEEM at cua.edu Cc: rreif at whoi.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs Hmmm, pancake GMs are not as bad as many people think at detecting Alphas. Thermo quote 0.9 cps per Bq per cm2 for Pu-238 for the 900EP15 (contamination monitor) see http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html , this is generally fitted with an LND pancake GM e.g. 7311, 7312, 7313 or 7314 (depending on the connectors required and operating voltage). Ludlum quotes 15% (4pi) efficiency for Pu-239 for the 44-9, as this and other similar probes (e.g. Eberline HP260, Bicron PGM, Tech Assoc P15) all use a 15.5 cm2 pancake geiger similar to those listed above from LND (e.g. Canberra, St Gobain etc.) the performance for alpha monitoring will be broadly similar. Regards, Julian From edaxon at satx.rr.com Thu May 11 20:17:20 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:17:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWE3SEA Message-ID: <001801c67561$d1578850$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements. The data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an issue. The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM To: Eric D Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] Dear Colonel Daxon, You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to measure the gas products. Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different than that of the solid oxide particulates. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous posts > and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. I > addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have > also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of > "uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are incorrect > and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM > To: edaxon at satx.rr.com > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] > > >>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. > > > It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as > it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense > -- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): > http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf > > 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 > UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 > where T2 < T1 > > This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish > between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. > > There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't > condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial > amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it > happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed > immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving > UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses > slower and less distant before settling. > > So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious > isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not > just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because > the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions > are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will > not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such > as are present from natural uranium. > > Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the > production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic > absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl > ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and > maybe even decades after exposure. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > From kerrembaev at yahoo.com Fri May 12 00:10:17 2006 From: kerrembaev at yahoo.com (Emil) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 22:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re-measuring alphas with GM? In-Reply-To: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC22@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Message-ID: <20060512051017.65191.qmail@web51615.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Radsafers, I really appreciate all your feedbacks. Wow, I should've keep my mouth shut and I could look as a smart :-) Hey, living learning, right? Yes, GM can "detect" alphas as well as someone told earlier here on this list (1/300) of low energy photons from H-3. The question is what does GM detect with alphas? Is it direct ionization from alpha in the gas? If so how much direct and how much is indirect/bremstlung in the window. Of course all the instruments are just "pieces with two wires +/-" We are all handy and talented people and can make work anything with two wires, right? Put two GM pancakes with a silver foil in between and you may even measure neutrons with these coincidence GM probes. Of course it will not be DIRECT measurement of neutrons but gammas from short lived activated product. Believe me, it was done. Radiation detection is what you see and how confident you are. However, I would never use GM for the alpha release survey, sorry. Again, I am not an instrument geek, I am more on the instrument usage side. So if you are confident in your measurements then. Good luck on your surveys. Emil. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri May 12 01:42:33 2006 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:42:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow References: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900207073B@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA1590DF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Well, ... it appears by now symptomatic for our 'age of radiophobia' that so far neither I nor someone else commented by raising the most important question first: How many pregnancies among the guards did occur in the respective 'follow-up time' and how does the observed number of 5 compares with the number of - properly adjusted - expected 'spontaneous' miscarriages? Depending on age their frequency ranges between 15% and 30%, the latter pertaining to ages above 35 which nowadays appears to be more representative considering the trend to older ages at first pregnancy. Until that question has been answered any further questions about potential causes remain foolish. Rainer ________________________________ Von: McMahan, Kimberly L. [mailto:mcmahankl at ornl.gov] Gesendet: Do 11.05.2006 19:58 An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Amen to your second paragraph. Here is a link to the product literature for the system in question. The manufacturer claims the dose to the scanned individual is about 3 microrem (30 nSv). They say it is a backscatter device that detects Compton scatters. No incident or representative backscattered spectrum is given that I could find. http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html [An aside: Because of the very low x-ray energies involved, an individual needs to be scanned twice - front and back - in order to be completely screened. However, in the spirit of Rainer's second paragraph I submit that the dose to the person is not doubled with the second screening. This might be a good side thread for discussion.] Page 29 of the following link discusses the backscatter technique but still does not give a spectrum. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183260.pdf The Mirror article could be taken as saying the dose to the passenger from a single screening is 1000 times the annual occupational dose of a security guard, since Terminal 4 handles international ("long haul") passengers. But in reading the "fact sheet" on the device where they highlight the in-flight dose to a passenger, I think you probably have the right comparison. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry 865.576.1566 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:00 AM To: trentino at iol.it; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri May 12 02:13:35 2006 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 09:13:35 +0200 Subject: WG: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow References: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900207073B@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA1590DF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA1590E0@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Addendum: 95% symmetric confidence interval for 5 Poisson-distributed observations: [1.62 , 11.67], i.e., an expected number of less than 1.62 (SIR=3.08) would indicate a statistically significant excess - at that (arbitrarily chosen) significance level. Rainer ________________________________ Von: Facius, Rainer Gesendet: Fr 12.05.2006 08:42 An: McMahan, Kimberly L.; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Well, ... it appears by now symptomatic for our 'age of radiophobia' that so far neither I nor someone else commented by raising the most important question first: How many pregnancies among the guards did occur in the respective 'follow-up time' and how does the observed number of 5 compares with the number of - properly adjusted - expected 'spontaneous' miscarriages? Depending on age their frequency ranges between 15% and 30%, the latter pertaining to ages above 35 which nowadays appears to be more representative considering the trend to older ages at first pregnancy. Until that question has been answered any further questions about potential causes remain foolish. Rainer ________________________________ Von: McMahan, Kimberly L. [mailto:mcmahankl at ornl.gov] Gesendet: Do 11.05.2006 19:58 An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Amen to your second paragraph. Here is a link to the product literature for the system in question. The manufacturer claims the dose to the scanned individual is about 3 microrem (30 nSv). They say it is a backscatter device that detects Compton scatters. No incident or representative backscattered spectrum is given that I could find. http://www.rapiscansystems.com/sec1000faqs.html [An aside: Because of the very low x-ray energies involved, an individual needs to be scanned twice - front and back - in order to be completely screened. However, in the spirit of Rainer's second paragraph I submit that the dose to the person is not doubled with the second screening. This might be a good side thread for discussion.] Page 29 of the following link discusses the backscatter technique but still does not give a spectrum. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183260.pdf The Mirror article could be taken as saying the dose to the passenger from a single screening is 1000 times the annual occupational dose of a security guard, since Terminal 4 handles international ("long haul") passengers. But in reading the "fact sheet" on the device where they highlight the in-flight dose to a passenger, I think you probably have the right comparison. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry 865.576.1566 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:00 AM To: trentino at iol.it; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow The Mirror article reproduces a statement of the Heathrow authorities to the effect that guards working 2000 hours (which is about the annual time at work) receive 1/1000 the radiation dose of long-haul passengers. Since passengers in contrast to flight crew are mentioned, this can be construed as representing the dose per individual long-haul flight. Such exposures rarely exceed 100 microSv. Taking this number at face value, the guards would receive an added annual occupational radiation dose of 100 nanoSv, the equivalent of residing about 7 minutes in Cornwall at 8 mSv/a. Of course, the comparison of the guards' exposure with that of long-haul passengers is radiobiological nonsense - to begin with. Atmospheric ionising radiation comprises a mixture of thoroughly penetrating radiation of all radiation qualities Q between 1 and 20 whereas the guards are exposed to very soft X-rays penetrating about a cm only. The dose to the foetus therefore is zero anyway. Thus it is even obsolete to speculate about a potentially huge relative biological effectiveness of such low energy photons (there is some reason to assume an enhanced RBE for photons used in mammography). Only if unheard of huge RBEs were combining with an enormous 'bystander-effect' an influence on the foetus is conceivable. Rainer Is anyone able to provide an energy spectrum typical for such a device? 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Mauro Campoleoni Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Mai 2006 10:06 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow Dear colleagues, I'd be curious to know whether anybody of you, expecially if working in Britain, is involved in the case of the suspected "baby losses" due to X-rays at Heathrow.... as I read in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16984613&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=five-x-ray-scanner-guards-lose-babies--name_page.html I'd like to exchange some info. Thanks. Mauro Campoleoni --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit? Operativa di Fisica Sanitaria Fondazione "Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli e Regina Elena" Via Pace, 9 20122 - Milano - ITALY tel. 02-5503.3007 fax 02-5503.5100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 12 06:36:12 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 04:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: Radioactive medical deliveries face new delays Message-ID: <20060512113612.79059.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> I saw this in another e-mail service I get, and thought it would be of interest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radioactive medical deliveries face new delays 5/11/2006 By: Reuters Health VIENNA (Reuters), May 11 - A growing unwillingness of shippers to deliver radioactive medical materials due to rising costs and safety fears since the September 11 attacks is threatening healthcare in some countries, experts said on Wednesday. One European state is now refusing air shipments of medical isotopes with a shelf life of 24 hours, they said. Elsewhere, these supplies may travel three times the direct distance between countries because of detours imposed by shippers who have pulled out to escape climbing regulatory costs. In one case, a supplier needed six months to hire transport for a radioactive medication, typically used in diagnosis and treatment -- for especially for cancer, between two European states. What the experts called "a critical need to resolve refusals of some shippers" to deliver nuclear medical aids, especially by sea, is the topic of a conference this week at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "We need to deal with this problem before we reach the point of patients dying because of it," said Jim Stewart, radiological transport adviser in the British government. "(We can get about) 100 reports of denied shipment in three months and that's not a comprehensive picture. We've only started dealing with this issue. Something dramatic needs to be done. The problem is getting worse," he told a news briefing. Industry experts could not say whether any patients had died because radioactive medical aids arrived too late or not at all. They declined to name countries at issue or give examples of patients affected by delays, citing reasons of confidentiality. They also said none of the known hold-ups resulted from security alerts of possible diversions of isotopes into making nuclear "dirty bombs," saying the industry had an exemplary transport safety record for four decades. Medical care at stake But they suggested it was only a matter of time before delivery delays invited medical crises in some countries, especially in the Mediterranean and Asia-Pacific regions. "Delays predate September 11 but may have been exacerbated by it. These products have a short shelf life so transport has to operate like clockwork (to benefit patients)," said Paul Gray of Canadian medical isotope producer MDS Nordion. "There is no short-term solution in sight," said Michael Wangler, an IAEA transport safety official. But he said the IAEA had begun a database to assess the breadth of delays and would offer training to shippers to spur them to take on deliveries. Gray said tens of thousands of radioactive medication shipments are made yearly for 70-80 million cases of treatment. Worst affected by holdups has been cobalt-60, a nuclear isotope used to sterilize half the world's medical products such as gloves, gowns, sutures, and catheters. The problem is compounded by the small number of medical isotope producers worldwide -- half a dozen for radiological cancer aids, and just two producers of cobalt-60, Gray said. David Brennan, a senior official on dangerous goods and safety issues at the International Air Transport Association, representing 260 airlines, said heightened security concerns since September 11 had magnified isotope transport costs. By Mark Heinrich Last Updated: 2006-05-10 16:33:57 -0400 (Reuters Health) Copyright ? 2006 Reuters Limited. +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 12 07:08:12 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 05:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs In-Reply-To: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC4A@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Message-ID: <20060512120812.97549.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> Unless you put the material right up against the screen, alpha surveying in the field is pretty poor. During a training exercise, I had a friend who had problems surveying cacti in the desert. --- "Glenn R. Marshall" wrote: > Ludlum also quotes 19% efficiency for Tc-99 (4-pi), > and I've received > pancakes from them with reported 4-pi efficiencies > in excess of 20%. > Everyone else gets 10-12%. I called their tech > support people once and > asked about it. The person on the other end of the > phone said they put > the source inside the recess of the probe, right up > against the screen. > Perhaps he was pulling my leg; if so, would somebody > please tell me? I > don't put much stock in advertised efficiency. In > the field, under > normal industrial conditions, alpha efficiency on a > pancake is usually > pretty crappy. > > > > Glenn > > _____ > > From: JGinniver at aol.com [mailto:JGinniver at aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:26 PM > To: Glenn R. Marshall; Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com; > HALEEM at cua.edu > Cc: rreif at whoi.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? > Re: Survey MDAs vs. > ScanMDAs > > > > Hmmm, > > pancake GMs are not as bad as many people think at > detecting Alphas. > > > > Thermo quote 0.9 cps per Bq per cm2 for Pu-238 for > the 900EP15 > (contamination monitor) see > http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/product/detail/1,1055,21854,00.html > , this > is generally fitted with an LND pancake GM e.g. > 7311, 7312, 7313 or 7314 > (depending on the connectors required and operating > voltage). > > > > Ludlum quotes 15% (4pi) efficiency for Pu-239 for > the 44-9, as this and > other similar probes (e.g. Eberline HP260, Bicron > PGM, Tech Assoc P15) > all use a 15.5 cm2 pancake geiger similar to those > listed above from LND > (e.g. Canberra, St Gobain etc.) the performance for > alpha monitoring > will be broadly similar. > > > > Regards, > > Julian > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 12 14:29:59 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive decay under your feet!! Message-ID: <20060512193000.77240.qmail@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> >From Nature 437, 485-486 (22 September 2005) On-line article at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7058/full/437485a.html Earth science: Unleaded high-performance Tim Elliott1 Abstract: Previous measurements of uranium-series isotopes have implied uncomfortably fast speeds of melt movement through the mantle. Yet the latest results suggest such velocities were serious underestimates. Most volcanism on Earth occurs unseen, at submarine volcanic ridges that form in response to the sedate spreading of the oceanic plates. As the plates pull apart at a genteel rate of a few centimetres per year, underlying mantle viscously rises at a similar rate to fill the space. As a result of this upwelling and decompression, the mantle melts, producing the magma that feeds mid-ocean-ridge volcanoes. On page 534 of this issue1, Rubin et al. provide a dramatic illustration that magma rises to the surface with unexpected haste, in stark contrast to the stately movements of the solid from which it is derived. Melt velocities of up to a few metres per year, about 100 times faster than plate spreading rates, have been rationalized from simple physical models2. But Rubin and colleagues' measurements suggest that melts beneath oceanic ridges may move up to three orders of magnitude faster than that ? raising questions about our understanding of permeability and fluid flow in the mantle3. The authors present a geochemical study of very recently erupted mid-ocean-ridge magmas. Investigation of the rates of magma production and transport exploit the uranium-series nuclides, which include isotopes of thorium, radium, radon and lead. These short-lived daughter nuclides occur in the decay chain between the long-lived radioactive parent 238U (half-life 4.5109 years) and its ultimate, stable daughter, 206Pb. Given time, these intermediate daughter nuclides will establish a steady-state decay chain, in which all nuclides decay at the same rate. This steady state is termed secular equilibrium. Various processes, such as mantle melting, may disturb secular equilibrium, but equilibrium is re-established between any nuclide pair in the uranium-series chain within around five half-lives of the shorter-lived nuclide. Any disequilibrium between a nuclide pair records an event more recent than this. Within the uranium series, nuclide half-lives range from 2.5105 years to 1.610-4 seconds, providing an ample choice of chronometer. Compared to many geological processes, the timescales documented by even the longer-lived uranium-series nuclides, such as 230Th (half-life 76,000 years) and 226Ra (half-life 1,600 years), are rapid. Yet previous studies of mid-ocean-ridge magmas had already revealed disequilibrium in both 230Th?238U and 226Ra?230Th nuclide pairs4, 5. Rubin et al.1 have upped the ante and analysed 210Pb, which has a half life of only 23 years. After disturbance, the 210Pb?226Ra nuclide pair will return to equilibrium on a timescale of about 100 years, dizzyingly fast for most processes in the Earth's interior. A major hurdle is to find samples from the seabed that are so young that any 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium present at eruption has not significantly decayed. It is troublesome to detect, let alone sample, eruptions that occur some 2,500 metres beneath the ocean surface, and so it is a remarkable achievement to obtain lavas to test for initial 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium. The magmas erupted at mid-ocean ridges also have notably low abundances of uranium and its daughter nuclides, making accurate analysis challenging. Rubin et al.1 have overcome these problems, and make the striking observation that many of their samples have 210Pb?226Ra deficits ? that is, less 210Pb than would be expected relative to 226Ra at the steady state, secular equilibrium. It is both reasonable and conceptually appealing to attribute disequilibrium to the very melting process that produces the magmas. Yet it is also possible that contamination of magma in the crust just before eruption, or degassing of the volatile intermediate 222Rn (or even of 210Pb itself), produces 210Pb deficits. Rubin et al., however, present convincing arguments that these secondary processes do not significantly influence 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium. If the 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium is then a result of melting, rates of melting and melt movement to the sea floor can be inferred. It is first necessary, however, to assess what part of the melting process the disequilibrium is timing. Disequilibrium records the fractionation of parent from daughter nuclide. This occurs during melting because elements have different affinities for melt relative to the melting solid. For example, 210Pb enters the melt less readily than 226Ra, giving rise to a melt with a 210Pb deficit. But many of the uranium-series nuclides, including 226Ra and 210Pb, favour the melt over the solid so strongly that the differences in their behaviour are apparent only when very small amounts of melt are present. In simple models of melting, this means that the production of 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium can occur only when melt is first produced (Fig. 1). The presence of any disequilibrium in erupted lavas then provides a constraint on the time taken for melt to travel from the very bottom of the melting region to the top. [[[[[Figure 1: Melt pathways and possible sites for generation of uranium-series nuclide disequilibrium. Nuclides are fractionated at the onset of melting because of their different affinity for melt relative to the solid. The 210Pb?226Ra disequilibrium in magmas measured by Rubin et al.1 potentially records this event and so the transit time to eruption. Yet continued equilibration between upwelling melt and solid leads to different velocities for the nuclides through the mantle7, generating further disequilibrium. Generation of disequilibrium by such an 'ingrowth' process is also only effective where the proportion of the melt is small compared to the solid. That is unlikely to be the case in the main melt conduits, but tributaries to the main channels may contribute ingrown nuclides even high in the melting column. Finally, disequilibrium may be caused by contamination or degassing in the crust, but Rubin et al. make a good case against this. High resolution image and legend (71K)]]]]]] The previous speed limit for this process was clocked in 1988 ? also by Rubin, who, together with J. D. Macdougall5, used the 226Ra?230Th pair, which returns to equilibrium in about 8,000 years. The time constraints of this earlier study were thus some two orders of magnitude less stringent than those of the new observations, but at the time they came as a big surprise. In response to the perceived difficulty of moving melt so fast to the surface6, melting models were developed that relieved some of the need for speed7. However, the less glamorous but quite plausible alternative of crustal contamination has also continually raised its head (Fig. 1). Importantly, the new study1 not only requires faster melt transport than before but also provides evidence against some of the increasingly sophisticated scenarios of contamination8. The effects of contamination on the 226Ra?230Th pair are strikingly different from those on 210Pb?226Ra. Thus, models constructed to explain previously observed 226Ra?230Th excesses by contamination seem unlikely to be able to account for the new 210Pb?226Ra deficits. On the other hand, coupled 210Pb?226Ra deficits and 226Ra?230Th excesses are expected for most melting processes. Rubin et al. demonstrate that a simple model can reasonably account for their observations. Clearly, a more comprehensive exploration of the new data using refined models9, 10 will follow. But now, even more emphatically than before, it seems that you can't keep a good melt down. References 1Rubin, K. H., van der Zander, I., Smith, M. C. & Bergmanis, E. C. Nature 437, 534?538 (2005). Kelemen, P. B., Hirth, G., Shimizu, N., Spiegelman, M. & Dick, H. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 355, 283?318 (1997). | Article | 2Phipps Morgan, J. & Holtzman, B. K. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 6, Q08002; doi:10.1029/2004GC000818 (2005). | Article | 3Condomines, M., Morand, P. & All?gre, C. J. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 55, 247?256 (1981). | Article | Rubin, K. H. & Macdougall, J. D. Nature 335, 158?161 (1988). | Article | 4Faul, U. Nature 410, 920?923 (2001). | Article | Spiegelman, M. & Elliott, T. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 118, 1?20 (1993). | Article | 5Saal, A. E. & van Orman, J. A. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 5, Q02008; doi:10.1029/2003GC000620 (2004). | Article | 6Lundstrom, C. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 121, 189?204 (2000). | Article | 7Jull, M., Kelemen, P. B. & Sims, K. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 66, 4133?4148 (2002). | Article | +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From david.wesley at ucr.edu Thu May 11 11:18:50 2006 From: david.wesley at ucr.edu (David Wesley) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:18:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] CSHEMA 2006 Preliminary Schedule is now available Message-ID: <773854B2E1C0D94687157C3B57F07FDC01342E36@VCAMAIL.vcadmin.vcaitad.ucr.edu> DON'T DELAY SIGN UP FOR CSHEMA BEFORE JUNE 1ST and SAVE The technical sessions for CSHEMA 2006 have been selected and the preliminary schedule is attached. This year's speakers hail from colleges and universities from all over this fine planet we call home. >From the University of California to Boston University up to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and over to the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, everyone is coming to CSHEMA 2006 at the Disneyland Resort in beautiful Southern California. From Biosafety to Emergency Management, CSHEMA has a talk you'll want to hear. For any and all information about CSHEMA 2006, please check out www.cshema.2006.org Here is a small sample of the outstanding presentations scheduled for CSHEMA 2006: Hot Zone in the Vivarium: A Practical Approach to Managing Biohazards in Research Animals Stephen Kowalewski, University of California, San Diego Lessons Learned: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Mike Durham, Louisiana State University Training EH&S Programs to Function with the University Environment Robert Emery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston Applications of Nanotechnology in Biomedicine Nanda Gudderra, NIH CSHEMA 2006 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE (Subject to Change) Monday, July 17 Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 10:30-11:15 BIOSAFETY Considerations for the Institutional Review of Recombinant DNA Research Robert Hashimoto, Consultant EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Severe Weather Readiness: Lessons Learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma Roger Morse, AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates ENVIRONMENTAL Regulatory Update: EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Initatives Adam Steinman, Esq. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS A Survey of the Implementation Status of Environmental Management Systems in US Colleges and Universities Susanne M. Savely, Baylor College of Medicine 11:20-12:05 BIOSAFETY Hot Zone in the Vivarium: A Practical Approach to Managing Biohazards in Research Animals Stephen Kowalewski, University of California, San Diego EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Including Senior Managment in Emergency Planning Madelyn Miller, Carnegie Mellon University ENVIRONMENTAL The Benefit of Performing a Self-Disclosure audit Program for Your Facility Peter Charrington, Jacques Whitford Company MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS A Review of Safety Management Systems at Nine Hong Kong Universities Martha McDougall, Retired/Consultant Awards Luncheon 1:30-2:15 BIOSAFETY Development and Implementation of a University Select Agent Management Program Ben Owens, University of Nevada, Reno EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Pandemic Influenza: Assumptions and Myths Peter Reinhardt, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ENVIRONMENTAL Compliance through Pollution Prevention: A Case Study of the Fayetteville Campus of the University of Arkansas Dr. Miriam Lonon, University of Arkansas MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Performance-Based Safety Measurement: Modern Metrics for Modern Times Wayne Pardy, Q5 Systems Limited 2:20-3:05 BIOSAFETY Creating a Comprehensive Exercise Program: How to Meet Your Obligations in the Select Agent Final Rules Thomas Boyle, University of Pennsylvania EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 2006 Lessons Learned Marty Shaub, University of Utah ENVIRONMENTAL Encouraging Toxics Use Reduction in Academic Laboratories Susan Leite, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Campus Safety Management Systems - Working with Front-Line Units Tom McGiff, Cornell University Break 3:30-4:15 BIOSAFETY A Risk-Based Approach for Laboratory Design; Meeting the FDA's Expectation for Manufacturing Sterile Biological Products Using Aseptic Processing Wayne Thomann, Duke University EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Lessons Learned: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Mike Durham, Louisiana State University ENVIRONMENTAL Mass-Balance Calculations Pereformed to Estimate Airborne Emissions of HAPs and VOCs from University Laboratory Fume Hoods: A Case Study Luis Barthel-Rosa, Ph.D., University of Nevada, Reno MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The Role of Business Process Modeling in the MIT EHS Management System Tom Pedersen, CDM 4:20-5:05 BIOSAFETY National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) Peter Schneider, Boston University ENVIRONMENTAL Air Permitting Requirements for Cogeneration Plants Joseph Hower, ENVIRON International Corporation MANAGEMENT The Emperor Has No Hard Hat -- Creating a Safety Culture Alan Quilley, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology Tuesday, July 18 Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 10:30-11:15 LABORATORY SAFETY Implementing a Laboratory Safety Initiative Elizabeth (Betsy) Howe, University of Nebraska, Lincoln EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EH&S Recovery Operations After a Major Laboratory Fire Rebecca Lally, CIH, University of California, Irvine SUSTAINABILITY Environmentally Sustainable Initatives at USC John Edward Becker, University of Southern California MANAGEMENT-- TBD 11:20-12:05 LABORATORY SAFETY UVM's Lab Safety Partnership Barbara Benton St. Gelais, University of Vermont EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Points to Consider in a Disaster Recovery Plan Roger G. Morse, AIA, Morse Zehnter Associates SUSTAINABILITY Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Platform to Launch Sustainability Julie Hampel and Valerie Fanning, University of California, San Diego MANAGEMENT--TBD Lunch 1:00-1:45 LABORATORY SAFETY A Lab Safety Inspection System That Works: How to Inspect 850 Labs in 150 Days Pietro Gasparrini, McGill University EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Interfacing with the National Incident Management System with Campus Emergency Operations Plans Terry Logan, Middle Tennessee State University SUSTAINABILITY LEEDing Further - WSP Environmental's Experience at Ithaca College Josh Whitney and Ed Quevedo, WSPE MANAGEMENT Campus Safety: It Isn't Rocket Science.. Or Is It? Al Diaz, University of California, Riverside 1:50-2:35 LABORATORY SAFETY Implementation of a Lab Security System at Arizona State University Steven J Hunter, Leon Igras, Laura Ploughe, Lara York, Arizona State University EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Picking up the Pieces - Delgado Community College New Orleans JoAnn Copperud, CEO, Vendor SUSTAINABILITY Energy Conservation in Laboratories -- Five Big Hits..Is Safety One of Them? David Drummond, University of Wisconsin, Madison MANAGEMENT Developing Enterprise Risk Management for the University of California System Grace Crickette, University of California, Office of the President Break and Poster Sessions 3:30-4:15 LABORATORY SAFETY Student Health and Safety in the Instructional Environment Jeffrey Battaglia, Washington State University SMALL COLLEGES Small Colleges: Benchmarking and Lessons Learned Suzanne Howard, Wellesley College GENERAL SAFETY Pre-Placement Physical Program Richard Costello, University of Texas, Pan American MANAGEMENT The Compelling Display of Health & Safety Data to Facilitate Desired Decision Making Robert Emery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston 4:20-5:05 LABORATORY SAFETY Using Online Video to Support Laboratory Safety Compliance at Stanford University Robert Edgar, Stanford University GENERAL SAFETY Boundary Condition and Decision Analysis and Back Analysis of Risk Douglas Sweeney, Thompson Rivers University, University of BC MANAGEMENT Training EH&S Programs to Function with the University Environment Robert Emery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston Wednesday, July 19 Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 10:30-11:15 NANO TECHNOLOGY Safety Management Including Fire and Chemical Safety for Semiconductor/Nanotech R&D Operations David Rainer, NC State University Experiencing Sharing of a Preliminary Nanosafety Program at a Research University Dr. Samuel Yu, Denv, CIH, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Applications of Nanotechnology in Biomedicine Nanda Gudderra, NIH FIRE SAFETY Explosion and Fire in the Organic Chemistry Stockroom at UC Riverside in 2005 Russell Vernon, PhD, NR, University of California, Riverside GENERAL SAFETY And The Walls Came Tumbling Down: Implosion of Highrise Student Dormitory Paul Richmond, Iowa State University MANAGEMENT A Labyrinth of Chaos - How to Survive Change in the Expanding University Stephen Scheufler, Arizona State University 11:20-12:05 FIRE SAFETY A Chemist Looks at Laboratory Fire Safety Regulations John DeLaHunt, Colorado College TECHNOLOGY HOMEPAGE Winner to Be Announced MANAGEMENT Why We Do What We Do: Developing and Inculcating a Standard of Care Phillip Van Saun, University of California, San Diego Lunch 1:00-1:45 NANOTECHNOLOGY The NIOSH Nanotechnology Health and Safety Research Program Charles Geraci, NIOSH FIRE SAFETY A Balanced Approach to Fire Protection - Content Flammability Bob Backstrom, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. TECHNOLOGY EHS Assistant: Information Management in an EHS Program Ronald Slade, Boston University GENERAL SAFETY UC Irvine: Integrating Safety into the Workplace Chris Younghans-Haug, CSP, CIH, REH, University of California, Irvine 1:50-2:35 FIRE SAFETY University Knox-Lock Box Program Richard Benton, University of California, San Diego TECHNOLOGY The Use of Interactive Virtual Pre-Labs in Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Instruction Jeremiah Woolsey, Shailesh Prasad and Chunyan Tracy Zhang, Concordia University GENERAL SAFETY Staff and Student Use of Job Safety Analyses at the UC Berkeley Campus Gary Bayne, CHST CAC, University of California, Berkeley Break 3:00-3:45 BUILDING DESIGN How Did You Do That? Construction of a New Environmental Health & Safety Services Building A. David Inyang, Iowa State University, Environmental Health & Safety ` HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Logistical Tracking System (LTS) - Enhancing the Tracking, Safety and Security of HAZMAT at Universities and Colleges Dr. Nicolas Valcik and Esequiel Barrera, University of Texas, Dallas TECHNOLOGY Tablet PCs for EH&S Field Surveys Thomas Flynn, PhD, PE, University of Washington GENERAL SAFETY Achieving and Maintaining Safe Work Environments at Remote University Locations Brian Oatman and Mark Barros, University of California, Davis 3:50-4:35 EPA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous Materials and Earthquakes: Who Goes in After the Shaking Stop? Douglas Gallucci, CHMM, University of Washington TECHNOLOGY Database Development: Lessons Learned from UIUC's Ventures Jennifer Bedell, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign GENERAL SAFETY Gross Anatomy Lab Exposure Reduction: Our Journey to Local Exhaust Ventilation Richard Stone, University of Nevada, Reno CSHEMA 2006 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE (Subject to Change) This year's professional development conferences are so good you'll want to come early and stay late. They include: Emergency Exercises That Work: In this workshop, participants will look at best practices for designing and conducting emergency drills and exercises that work. Offered twice so you won't miss it!! Emerging Biosafety Issues for EHS Directors: This short course will provide an in-depth look at the year's emerging biological safety issues and provide a glimpse of things to come. This session is designed for EHS management personnel who need a comprehensive overview of the most current issues facing their Biosafety program managers. Conducting Peer Program Reviews: The Professional Development Seminar (PDS) on Program Review (PR) provides an in-depth look into how to conduct Environmental Health and Safety Program reviews. The PDS content is based on nationally recognized methodologies and planning strategies and is designed to provide the participants with the knowledge of how to conduct an external program review. A host of qualified speakers will present timely and informative topics and provide various templates for use by participants. NEW Offering! The EHS Management Academy 2 Days Amazing as it may seem, almost none of the EH&S management that provide support to the over 4,000 colleges and universities in this country have ever received formal academic instruction on how universities function and how EH&S programs might serve to further the mission of the institution. This situation is due in large part to the absence of formal training in this area. In 1996, the University of Texas System EH&S Academy was created with support from a grant from NIOSH to provide individuals with training on the breadth of health and safety issues inherent to the university work environment, and to instill an understanding of how universities operate. The original 40 hour version of the course has been very successful, providing training to hundreds of individuals from across Texas and the nation. The popularity of the course subsequently lead to requests for the on-site delivery of condensed versions of the course to train existing staff on key elements, such as what programmatic measures are important, how universities operate, and the special needs of faculty. This PDS will provide a condensed version of the Academy, covering topics identified as being particularly useful and timely, as judged by recent course participants. The topics covered will include a wide range of operational aspects. Ranging from how universities work to risk management and insurance, to effective program marketing and communications. The sessions are designed to be very interactive, and time will be allotted for the customization of individual program data displays - so to gain maximum value from this course, participants should bring electronic examples of the data they use to explain what they do, and the graphs used to tell this story. Those bringing their laptops will be able to modify and customize some of their displays during the course and before and after "make overs" will be presented for review by the course participants. Course content DAY 1 * University Infrastructure: Why Universities Exist, How They Work, and Understanding the Needs of Faculty * Risk Management and Insurance Primer for University EH&S Programs * Identification and Use of EH&S Metrics That Matter * 50 Things That Every Person in a University EH&S Program Should Know DAY 2 * Effectively "Selling" Your EH&S Program * Effectively Communicating Public Health Information through the Mass Media * The Compelling Display and Use of EH&S Information for Desired Decision Making * Participant Data and Report Make-Over Workshop: Presentations, Judging-- participants bring best graphs, charts, revise and present See you there From piotr.bein at imag.net Thu May 11 13:53:37 2006 From: piotr.bein at imag.net (Piotr Bein) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 11:53:37 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99m Message-ID: <0822800B-B1CA-44DA-843A-1B59C7D46FFF@imag.net> What is the biological half life in a scan of a broken wrist? What are the features of the carrying agents? Is there a mobilization solution to facilitate clearance or is the product already designed for clearance? Is the use of homeopathic chelating agents recommended to clean blood and suck up the isotope? Piotr Bein From james at readsay.com Thu May 11 22:07:12 2006 From: james at readsay.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 20:07:12 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: <001801c67561$d1578850$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <001801c67561$d1578850$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <4463FBE0.2040205@readsay.com> Dear Colonel Daxon, Again, to what data do you refer? The only data I've been able to find which can answer the question are the enthalpies of production of uranium oxide gases in table V.4 on page 98 of H. Wanner and I. Forest, eds. (2004) "Chemical Thermodynamics of Uranium" (Paris: OECD and French Nuclear Energy Agency) -- http://www.nea.fr/html/dbtdb/pubs/uranium.pdf Ask a physical chemist to interpret those figures if you don't understand them (I had to.) UO3 production at the burning temperature (>2500 K) is more likely than UO2 production, and UO2 is already established as 25% of the solid particulate product. There is reason to believe that nearly all U3O8(s) particulate product is produced from UO3(g) condensation and decomposition, and not as a direct combustion product. The French thermodynamic table lacks the enthalpies for direct production of U3O8, but common sense suggests that a large, eleven atom oxide is an unlikely combustion product in comparison to the four atom UO3. And by the way -- I forgot to mention these three important facts: 1. If UO3(g) cools below about 400 deg. C before it condenses, then it will not decompose further. 2. "Health impact assessments for depleted uranium munitions should take into account the presence of respiratory UO3" according to Salbu, B. et al. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait," Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125?135: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf 3. Production of UO3 as a combustion product is documented in: Army Environmental Policy Institute (1995) "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army," Champaign, Illinois, June 1995; and U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (1998) "Interim Summary, Total Uranium and Isotope Uranium Results," Project No. 47-EM-8111-98. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements. The > data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an > issue. The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM > To: Eric D > Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much > UO3(g)?] > > Dear Colonel Daxon, > > You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any > data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas > combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the > present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of > incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to > measure the gas products. > > Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any > sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes > only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining > dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told > by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. > > Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of > UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question > once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology > and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different > than that of the solid oxide particulates. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > Eric D wrote: > >>I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous > > posts > >>and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. > > I > >>addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have >>also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of >>"uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are > > incorrect > >>and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. >> >>Eric Daxon >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM >>To: edaxon at satx.rr.com >>Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl >>Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] >> >> >> >>>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. >> >> >>It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as >>it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense >>-- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): >> http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf >> >> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 >> UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 >> where T2 < T1 >> >>This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish >>between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. >> >>There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't >>condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial >>amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it >>happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed >>immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving >>UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses >>slower and less distant before settling. >> >>So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious >>isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not >>just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because >>the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions >>are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will >>not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such >>as are present from natural uranium. >> >>Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the >>production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic >>absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl >>ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and >>maybe even decades after exposure. >> >>Sincerely, >>James Salsman >> > > From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Fri May 12 07:55:35 2006 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:55:35 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Measuring alphas with GM? Re: Survey MDAs vs. ScanMDAs In-Reply-To: <20060512120812.97549.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41FC4A@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> <20060512120812.97549.qmail@web54306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I can confirm this, though in the Arizonan desert I did not survey the cacti for alpha-emitters, but rather the desert for cacti.... My experience was made during the Mururoa-Project of the IAEA, where I checked on all the places where we took soil, coral, plants etc. the alpha- and the beta-gamma contamination with large-area contamination monitors. Though I was extremely careful not to touch any obstacles, especially corals or tips of small plants the mylar-window was punctured within a few hours. After having replaced it by a spare one and being even more cautious the foil showed several hole within the next hour. I agree that such alpha-monitors cannot be used in the environment, but probably on an even surface like a table. Since the distance to the source is so crucial I would not even in this ideal case trust any data expressed in Bq/cm2 (or pCi/square inch...). BTW, the titanium window of the xenon gas filled beta-gamma probe survived much longer, but also this was punctured by the sharp end of a stem of a shrub. For the survey of plutonium-239 distribution we used thin NaI(Tl) crystals to measure the gamma-rays of Am-241, which was associated with the Pu. The radio was determined by radiochemical analysis of samples from soil or corals. Best regards, Franz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006/5/12, John Jacobus : > > Unless you put the material right up against the > screen, alpha surveying in the field is pretty poor. > During a training exercise, I had a friend who had > problems surveying cacti in the desert. > > From dankane at mindspring.com Fri May 12 15:36:36 2006 From: dankane at mindspring.com (Daniel F. Kane) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 16:36:36 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99m References: <0822800B-B1CA-44DA-843A-1B59C7D46FFF@imag.net> Message-ID: <005001c67603$c389df50$0a0110ac@S1098400778> In general the effective half - life (which considers both the biological half-life and the physical half-life of Tc-99m) is considered from a dosimetry standpoint to be six hours. At least that is what the manufacturers state in their package inserts. The radiopharmaceutical (either MDP or HDP) binds to the hydroxyapatite crystals of bone in a manner that is related to blood flow or metabolism. High blood flow/metabolism equals higher uptake which often suggests some disease or injury process. My guess is that once bound to the bone, it stays there. At least 50% of the injected agent is excreted by urine in the first few hours. I doubt that anyone knows what effect homeopathic chelating agents may have on this agent but usually just drinking more water suffices to clear the body of the agent rapidly and safely. Simply increase your water intake thereby increasing your urine output and facilitating the removal of any agent not bound to your bone. Of course, one should discuss this all with the physician supervising the test who has full access to your medical history and physical state. The nuclear medicine physician responsible for your care should be consulted. Dan Kane Associates in Medical Physics, LLC www.medphysics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Piotr Bein" To: Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:53 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tc-99m > What is the biological half life in a scan of a broken wrist? > What are the features of the carrying agents? Is there a mobilization > solution to facilitate clearance or is the product already designed for > clearance? > Is the use of homeopathic chelating agents recommended to clean blood and > suck up the isotope? > > Piotr Bein > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From rhelbig at california.com Fri May 12 20:42:13 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:42:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [DU-WATCH] House Passes Rep. McDermott DU Amendment to Defense Bill In-Reply-To: <20060513013648.90457.qmail@web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bad news since McDermott heavily influenced by Moret and Rokke, for example, the forged document purporting to be memo to Maj Gen Groves about DU in 1942. Hope Senate has more sense. Maybe though, the resulting study will prove once and for all that there is no danger to veterans or their children. We can only hope. Apparently, McDermott in his ignorance has no knowledge of the already extensive studies which have proved the activists wrong time and time again, but their clever use of internet and obscure world wide radio has kept their version of the issue in the minds of legislators. Roger Helbig --- R Rands wrote: Note word is being spread by the Australian arch-activist Robert Rands > To: > From: "R Rands" > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:41:31 +1000 > Subject: [DU-WATCH] House Passes Rep. McDermott DU > Amendment to Defense Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Denise Nichols > > > The McDermott(WA) amendment to the DOD bill for a > study on DU passed the floor of the House at > approximately 2:27 EST! It was carried in floor > proceedings carried on CSpan, the Committee did not > fight the amendment and it was passed by voice vote > to be included in the Defense Bill. > > Sincerely, > Denise > DSNurse > > > House Passes Rep. McDermott Amendment > Possible DU Health Effects on Soldiers Will Be > Studied > For Immediate Release, May 11, 2006 > > After years of relentless and unwavering efforts, > including speeches, interviews, news conferences, > working with groups like Physicians for Social > Responsibility, and even appearing on a song in a > newly released Punk Rock album, in order to raise > public awareness, the House of Representatives today > passed legislation (DoD Authorization) that includes > an amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D) ordering a > comprehensive study on possible health effects from > exposure to depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and > their children. > > "As long and winding as the road has been to get > where we are today, this is only the beginning- but > this is a great day because we have taken the first > step to defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and > defend us," McDermott said. > Shortly after passage, Rep. McDermott received a > letter from James King, the national executive > director of AMVETS, the American Veterans > organization: > > "This is a very important issue for AMVETS and its > membership. Our ultimate goal is to provide atomic > veterans with the tools necessary to file a claim > and be considered for due compensation. Your > amendment will help begin this process. > "Again, thank you for your amendment and your > support of veterans and their families." > > Rep. McDermott has spent several years working to > get the House to study DU. He explained the reason > behind his passionate advocacy for the issue in this > way: > > "For me, this is a personal, not political, quest. > My professional life turned from medicine to > politics after my service in the U.S. Navy during > the 1960s, when I treated combat soldiers returning > from Vietnam. > > "Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange > posed any danger to U.S. soldiers who were exposed. > Decades later, the truth finally emerged. Agent > Orange harmed our soldiers. It made thousands sick > and some died. During all those years of denial, we > stood by and did nothing while soldiers suffered. No > more Agent Orange! > > "If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it with > statistically valid, and independent scientific > studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to > know it, and act quickly as any doctor would, to use > all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our > soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that > leads us." > > The amendment to undertake a comprehensive study of > possible health effects to soldiers from exposure to > depleted uranium was contained in the Department of > Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the House > on Thursday evening. > > Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium > enrichment process. Because it is very dense, the > U.S. military uses DU for munitions like > armor-piercing bullets and tank shells, and as a > protective shield around tanks. When used in > munitions, DU pulverizes into a fine dust upon > impact; it can hang in the air, be inhaled or seep > into the soil. > > During the Gulf War, the U.S. military used > approximately 300 metric tons of DU as munitions. To > date in the Iraq War, approximately 150 metric tons > have been used. During conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, > Serbia, and Montenegro, about 12 metric tons were > used. (A metric ton is slightly more than 2,200 > pounds.) > In addition to its own use, the United States has > provided or sold DU and DU munitions to several > other nations. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > McDermott Presses Amendment to Study Possible DU > Health Impacts on U.S. Soldiers, notes Ken Kadlec > > 2006-05-11 | Jim McDermott's amendment, which adds a > provision to the DoD Authorization measure to > require the U.S. Secretary of Defense to conduct a > study on the health impact that Depleted Uranium has > on soldiers, will be considered on the House floor > today (Thursday, May 11). Majority has indicated > that they will accept the amendment, and it will > pass the House later this morning. > > Ken Kadlec > > Photo of an Afghani child victim of "Depleted" > Uranium (DU), courtesy of the > Afghan DU & Recovery Fund: > http://www.afghandufund.org > > Please have the courage to view other photos on the > above website and at: > The Center for an Informed America: NEWSLETTER #13 > August 13, 2002; > http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr13.html > For greater clarity, please click the photo and then > continue ... > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Select Legislative DayMay 02, 2006May 03, 2006May > 04, 2006May 08, 2006May 09, 2006May 10, 2006May 11, > 2006 > > > > CURRENT HOUSE FLOOR PROCEEDINGS > LEGISLATIVE DAY OF MAY 11, 2006 > 109TH CONGRESS - SECOND SESSION > > H.R. 5122: > to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for > military activities of the Department of Defense, to > prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal > year 2007, and for other purposes > 2:28 P.M. - > DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 811, > the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes > of debate on the Tierney amendment. > > Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney. > An amendment numbered 22 printed in House Report > 109-461 to restructure the missile defense program > to be consistent with a Congressional Budget Office > (CBO) alternative proposal; to prohibit the > deployment of: (1) Ground-Based Midcourse Defense > beyond the authorized systems; and (2) any > space-based interceptors; and reduce the Missile > Defense Agency's (MDA's) $9.3 billion budget by > $4.747 billion so as to still enable the MDA to > focus on research and development as well as testing > and upgrades to current systems. > > 2:27 P.M. - > On agreeing to the McDermott amendment Agreed to by > voice vote. > > 2:23 P.M. - > DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 811, > the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes > of debate on the McDermott amendment. > > 2:22 P.M. - > Amendment offered by Mr. McDermott. > > An amendment numbered 13 printed in House Report > 109-461 to direct the Secretary of Defense, in > consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs > and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to > conduct a comprehensive study of the health effects > of exposure to depleted uranium munitions. > > On agreeing to the Hooley amendment as modified > Agreed to by voice vote. > > "There are too many legitimate medical questions > concerning possible adverse health effects on our > soldiers in Iraq from the U.S. military's use of > depleted uranium," McDermott said. "We owe it to our > soldiers to get answers." > > Earlier in this Congress, McDermott introduced H.R. > 2410. This bill calls for a comprehensive study of > health effects from exposure to DU, a study of the > environment where DU has been tested in the United > States, and mitigation and cleanup of contaminated > sites, if studies find DU to be harmful. > > The Pentagon routinely states that DU is a safe and > effective weapon, and the Republican-controlled > Congress refuses to hold a hearing on the issue or > McDermott's legislation. However, many veterans of > the Gulf Wars believe that exposure to depleted > uranium could be a cause of Gulf War Syndrome. > > "As a medical doctor, I know the difference between > a cursory and a comprehensive study," McDermott > said. "We don't have the kind of credible, > independent, scientific evidence on which to judge > DU harmful or not. U.S. soldiers deserve better than > 'trust us,' which is what the Pentagon is saying. > They said that before during the Vietnam War when > concerns were raised about the use of Agent Orange. > Decades later, the Pentagon finally admitted Agent > Orange was harmful. I have the same concerns about > DU." > > McDermott said his amendment differs from his > legislation in order to jump parliamentary hurdles > to be included in the DoD authorization bill. The > amendment Reps. McDermott and Shays submitted calls > only for a comprehensive study of health effects on > U.S. soldiers. > > "I was willing to scale back my DU legislation to > fit the narrow requirements of the Rules Committee," > McDermott said, "because U.S. soldiers have every > right to know if exposure to depleted uranium might > harm them now or in the future." > "Our soldiers deserve our thanks, and they deserve > our commitment to a comprehensive medical study that > will answer scientifically and independently whether > DU poses health dangers." From rhelbig at california.com Fri May 12 22:46:28 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 20:46:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] House Passes McDermott Depleted Uranium Study Amendment Message-ID: <012101c67641$383b4cc0$9d425142@roger1> House Passes McDermott Depleted Uranium Study Amendment Possible DU Health Effects on Soldiers Will Be Studied May 11, 2006 For Immediate Release After years of relentless and unwavering efforts, including speeches, interviews, news conferences, working with groups like Physicians for Social Responsibility, and even appearing on a song in a newly released Punk Rock album, in order to raise public awareness, the House of Representatives today passed legislation that includes an amendment by Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-D) ordering a comprehensive study on possible health effects from exposure to depleted uranium on U.S. soldiers and their children. See McDermott's introduction of his amendment calling for a comprehensive study of the effects of depleted uranium "As long and winding as the road has been to get where we are today, this is only the beginning- but this is a great day because we have taken the first step to defend the U.S. soldiers who protect and defend us," McDermott said. Shortly after passage, Rep. McDermott received a letter from James King, the national executive director of AMVETS, the American Veterans organization: "This is a very important issue for AMVETS and its membership. Our ultimate goal is to provide atomic veterans with the tools necessary to file a claim and be considered for due compensation. Your amendment will help begin this process. Again, thank you for your amendment and your support of veterans and their families." Rep. McDermott has spent several years working to get the House to study DU. He explained the reason behind his passionate advocacy for the issue in this way: "For me, this is a personal, not political, quest. My professional life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s, when I treated combat soldiers returning from Vietnam. "Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed any danger to U.S. soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth finally emerged. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers. It made thousands sick and some died. During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while soldiers suffered. No more Agent Orange! "If DU poses no danger, we need to prove it with statistically valid, and independent scientific studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it, and act quickly as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick. We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads us." The amendment to undertake a comprehensive study of possible health effects to soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium was contained in the Department of Defense Authorization Bill, which passed the House on Thursday evening. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process. Because it is very dense, the U.S. military uses DU for munitions like armor-piercing bullets and tank shells, and as a protective shield around tanks. When used in munitions, DU pulverizes into a fine dust upon impact; it can hang in the air, be inhaled or seep into the soil. During the Gulf War, the U.S. military used approximately 300 metric tons of DU as munitions. To date in the Iraq War, approximately 150 metric tons have been used. During conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, about 12 metric tons were used. (A metric ton is slightly more than 2,200 pounds.) In addition to its own use, the United States has provided or sold DU and DU munitions to several other nations. -30- http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/pr060511b.shtml From gpblackwood at yahoo.com Sat May 13 15:39:59 2006 From: gpblackwood at yahoo.com (Gerry Blackwood) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] U.N. Finds New Uranium Traces in Iran Message-ID: <20060513203959.73544.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com> [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] By WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: May 13, 2006 Atomic inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment linked to an Iranian military base, raising new questions about whether Iran harbors a clandestine program to make nuclear bombs, diplomats said yesterday. It is the second such discovery in three years of United Nations inspections in Iran. As the Security Council debates how to handle the atomic impasse with Tehran, the finding is likely to deepen skepticism about Iran's claims that its program is entirely peaceful. Yesterday, diplomats familiar with the discovery said its ultimate significance was unclear. "There are still lots of questions," a senior European diplomat said. "So it's not a smoking gun." They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The main puzzle, the senior diplomat added, is whether the traces of highly enriched uranium could be explained by the inadvertent contamination of machinery that Iran obtained abroad. Even so, the diplomat said, that explanation would still link the discovery to Iran's military, which dissidents have long accused of concealing a secret effort to make an atom bomb. Worse, he said, would be an outcome suggesting that Iran had enriched the uranium to a level far beyond most peaceful uses. He said further analysis of the samples might provide an unambiguous answer. European diplomats said the traces of highly enriched uranium had been found by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on equipment linked to the Military Physics Research Center at the Lavizan-Shian base. Iran leveled Lavizan more than two years ago, stirring suspicions that it had been part of a secret nuclear program. Last night, a senior Bush administration official said the United States had long expected that some traces of nuclear activity would be linked to the demolished base. But he added that Washington also expected Iran would claim that the traces came from elsewhere. Highly enriched uranium contains 20 percent or more of a rare form of uranium, known as its 235 isotope. Bomb-grade uranium is usually defined as 80 percent or more, and can be fashioned into the core of a nuclear weapon. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima contained 140 pounds of highly enriched uranium. The senior European diplomat said the samples from Iran indicated the presence of highly enriched, but not necessarily bomb-grade, uranium. Iran says its atomic program is meant to enrich uranium to the relatively low grades needed for the production of electrical power in nuclear reactors, about 3 or 4 percent, a level that the inspectors recently confirmed. But the United States and some of its allies call the Iranian effort a cover for the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. Iranian officials have said that the Lavizan base was established in 1989 to provide scientific advice to the Defense Ministry. Atomic inspectors say one of its functions was to acquire materials and equipment that, if diverted from benign research, could be used to enrich uranium. Despite the base's destruction, the inspectors, starting in 2004, were eventually able to locate some equipment linked to the base, and to examine it for signs of nuclear materials. The I.A.E.A.'s most recent report on Iran, issued on April 28, mentioned the analysis but no conclusions. In interviews, diplomats said environmental samples from the equipment were sent to the agency's center in Seibersdorf, Austria, one of the world's top laboratories for atomic sleuthing. Following the usual practice, the samples were then sent to a network of laboratories around the globe to confirm the findings. It was unclear if the sampled equipment came from the Lavizan base or from a technical school associated with it. The I.A.E.A. report said the samples came from "equipment said to have been procured for use by the university." For two years, the inspectors pressed hard to track down materials from the base, in part because an Iranian opposition group had charged that the authorities had removed enrichment equipment from Lavizan before demolishing the buildings and carting off the rubble. The first episode involving a mystery of highly enriched uranium began in late 2003, when the inspectors did environmental sampling of some Iranian centrifuges ??? machines that spin extremely quickly to enrich, or concentrate, uranium into fuel for reactors and bombs ??? and found traces of the radioactive material. The finding set off international alarm about the country's intentions, and raised questions about where the material had originated. Iran claimed it was contamination from imported equipment. The agency found that at least some of the highly enriched uranium came from equipment imported from Pakistan. Diplomats said the agency was comparing its knowledge of the signatures of the Pakistani uranium to that found on the equipment linked to the Lavizan base. If it matches, one diplomat said, that would tend to support accidental contamination. "If it doesn't," he added, "it raises an interesting issue." The agency, in its April report, said, "Further access to the procured equipment is necessary." But diplomats cautioned that such access and cooperation were unlikely to occur. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington for this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/world/middleeast/13iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sat May 13 20:05:07 2006 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 20:05:07 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVE4yEA Message-ID: <003f01c676f2$71087260$0a00a8c0@D8RSR871> The discussion below indicates a change in position. The discussion supports my previous posts as do the "Facts" quoted. Fact 1 agrees with the temperature discussion on an early post I made. Fact 2 has already been accomplished. The Capstone report addressed it. Fact 3, a publication I co-authored, is in line with my other posts and also discussed UO3. Eric Daxon -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:james at readsay.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:07 PM To: Eric D Cc: 'James Salsman'; alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much UO3(g)?] Dear Colonel Daxon, Again, to what data do you refer? The only data I've been able to find which can answer the question are the enthalpies of production of uranium oxide gases in table V.4 on page 98 of H. Wanner and I. Forest, eds. (2004) "Chemical Thermodynamics of Uranium" (Paris: OECD and French Nuclear Energy Agency) -- http://www.nea.fr/html/dbtdb/pubs/uranium.pdf Ask a physical chemist to interpret those figures if you don't understand them (I had to.) UO3 production at the burning temperature (>2500 K) is more likely than UO2 production, and UO2 is already established as 25% of the solid particulate product. There is reason to believe that nearly all U3O8(s) particulate product is produced from UO3(g) condensation and decomposition, and not as a direct combustion product. The French thermodynamic table lacks the enthalpies for direct production of U3O8, but common sense suggests that a large, eleven atom oxide is an unlikely combustion product in comparison to the four atom UO3. And by the way -- I forgot to mention these three important facts: 1. If UO3(g) cools below about 400 deg. C before it condenses, then it will not decompose further. 2. "Health impact assessments for depleted uranium munitions should take into account the presence of respiratory UO3" according to Salbu, B. et al. (2005) "Oxidation states of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait," Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 78, 125-135: http://www.bovik.org/du/Salbu-uranyl-detected.pdf 3. Production of UO3 as a combustion product is documented in: Army Environmental Policy Institute (1995) "Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army," Champaign, Illinois, June 1995; and U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (1998) "Interim Summary, Total Uranium and Isotope Uranium Results," Project No. 47-EM-8111-98. Sincerely, James Salsman Eric D wrote: > The data presented do not support the conclusions in your statements. The > data to date (even in the articles you quote) support that it is not an > issue. The message conveyed in your last statement is incorrect. > > Eric Daxon > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:37 PM > To: Eric D > Cc: alexandc at Battelle.org; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produces how much > UO3(g)?] > > Dear Colonel Daxon, > > You say the data don't support my conclusions, but there isn't any > data, is there? Nobody has ever even bothered to measure the gas > combustion products, from Gilchrist's 1970s work through to the > present, the people charged with quantifying the health risk of > incendiary depleted uranium munitions have never even attempted to > measure the gas products. > > Your suggestion that air is "too cool for UO3" doesn't make any > sense. UO3(g) doesn't decompose at any temperature; it decomposes > only if it has a chance to condense. The proportion remaining > dissolved in air won't decompose until it condenses. I am told > by Dr. Alexander that UO3(g) is quite stable. > > Won't you please support an empirical measurement of the amount of > UO3(g) produced by uranium burning in air to settle this question > once and for all? There is a pressing need, because the toxicology > and appropriate means of treating inhaled UO3(g) is very different > than that of the solid oxide particulates. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > Eric D wrote: > >>I stand by my statements. The points make below were made in previous > > posts > >>and the data do not support the previous posts or the conclusions drawn. > > I > >>addressed the surfaces for condensation - particulates in the air. I have >>also addressed the temperature issue - too cool for UO3. The discussion of >>"uranyl-oxide" and the discussion uranium isotope ratios below are > > incorrect > >>and the conclusions drawn are also incorrect. >> >>Eric Daxon >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: James Salsman [mailto:james at bovik.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:08 AM >>To: edaxon at satx.rr.com >>Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl >>Subject: [ RadSafe ] [Fwd: RE: uranium combustion produceshowmuchUO3(g)?] >> >> >> >>>... The cooling causes it to change to U3O8. The results of the >>>Capstone Study are consistent with this. The statement that UO3 >>>vapor poses a significant hazard is not. >> >> >>It's not the cooling per se, but the condensation which occurs as >>it cools -- if and only if there is a surface on which to condense >>-- and then subsequent decomposition. See p. 213 of Wilson (1961): >> http://www.bovik.org/du/Wilson61.pdf >> >> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) --> UO3(g) at T1 >> UO3(g) --> 1/3 U3O8(s) + 1/6 O2(g) at T2 >> where T2 < T1 >> >>This is why the Capstone and earlier studies don't distinguish >>between UO3(s) and U3O8(s) -- the former becomes the latter. >> >>There is always going to be some fraction of UO3(g) which doesn't >>condense, and for open-air combustion, it's a fairly substantial >>amount. Cool UO3(g) is still UO3(g), until it condenses. If it >>happens to reach lungs before condensing, it's absorbed >>immediately without any corresponding trace of slowly-dissolving >>UO2(s) which accompanies the particulate dust, which disperses >>slower and less distant before settling. >> >>So, inhaled uranyl oxide will not leave as much of an obvious >>isotope ratio signature in urine as the particulate dusts, not >>just because of the lack of persistent UO2(s), but also because >>the uranyl ion translocates to cellular nuclei (uranyl ions >>are used to stain DNA, to which they have an affinity) and will >>not appear in blood or urine as much as uranium(VI) ions, such >>as are present from natural uranium. >> >>Again, I'm urging everyone I can to actually measure the >>production of UO3(g) empirically, as well as the metabolic >>absorption in potentially exposed populations. Absorbed uranyl >>ought to be detectable in white blood cell nuclei years and >>maybe even decades after exposure. >> >>Sincerely, >>James Salsman >> > > From lboing at anl.gov Mon May 15 12:00:41 2006 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 12:00:41 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NUREG-1507 PDF In-Reply-To: <000901c67371$fc38aff0$6401a8c0@DB44LX51> Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847892AF57E@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> The DDSC website has lots of good HP related references and resources. L Boing -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Thomas Potter Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:08 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Ron Reif'; JGinniver at aol.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] NUREG-1507 PDF NUREG-1507 June 1998 version available in PDF at following site: http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/instrument/NUREG-1507.pdf Don't know why it is unavailable at NRC site. Tom Potter Original message: Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:20:53 -0400 From: "Ron Reif" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Survey MDAs vs. Scan MDAs To: Cc: 'John Andrews' , 'steven pike' , 'Mary McGeoghegan' Message-ID: <001101c672c3$c5bfac20$ca548080 at admin.whoi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Radsafe list: I'm trying to determine the Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) for gross alpha measurements using a GM detector coupled to a rate meter. Some colleagues have pointed me to NUREG-1757, which I have reviewed. NUREG-1757 refers to NUREG-1507, "Minimum Detectable Concentrations with Typical Radiation Survey Instruments for Various Contaminants and Field Conditions", June 1998. However, I cannot locate this document on NRC's web site. Apparently, they do not keep 'older' documents on their web site. Does anyone have the proper MDA equations for evaluating (a priori) the sensitivity of a rate meter? It is my understanding that the standard MDA equation for integrated measurements (scaler mode) does not apply to rate meters. A link to NUREG-1507 would also be appreciated. Please reply directly to me. Thank you. _______________________________________________ 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/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Tue May 16 00:03:51 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:03:51 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please send it again References: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F41F8A0@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> <016501c665d6$86cf0a00$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Message-ID: <002b01c678a6$39fbdef0$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> I received yestarday a personal request on the Juarez accident. By mistake I deleted the message. Could the colleague send me again Jose joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel From rhelbig at california.com Tue May 16 05:28:50 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:28:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The Eureka Reporter - Article Message-ID: <00c601c678d3$924d2640$de435142@roger1> How to contact the Eureka Reporter A Locally Owned Newspaper Established 2003 Newsroom (707) 476-8000 (707) 476-0623 (fax) Advertising (707) 476-8000 (707) 476-0622 (fax) ads at eurekareporter.com 215 Fourth Street Eureka, CA 95501 Executive Staff Judi Pollace, Publisher judi at eurekareporter.com Glenn Franco Simmons, Managing Editor editor at eurekareporter.com Cori Reed, Advertising Director cori at eurekareporter.com Kevin Bell, Design Director kevin at eurekareporter.com Diane M. Batley, Assistant Managing Editor diane at eurekareporter.com Steve Sartor, Circulation Director steve at eurekareporter.com Steve Jackson, Director of Production Operations sjackson at eurekareporter.com Ray Hamill, Sports Editor rhamill at eurekareporter.com Editorial Staff Wendy Butler, Arts Editor wbutler at eurekareporter.com Christine Bensen-Messinger, Reporter christine at eurekareporter.com Nathan Rushton, Reporter nathan at eurekareporter.com Ann Rohde, Copy Editor arohde at eurekareporter.com Jackie Christensen, Sports Reporter jackie at eurekareporter.com Sean Quincey, Sports Reporter sean at eurekareporter.com Courtney Hunt, Business/Youth Editor courtney at eurekareporter.com Carol Harrison, Health/Travel Editor Charrison at eurekareporter.com Bryan DeMain, Sports Reporter bdemain at eurekareporter.com Tyson Ritter, Photographer tritter at eurekareporter.com Heather Muller, General Assignment Reporter hmuller at eurekareporter.com Kathleen Adkins, Home/Life Editor kadkins at eurekareporter.com Rebecca S. Bender, Reporter rbender at eurekareporter.com Sharon Letts, Reporter sletts at eurekareporter.com Mike Morrow, Reporter mmorrow at eurekareporter.com Katie O'Neill, Photographer koneill at eurekareporter.com Megan McCulloch, Community Coordinator mmcculloch at eurekareporter.com Design Staff Jen McFerrin, Designer jennifer at eurekareporter.com Brian Binder, Designer brian at eurekareporter.com Marcella Humphrey, Designer mhumphrey at eurekareporter.com Advertising Staff Leslie Sampson, Advertising Sales lsampson at eurekareporter.com Andrea Georgeson, Advertising Sales ageorgeson at eurekareporter.com Denise Mildbrandt, Advertising Sales dmildbrandt at eurekareporter.com Trina Knips, Advertising Assistant trina at eurekareporter.com Krista Chalker, Classified Ad Sales kchalker at eurekareporter http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=10544 Bill on depleted uranium in Senate by Rebecca S. Bender, 4/25/2006 A bill now working its way through the state Senate would set up a health screening system for U.S. veterans who may have been exposed to depleted uranium. SB 1720, the Veterans? Health and Safety Act, was introduced by State Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata) in February. Recognizing the extensive use of depleted uranium by U.S. Armed Forces since the 1991 Gulf War and the health risks associated with the radioactive heavy metal ? including kidney and lung damage, cancer and genetic mutations ? the bill designates health screenings for veterans who may have been exposed. ?The purpose of this act is to safeguard the health of California?s veterans by assisting them in obtaining federal treatment services, including ?best practice? health screening tests capable of detecting low levels of depleted uranium,? it stated. It requires the adjutant general and the secretary of the California Department of Veterans Affairs to provide outreach and assistance to eligible veterans, defined as those who return to California following service in an area where depleted uranium was known to be used, or in an area that was designated as a combat zone by the U.S. president after 1990. The health screenings would include a bioassay procedure capable of detecting depleted uranium at low levels and discriminating between different uranium isotopes. An annual report on the efficacy of pre- and post-deployment training related to detecting exposure would also be submitted to the state legislative policy committees dealing with veterans? affairs. Last week, the bill was re-referred to the Committee on Veterans? Affairs. Another bill introduced by Chesbro and co-authored by Assemblymember Patty Berg (D-Eureka) expresses support for the federal Veterans? Right to Know Act. That bill, HR 4259, was introduced in Congress by U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Napa). It signed into law, it would create a commission to investigate chemical and biological tests involving members of the armed services, particularly Project 112 and the Shipboard Hazard and Defense Project. It has been in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel since the end of November. The California lawmakers? bill of support was also re-referred to the Committee on Veterans? Affairs last week. From koskokd at aol.com Tue May 16 08:55:55 2006 From: koskokd at aol.com (koskokd at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:55:55 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem Message-ID: <8C84707964C3531-1154-16D@mblk-r39.sysops.aol.com> Dear Colleagues, I am looking for information regarding the definition of "reasonable" as it applies to a person-rem of exposure. I expect that the definition varies greatly depending on the applicable regulatory agency and/or the political drivers at a particular site. Specifically, I would like to know what value (in dollars per person-rem) is used at your site when considering work approach, engineering controls etc.. I would also be interested in knowing if your site has no assigned monetary value directly associated to a person-rem. Thank you in advance. Best Regards, Kevin D. Kosko President K2 Environmental Services LLC. Phone:(937) 470-2655 Fax: (937) 743-3012 e-mail:KOSKOKD at aol.com ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. From Danb at DNFSB.GOV Tue May 16 09:49:45 2006 From: Danb at DNFSB.GOV (Dan Burnfield) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:49:45 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 2005 Summer School Presentation Message-ID: <4469AE49.0EE1.00C8.0@DNFSB.GOV> During the 2005 Summer school there was a presentation made by a senior CH2M HILL executive with a slide called the silver Bullet. Does anyone have a copy of this presentation they would be willing to share. Thanks. Dan Burnfield, CHP PE Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave, NW Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.694.7113 Fax: 202.208.6518 Email danb at dnfsb.gov From llowe at senes.ca Tue May 16 15:06:09 2006 From: llowe at senes.ca (Leo M. Lowe) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 16:06:09 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Transport Shielding Requirements for Uranium ? Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060516154223.02b2c320@mail.senes.ca> Uranium ore and physical concentrates of such ores are classified as LSA-I in the IAEA transport regulations (TS-R-1), which means that they can be shipped in regular IP-1 packages, or unpackaged if shipped under exclusive use. However, high grade ores and physical concentrates can exhibit elevated radiation levels, in the order of 0.5 mSv/h or higher at 1 meter distance [TS-R-1, para. 526(c) suggests using 0.4 mSv/h at 1 m]. Since the maximum radiation levels for road or rail vehicles for consignments under exclusive use is 0.1 mSv/h at 2 m from the sides of the vehicle [TS-R-1 para.572{c)], does this mean that such ores and concentrates must be shielded when transported? I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for such materials. Regards, Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys. SENES Consultants Limited llowe at senes.ca www.senes.ca Tel: 905-764-9380 Fax: 905-764-9386 This transmission is intended only for the addressee and may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information. Any unauthorized disclosure, use or retention is strictly prohibited. SENES does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in contents or attachments. Information is provided for use "as is" by the addressee. Revised documents must not be represented as SENES work product, without express, written permission of a SENES Director. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Tue May 16 15:35:24 2006 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 13:35:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Transport Shielding Requirements for Uranium ? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060516154223.02b2c320@mail.senes.ca> Message-ID: Leo This is a good question. Perhaps the answer depends on the country. I would ask the Canadian trucking associations at Jade Transportation (http://www.jadetrans.com/aboutus.html) British Columbia Trucking Association (http://www.bctrucking.com) Alberta Motor Transport Association (http://www.amta.ca) Saskatchewan Trucking Association (http://www.sasktrucking.com) Ontario Trucking Association (http://www.ontruck.org/memberlinks) Transport Quebec: Trucking (http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/camionnage/index.asp) Transport Canada 2000 (http://www.transport2000.ca/atlantic/about.html) Canadian Trucking Alliance (http://www.cantruck.com) Canadian Trucking Association( http://www.cta.ca/contacts.php) Regards John _________________ John R Johnson, Ph.D. ***** President, IDIAS, Inc 4535 West 9-Th Ave Vancouver B. C. V6R 2E2 (604) 222-9840 idias at interchange.ubc.ca ***** -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Leo M. Lowe Sent: May 16, 2006 1:06 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Transport Shielding Requirements for Uranium ? Uranium ore and physical concentrates of such ores are classified as LSA-I in the IAEA transport regulations (TS-R-1), which means that they can be shipped in regular IP-1 packages, or unpackaged if shipped under exclusive use. However, high grade ores and physical concentrates can exhibit elevated radiation levels, in the order of 0.5 mSv/h or higher at 1 meter distance [TS-R-1, para. 526(c) suggests using 0.4 mSv/h at 1 m]. Since the maximum radiation levels for road or rail vehicles for consignments under exclusive use is 0.1 mSv/h at 2 m from the sides of the vehicle [TS-R-1 para.572{c)], does this mean that such ores and concentrates must be shielded when transported? I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for such materials. Regards, Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys. SENES Consultants Limited llowe at senes.ca www.senes.ca Tel: 905-764-9380 Fax: 905-764-9386 This transmission is intended only for the addressee and may contain PRIVILEGED or CONFIDENTIAL information. Any unauthorized disclosure, use or retention is strictly prohibited. SENES does not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in contents or attachments. Information is provided for use "as is" by the addressee. Revised documents must not be represented as SENES work product, without express, written permission of a SENES Director. _______________________________________________ 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/ From joseroze at netvision.net.il Wed May 17 01:25:09 2006 From: joseroze at netvision.net.il (Jose Julio Rozental) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:25:09 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem References: <8C84707964C3531-1154-16D@mblk-r39.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00e001c6797a$cd97b380$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> By 8/23/99 similar question was made, my information at that time can be used today. Pleaso GO TO http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9908/msg00533.html I will only add one more reference IAEA Safety Series 109 Intervention Criteria in a Nuclear or Radiation Emergency, 1994 - infortunably no more available to download. Look at page 72 - I.10 - I.16 Value Assigned to avoiding health detriment. Jose Julio Rozental joseroze at netvision.net.il Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem > Dear Colleagues, > > I am looking for information regarding the definition of "reasonable" as it applies to a person-rem of exposure. I expect that the definition varies greatly depending on the applicable regulatory agency and/or the political drivers at a particular site. Specifically, I would like to know what value (in dollars per person-rem) is used at your site when considering work approach, engineering controls etc.. I would also be interested in knowing if your site has no assigned monetary value directly associated to a person-rem. Thank you in advance. > > Best Regards, > > Kevin D. Kosko > President > K2 Environmental Services LLC. > Phone:(937) 470-2655 > Fax: (937) 743-3012 > e-mail:KOSKOKD at aol.com > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From eport at rssi.us Wed May 17 10:12:57 2006 From: eport at rssi.us (Eli Port) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:12:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20060517101142.032884e8@mail.rssi.us> HEALTH PHYSICS POSITION RSSI is a Morton Grove, Illinois Health Physics consulting organization that provides solutions to regulatory, operational, and environmental problems. RSSI is seeking applicants who have a BS or MS in Health Physics or another science, and zero to two years of internship or practical experience, for an entry-level position in Health Physics. During the first half year, a new employee will gain theoretical and applied skills beyond those acquired in school. In this first half year of employment, a new member of RSSI's staff will work in operational Health Physics programs, environmental radiological health studies, and perform laboratory analysis with high-resolution gamma spectroscopy, alpha spectroscopy, low-level alpha-beta counting, and alpha track dosimetry. Following this six month period, the employee will be assessed for knowledge and understanding and will be encouraged to grow in regulatory affairs and intervention, and to prepare to assume positions with greater decision-making responsibilities. For the first several years, individuals will be closely mentored and regularly evaluated for success and for future growth potential. Benefits include health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, and reimbursement for educational expenses. To learn about RSSI, go to www.rssi.us. Send resumes to eport at rssi.us or call Eli Port at 847-965-1999. Thanks. Eli Port, CHP, CIH, P.E. RSSI 6312 W. Oakton St. Morton Grove, IL 60053-2723 VOICE: +1-847-965-1999 24X7 FAX: +1-847-965-1991 http://www.rssi.us From tom.odou at unlv.edu Wed May 17 11:14:15 2006 From: tom.odou at unlv.edu (tom.odou at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:14:15 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] UNLV Radiological Safety Officer Posting Message-ID: The University of Nevada Las Vegas is looking for a University RSO. The job listing is below, please contact Aurali Dade (see listing below) for more information. Thanks, Tom O'Dou, CHP, RRPT Director of Radiation Laboratories Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas ----- Forwarded by Tom O'dou/UNLV on 05/17/2006 09:03 AM ----- Aurali Dade/UNLV Sent by: aurali Dade 05/12/2006 02:37 PM To Becky Delacruz/UNLV at UNLV, Tom O'dou/UNLV at UNLV, Ben Fausett/UNLV at UNLV, George Fratus/UNLV at UNLV, Rowena Gonzalez/UNLV at UNLV, Ed Gannon/UNLV at UNLV, Larry Warkentin/UNLV at UNLV, Robert Hoffman/UNLV at UNLV, Toni Lee/UNLV at UNLV, Johnny Centineo/UNLV at UNLV, Michael Means/UNLV at UNLV, Abigail Rakvica/UNLV at UNLV, Ellen Fleck/UNLV at UNLV, Billy Ayers/UNLV at UNLV, Michele Washington/UNLV at UNLV, Steen Madsen/UNLV at UNLV, czerwin2 at unlv.nevada.edu, Mark Rudin/UNLV at UNLV, Ronald Yasbin/UNLV at UNLV, mjo at unr.edu cc Subject UNLV Radiological Safety Officer Posting Here is the link: http://www.higheredjobs.com/institution/details.cfm?JobCode=175182254 Radiological Safety Officer Institution: University of Nevada Las Vegas Location: Las Vegas, NV Category: Admin - Occupational and Environmental Safety Posted: 05/12/2006 Application Due: Open Until Filled Type: Full Time The Risk Management and Safety (RMS) Department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) seeks applicants for the position of Radiological Safety Officer (RSO). This is a full-time, 12-month renewable appointment. RESPONSIBILITIES The Radiological Safety Officer (RSO) reports to the Assistant Director, Environmental Management & Laboratory Safety. Responsibilities include ensuring a safe working research and educational environment with respect to the use of radiation, radioactive materials, and non-ionizing radiation for research and teaching on the UNLV campus under a broad scope license. The person filling this position is expected to maintain all State licenses for radioactive materials and registrations of radiation producing machines and to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and policies. He/she is expected to oversee the radiation protection program, assess potential exposures to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and minimize the hazards associated with the use, transport, storage and disposal of sources by establishing and implementing appropriate policies and procedures. He/she also must have the ability to interpret personnel dose reports, perform surveys and inspections, provide all levels of training related to radioactive materials, provide technical assistance to assure containment of radioactive materials and calibration of radiation detection equipment. QUALIFICATIONS Applicant must have a Bachelor's Degree in Health Physics, Radiological Science or related scientific discipline and 5 years comparable professional radiation protection experience including experience administering a broad scope license. A master's degree in Health Physics or related discipline and certification as a Certified Health Physicist (CHP) is preferred. The RSO must be capable of managing a comprehensive radiation safety program without close supervision and have good written and verbal interpersonal communication skills. The applicant must be able to lift 50 pounds, handle full 55 gallon drums (450 pounds) using mechanical assistance and must be able to respond to a radiological incident by wearing an air purifying respirator, self contained breathing apparatus and all levels of personal protective equipment. APPLICATION DETAILS Application materials must include a current resume or curriculum vitae, a detailed cover letter, and names, addresses, and telephone numbers of three professional references who may be contacted. Applicants should fully describe qualifications and experience, since the initial review will serve to evaluate applicants based on documented relevant qualifications. The review of materials will begin immediately. Materials should be addressed to Aurali Dade, Search Committee Chair and are to be submitted via on-line application at https://hrsearch.unlv.edu . For assistance with UNLV's on-line applicant portal, contact Jen Feldmann at (702) 895-3886 or hrsearch at unlv.edu. UNLV is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action educator and employer committed to excellence through diversity. Application Information Contact: University of Nevada Las Vegas Online App. Form: https://hrsearch.unlv.edu Thanks! Aurali Aurali Dade Biosafety Officer/Chemical Hygiene Officer University of Nevada Las Vegas Phone: (702) 895-0463 Fax: (702) 895-4690 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 17 11:56:39 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem In-Reply-To: <00e001c6797a$cd97b380$a7bd17ac@userqzqxd9wnct> Message-ID: <20060517165639.78074.qmail@web54311.mail.yahoo.com> Kevin, Another value is the NRC's assessment of $2,000 per man-rem. There analysis is in NUREG 1530, "Reassessment of the NRC's Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy." You can get a copy by sending an e-mail request to distribution at nrc.gov --- Jose Julio Rozental wrote: > By 8/23/99 similar question was made, my information > at that time can be > used today. Pleaso GO TO > http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9908/msg00533.html > > I will only add one more reference IAEA Safety > Series 109 Intervention > Criteria in a Nuclear or Radiation Emergency, 1994 - > infortunably no more > available to download. Look at page 72 - I.10 - I.16 > Value Assigned to > avoiding health detriment. > > Jose Julio Rozental > joseroze at netvision.net.il > Israel > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:55 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cost of a man-rem > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I am looking for information regarding the > definition of "reasonable" as > it applies to a person-rem of exposure. I expect > that the definition varies > greatly depending on the applicable regulatory > agency and/or the political > drivers at a particular site. Specifically, I would > like to know what value > (in dollars per person-rem) is used at your site > when considering work > approach, engineering controls etc.. I would also be > interested in knowing > if your site has no assigned monetary value directly > associated to a > person-rem. Thank you in advance. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Kevin D. Kosko > > President > > K2 Environmental Services LLC. > > Phone:(937) 470-2655 > > Fax: (937) 743-3012 > > e-mail:KOSKOKD at aol.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video > search, pictures, email and > IM. All on demand. Always Free. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed May 17 12:19:37 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bad news on the Cold Fusion front Message-ID: <20060517171937.38977.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Story from news at nature.com: http://news.nature.com//news/2006/060508/060508-8.html Published online: 10 May 2006; Bubble-fusion group suffer setback Team admits a mix-up with one of their neutron detectors. Eugenie Samuel Reich A group of researchers making high-profile claims about fusion energy has admitted to accidentally using equipment different from that reported in their most recent paper. An erratum providing details of the mistake by Rusi Taleyarkhan of Purdue University and colleagues has been published in Physical Review Letters1. Critics interpret the admission as a sign that the group's fusion claims2 are unravelling, because it comes in the wake of serious questions about the original work's validity (see 'Is bubble fusion simply hot air?'). "Confusing detectors in a discovery of this magnitude is an embarrassing mistake," says Seth Putterman of the University of California, Los Angeles. But Taleyarkhan and colleagues say that their data, analysis and conclusions are not affected by the error. In January, Taleyarkhan published the most recent of a series of papers in respected journals that claimed to see neutrons characteristic of fusion reactions coming from collapsing bubbles in organic fluids. If validated, such work could pave the way for cheap, green energy. Taleyarkhan claimed to have deployed three independent methods of detecting these neutrons, one of which was a boron trifluoride gas proportional tube with a polyethylene covering. His erratum notes that this actually turned out to be a lithium iodide crystal scintillation detector, also with a polyethylene covering. According to the erratum, the error was discovered "upon disassembly of the outer coverings" of the detector and is due to "an oversight which was based on incorrect information from a person's recollection who loaned this apparatus for the study". Knowing what you're working with The mistake does not in itself invalidate the experiment's conclusions, but experts say it casts further doubt over the results. Neutron expert Mike Saltmarsh of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where Taleyarkhan previously worked, points out that doing a good technical job involves knowing what detector is in use. "If you don't know what you're working with, you can easily make mistakes," says Saltmarsh. Manuals provided by Ludlum Measurements, which manufactures both types of detector, confirm that different operating voltages and different calibration checks are recommended for the two, for example. Source of confusion Brian Naranjo of the University of California, Los Angeles, claimed in March that Taleyarkhan's observed neutrons probably came from a standard lab source rather than fusion reactions3. Naranjo based his study on results from a different detector in Taleyarkhan's setup. Saltmarsh points out that the data from the lithium iodide detector, as it is now known to be, are consistent with Naranjo's claim. In Taleyarkhan's experiment, the 'boron trifluoride' detector observed high levels of gamma rays (-rays) alongside the neutrons, despite the fact that boron trifluoride detectors are not very sensitive to -rays. Taleyarkhan and his colleagues suggest that neutrons from fusion were interacting with the detector's polyethylene coating to produce a slew of rays. But the lithium iodide detector is more sensitive to -rays, says Saltmarsh, and the lab source posited by Naranjo could easily have provided enough for the levels observed. Taleyarkhan's co-author Robert Block, of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, disagrees. Block says he and Taleyarkhan still think the observed -rays are produced by fusion neutrons colliding in the polyethylene covering, no matter what the detector. A university review of Taleyarkhan's work is under way and due to finish by 1 June. References Taleyarkhan R. P., et al. Physical Review Letters, 96. 179903 (2006). Taleyarkhan R. P., et al. Physical Review Letters, 96. 034301 (2006). http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0603060 (submitted to Physical Review Letters) Top ? 2006 Nature Publishing Group | Privacy policy +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Wed May 17 17:00:33 2006 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and other causes can lead to DNA damage Message-ID: <20060517220035.83540.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 17-May-2006 Contact: Kim Carlyle kcarlyle at uga.edu 706-542-8083 University of Georgia 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and other causes can lead to DNA damage Researchers have known for years that damaged DNA can lead to human diseases such as cancer, but how damage occurs--and what causes it--has remained less clear. Now, computational chemists at the University of Georgia have discovered for the first time that when a proton is knocked off one of the pairs of bases that make up DNA, a chain of damage begins that causes "lesions" in the DNA. These lesions, when replicated in the copying mechanisms of DNA, can lead to serious disorders such as cancer. The research, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was led by doctoral student Maria Lind and Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham-Perdue Professor of Chemistry. Other authors on the paper are doctoral student Partha Bera, postdoctoral associate Nancy Richardson and recent doctoral graduate Steven Wheeler. Call it a "pinball proton." While chemists have shown other causes of DNA damage, the report in PNAS is the first to report how protons, knocked away by such mechanisms as radiation or chemical exposure, can cause lesions in DNA. The work was done entirely on computers in the Center for Computational Chemistry, part of the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences at UGA. "This kind of damage in DNA subunits is about as basic as you can get," said Schaefer. "This is the simplest kind of lesion possible for such a system." The double-helix structure of DNA has been known for more than half a century. This basic building block of life can "unzip" itself to create copies, a process at the heart of cell replication and growth. DNA is made of four "bases," Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine, and each one pairs with its opposite to form bonds where the "information" of life is stored. Thus, Guanine pairs with Cytosine, and Thymine with Adenine. The team at the University of Georgia studied how the removal of a proton from the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) base pair is involved in creating lesions that can lead to replication errors. This pair has 10 protons, meaning there are numerous targets for processes that knock the protons off. The lesions are breaks in the hydrogen bonds, of which there are two in the G-C base pair. (The Adenine-Thymine pair has three hydrogen bonds.) "Our real goal is to examine all possible lesions in DNA subunits," said Lind. The team discovered that the base pair minus its knocked-off proton can either break entirely or change its bonding angle--something that also causes improper replication. "The C-G subunit is usually totally planar [flat]," said Lind. "If it twists, it could simply pull apart." Though it has already been suspected that lesions in DNA caused by both high- and low-energy electrons result in cancer cell formation, the new study is the first evidence that protons do the same thing. The study in PNAS also has other implications. Researchers are beginning to understand how DNA can be used as "molecular wire" in constructing electrical circuits. Such a breakthrough would allow small electronic devices to shrink even further, but how the electrical properties of DNA would work in such a context is not yet understood. The UGA research adds important knowledge about how so-called "deprotonated" DNA base pairs work and could be important in creating "DNA wire." ### The research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Roy Herren --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 18 12:53:46 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and other causes can lead to DNA damage In-Reply-To: <20060517220035.83540.qmail@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518175346.98940.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Roy, Thanks for posting this. I assume that the "explusion" of the proton from the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) base pair is due to the deposited energy of the UV radiation. It provides insight into mutation beyond the creation of thymine dimers by UV radiation. http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~rwinning/genetics/mutat3.htm --- ROY HERREN wrote: > Public release date: 17-May-2006 > > Contact: Kim Carlyle > kcarlyle at uga.edu > 706-542-8083 > University of Georgia > 'Pinball protons' created by ultraviolet rays and > other causes can lead to DNA damage Researchers > have known for years that damaged DNA can lead to > human diseases such as cancer, but how damage > occurs--and what causes it--has remained less clear. > Now, computational chemists at the University of > Georgia have discovered for the first time that when > a proton is knocked off one of the pairs of bases > that make up DNA, a chain of damage begins that > causes "lesions" in the DNA. These lesions, when > replicated in the copying mechanisms of DNA, can > lead to serious disorders such as cancer. The > research, just published in the Proceedings of the > National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was led by > doctoral student Maria Lind and Henry F. Schaefer > III, Graham-Perdue Professor of Chemistry. Other > authors on the paper are doctoral student Partha > Bera, postdoctoral associate Nancy Richardson and > recent doctoral graduate Steven Wheeler. Call it a > "pinball proton." While chemists have > shown other causes of DNA damage, the report in > PNAS is the first to report how protons, knocked > away by such mechanisms as radiation or chemical > exposure, can cause lesions in DNA. The work was > done entirely on computers in the Center for > Computational Chemistry, part of the Franklin > College of Arts and Sciences at UGA. "This kind of > damage in DNA subunits is about as basic as you can > get," said Schaefer. "This is the simplest kind of > lesion possible for such a system." The > double-helix structure of DNA has been known for > more than half a century. This basic building block > of life can "unzip" itself to create copies, a > process at the heart of cell replication and growth. > DNA is made of four "bases," Adenine, Guanine, > Thymine and Cytosine, and each one pairs with its > opposite to form bonds where the "information" of > life is stored. Thus, Guanine pairs with Cytosine, > and Thymine with Adenine. The team at the > University of Georgia studied how the removal of a > proton > from the Guanine-Cytosine (G-C) base pair is > involved in creating lesions that can lead to > replication errors. This pair has 10 protons, > meaning there are numerous targets for processes > that knock the protons off. The lesions are breaks > in the hydrogen bonds, of which there are two in the > G-C base pair. (The Adenine-Thymine pair has three > hydrogen bonds.) "Our real goal is to examine all > possible lesions in DNA subunits," said Lind. The > team discovered that the base pair minus its > knocked-off proton can either break entirely or > change its bonding angle--something that also causes > improper replication. "The C-G subunit is usually > totally planar [flat]," said Lind. "If it twists, it > could simply pull apart." Though it has already > been suspected that lesions in DNA caused by both > high- and low-energy electrons result in cancer cell > formation, the new study is the first evidence that > protons do the same thing. The study in PNAS also > has other implications. > Researchers are beginning to understand how DNA can > be used as "molecular wire" in constructing > electrical circuits. Such a breakthrough would allow > small electronic devices to shrink even further, but > how the electrical properties of DNA would work in > such a context is not yet understood. The UGA > research adds important knowledge about how > so-called "deprotonated" DNA base pairs work and > could be important in creating "DNA wire." ### > The research was supported by a grant from the > National Science Foundation. > > > Roy Herren > > --------------------------------- > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not > radically different. Just radically better. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu May 18 13:20:49 2006 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified Message-ID: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's response about the following article. Sorry, but the graphic associated with this article may not be passed along by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified" Roy Public release date: 18-May-2006 Contact: Jerry Barach jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il 972-258-82904 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Protein (green dot) shown in this sequence scanning through a cell?s DNA for mutations. Click here for more information. --------------------------------- For the first time anywhere, researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in observing and describing how damaged DNA is naturally identified. The research sheds new light on understanding this molecular mechanism and is likely to aid in research on diseases involving DNA damage, including cancer. An article regarding the work of the Hebrew University researchers appears in the current issue of the scientific journal Cell. The researchers, headed by Dr. Sigal Ben-Yehuda of the Department of Molecular Biology at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, revealed a new protein which scans DNA at the onset of bacterial sporulation. The protein moves quickly along the chromosome and identifies DNA damage. When the protein identifies such damage, it halts at that spot and signals to other proteins which repair DNA. Under conditions of stress, some bacteria undergo a process of division which produces spores. These spores are particularly resistant to conditions of heat, radiation, dryness and exposure to chemicals, making it difficult to eradicate them with conventional methods, such as antibiotic drugs. Most of the knowledge about sporulation of bacteria has been gathered over the years on a bacterium known as Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium which does not cause any illnesses. When this bacterium enters the sporulation phase, it verifies that the DNA sequence is in proper order and does not contain any mutations. But the process of how this occurs has not been observed until now. "For the first time it is now possible to see how this phenomenon occurs," said Dr. Ben-Yehuda. "Proteins triggered by the bacteria that are similar to the protein that has been revealed in our laboratory are found in all species, including humans, and therefore one can conclude that the way in which the bacterial protein scans the DNA for lesions is similar among many forms of life. "This understanding of the molecular basis of the DNA repair is a basic step in furthering our ability to understand those illnesses stemming from DNA damage, for example cancerous growths. " ### Roy Herren --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 18 14:25:34 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060518192534.16184.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Roy, I am not sure if this really adds much to the discussion about DNA repair mechanism. The consequences of DNA repair and mis-repair have been known for many years. See http://www.hhmi.org/news/goldbergj.html http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=1303 http://mednews.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6237.html et alia --- ROY HERREN wrote: > I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's response > about the following article. Sorry, but the graphic > associated with this article may not be passed along > by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to > http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and > search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew > University researchers succeed in observing for 1st > time how DNA damage is identified" > > Roy > > Public release date: 18-May-2006 > > Contact: Jerry Barach > jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il > 972-258-82904 > The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing > for 1st time how DNA damage is identified > > --------------------------------- > > > > --------------------------------- > > Protein (green dot) shown in this sequence > scanning through a cell?s DNA for mutations. > Click here for more information. > > --------------------------------- > > > For the first time anywhere, researchers at the > Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in > observing and describing how damaged DNA is > naturally identified. > The research sheds new light on understanding this > molecular mechanism and is likely to aid in research > on diseases involving DNA damage, including cancer. > An article regarding the work of the Hebrew > University researchers appears in the current issue > of the scientific journal Cell. > The researchers, headed by Dr. Sigal Ben-Yehuda of > the Department of Molecular Biology at the Hebrew > University-Hadassah Medical School, revealed a new > protein which scans DNA at the onset of bacterial > sporulation. The protein moves quickly along the > chromosome and identifies DNA damage. When the > protein identifies such damage, it halts at that > spot and signals to other proteins which repair DNA. > > Under conditions of stress, some bacteria undergo > a process of division which produces spores. These > spores are particularly resistant to conditions of > heat, radiation, dryness and exposure to chemicals, > making it difficult to eradicate them with > conventional methods, such as antibiotic drugs. > Most of the knowledge about sporulation of > bacteria has been gathered over the years on a > bacterium known as Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium > which does not cause any illnesses. When this > bacterium enters the sporulation phase, it verifies > that the DNA sequence is in proper order and does > not contain any mutations. But the process of how > this occurs has not been observed until now. > "For the first time it is now possible to see how > this phenomenon occurs," said Dr. Ben-Yehuda. > "Proteins triggered by the bacteria that are similar > to the protein that has been revealed in our > laboratory are found in all species, including > humans, and therefore one can conclude that the way > in which the bacterial protein scans the DNA for > lesions is similar among many forms of life. > "This understanding of the molecular basis of the > DNA repair is a basic step in furthering our ability > to understand those illnesses stemming from DNA > damage, for example cancerous growths. " > ### > > > Roy Herren > > +++++++++++++++++++ "People will be shocked to see how safe it is to live in New York City." ANDREW KARMEN, a sociology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on murder trends in the city. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From JPreisig at aol.com Thu May 18 17:37:48 2006 From: JPreisig at aol.com (JPreisig at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 18:37:48 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cold Fusion Message-ID: <42c.165ba1a.319e513c@aol.com> Hmmmmm, This is from: jpreisig at aol.com . Hi Radsafers, Recent RADSAFE messages indicate that some cold fusion researchers are mixing up their Lithium Iodide and BF3 detectors. Oh my --- why can't researchers get something so fundamental correct??? The detector responses of these types of detectors are different, right??? Perhaps some verbal abuse (or worse) is in order. What was more important than getting the experiment's detectors correct??? I would recommend re-analyzing the data with only one type of detector present (drop out the other detector's data). See what happens. Then rerun the whole experiment with only one type of detector used. Of course, send erratum messages to any journal's involved with these articles. My guess is that the experiment's results will improve once only a single type of detector is used. On to other matters. Some RADSAFE participants have a clear dislike for this ROKKE person. Hope they are not confusing him with the Al Roker weather person out of New York City. And now, on to Hanford. Most of the storage tanks there have had their fluids removed, leaving mostly fairly solid waste, right??? Also some of the waste is being moved to double walled storage tanks. And efforts to vitrify the waste are continuing, right??? Also, isn't the Hanford area fairly arid (and doesn't receive much rainfall each year)??? So, what are Hanford's radioactive waste plumes and how far from the storage tank farm have they gotten? Some radionuclides move very slowly with respect to groundwater, and others move right along with the groundwater (i.e. at the same velocity). The Groundwater Hydrogeology book by Freeze and Cherry describes what is going on at an undergraduate/graduate level. So, I guess Hanford should continue to replace old, leaking, storage tanks with double-walled storage tanks. And I guess, Hanford should continue along with its waste vitrification efforts. The old leaking storage tanks that need repair more quickly are those that have radionuclides that transport quickly in the gound. The actual physical form of the waste is important also. I'm guessing that no-one is now using Hanford aquifers for drinking water??? One computer code for doing groundwater (radionuclide) transport is Femwater/BLT, which, I think is available from the Radiation Shielding Information Center (RSICC) at Oak Ridge. I think a PC friendly version of Femwater/BLT exists now. Other computer codes like MODFLOW, Lewater/Lewaste, etc. are available also. The interesting part in all this is that if radionuclide waste plumes actually reach the Columbia River (or whatever rivers are nearby), the sheer volume of the water in that River would dilute the radionuclides considerably. Still, I guess leaky storage tanks should be replaced and the waste in them should eventually be vitrified. Was the Hanford show on 60 minutes up to date, or was it a rebroadcast of an earlier show??? Hope your day is going well. Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig, Ph.D. From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Fri May 19 06:59:52 2006 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:59:52 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Recognition proteins must have been known for 2-3 decades by now. I wonder what the new aspect is. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com From eport at rssi.us Tue May 16 18:00:40 2006 From: eport at rssi.us (Eli Port) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 18:00:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20060516175048.035a3eb0@mail.rssi.us> RSSI is a Morton Grove, Illinois Health Physics consulting organization that provides solutions to regulatory, operational, and environmental problems. RSSI is seeking applicants who have a BS or MS in Health Physics or another science, and zero to two years of internship or practical experience, for an entry-level position in Health Physics. During the first half year, a new employee will gain theoretical and applied skills beyond those acquired in school. In this first half year of employment, a new member of RSSI's staff will work in operational Health Physics programs, environmental radiological health studies, and perform laboratory analysis with high-resolution gamma spectroscopy, alpha spectroscopy, low-level alpha-beta counting, and alpha track dosimetry. Following this six month period, the employee will be assessed for knowledge and understanding and will be encouraged to grow in regulatory affairs and intervention, and to prepare to assume positions with greater decision-making responsibilities. For the first several years, individuals will be closely mentored and regularly evaluated for success and for future growth potential. Benefits include health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, and reimbursement for educational expenses. To learn about RSSI, go to www.rssi.us. Send resumes to eport at rssi.us or call Eli Port at 847-965-1999. Thanks. Eli Port, CHP, CIH, P.E. RSSI 6312 W. Oakton St. Morton Grove, IL 60053-2723 VOICE: +1-847-965-1999 24X7 FAX: +1-847-965-1991 http://www.rssi.us From mcmahankl at ornl.gov Fri May 19 08:34:04 2006 From: mcmahankl at ornl.gov (McMahan, Kimberly L.) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:34:04 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cold Fusion Message-ID: <71FDA9EBE5133A48BCCFE0200C9B1D900215DB94@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> We had a similar situation a couple of years ago. One of our operational groups purchased a Bonner sphere set and made some measurements in an "unknown" field, just for information and familiarization with the equipment and codes. Data were gathered and unfolding codes were run. Not long after our group made some measurements in a different field using these Bonner spheres as well as a Snoopy and a TEPC. Lo and behold the Bonner spheres were reporting much higher than the others. Finally we took the Bonner spheres into the cal lab's low scatter room and delivered some known doses (sheesh, we're slow). Evaluated doses were still very high. On investigation and consultation with the supplier it was found that the crystal size was 4 x 8 mm rather than 4 x 4 mm as stated in the technical documents. They were as surprised as we were (!). Manufacturers, please take note. Where was the QA at the factory? Buyer, beware. Kim McMAHAN ORNL External Dosimetry -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of JPreisig at aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:38 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cold Fusion Hmmmmm, This is from: jpreisig at aol.com . Hi Radsafers, Recent RADSAFE messages indicate that some cold fusion researchers are mixing up their Lithium Iodide and BF3 detectors. Oh my --- why can't researchers get something so fundamental correct??? The detector responses of these types of detectors are different, right??? Perhaps some verbal abuse (or worse) is in order. What was more important than getting the experiment's detectors correct??? I would recommend re-analyzing the data with only one type of detector present (drop out the other detector's data). See what happens. Then rerun the whole experiment with only one type of detector used. Of course, send erratum messages to any journal's involved with these articles. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri May 19 12:54:35 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: DNA repair mapped, systems-wide Message-ID: <20060519175435.69722.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> >From The Scientist at http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23466/ As noted: ". . . The researchers found 30 transcription factors that appeared to be involved in the damage response . . ." -------------------------- NEWS DNA repair mapped, systems-wide By Melissa Lee Phillips Scientists use sweeping approach to generate map of interconnected cellular responses to DNA damage [Published 19th May 2006 06:13 PM GMT] ------------------------------------------------------- Many cellular processes -- including DNA replication and repair, cell cycle control, metabolism, and stress responses -- form an integrated response to DNA damage, according to a report in this week's Science. The authors used a systems biology approach to create a map of transcriptional networks that are activated when yeast DNA is damaged. "We now know an order of magnitude more pathway connections than were known before, as far as how information is transmitted through the cell in response to damage," senior author Trey Ideker of the University of California, San Diego, told The Scientist. Looking at cellular processes from a wide-angle view -- rather than the one-gene, one-protein approach of classical biology -- permits the construction of "a complete wiring diagram" of transcriptional interactions, Ideker said, which will help scientists control cellular response to DNA damage. Scientists have gathered significant data about how DNA damage is sensed and repaired in the cell, Ideker explained, and previous work has shown that many pathways other than classic "repair" pathways become activated after damage. "What's been entirely unknown is how those different pathways are interlinked to form one cohesive response," Ideker said. Ideker and his colleagues -- led by Christopher T. Workman and H. Craig Mak, also at UCSD -- first screened yeast cells for transcription factors involved in the cellular response to an alkylation agent called methyl-methanesulfonate (MMS). The researchers found 30 transcription factors that appeared to be involved in the damage response -- either because their expression changed with MMS treatment, they bound to promoters of genes whose expression changed with MMS treatment, or their deletion diminished a cell's ability to recover from damage. The authors then used a technique called ChIP-chip -- chromatin immunoprecipitation combined with microarray chip hybridization -- to identify the transcriptional network that each of the 30 transcription factors induces when exposed to MMS. By comparing the genes and protein-DNA interactions after MMS treatment to interactions under normal growth conditions, the authors mapped how transcription factors change their behavior when the cell experiences DNA damage. These changes include employing different DNA binding motifs, altering regulated genes, or changing pairings with other transcription factors. Ideker and his colleagues next used microarrays of yeast genetic knockouts to determine how deleting a key transcription factor changes gene expression induced by MMS. If the ChIP-chip analysis showed that a transcription factor binds to promoters of a certain set of genes, the authors reason, then knocking out that transcription factor should alter those genes' response to MMS treatment. Since transcription factors can also affect genes that they don't bind directly, however, the authors also applied a Bayesian modeling technique to determine likely intermediate factors through which transcription factors modulate downstream gene activity. The resulting transcriptional network shows how transcription factors regulate the expression of 82 genes in response to MMS damage. At the core of the network lies a set of known DNA damage response genes, but surrounding these genes are interacting networks involved in DNA replication and repair, cell cycle arrest, stress responses, and metabolic pathways. "We've now explained all of these pathways that people have hinted at before within the context of one circuit diagram," Ideker said. "I really liked the concept of the paper," said Yolanda Sanchez of Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, NH, who was not involved in the study. "They took a lot of information that was already out there... and figured out connections between the pathways." In future studies, it will be important to add analyses of post-transcriptional and post-translational mechanisms to what they've revealed about transcriptional pathways, Sanchez added. "I'm sure that's coming." "They certainly uncovered some novel connections and pathways that weren't known before," said Grant Brown of the University of Toronto in Ontario. "The biology is not followed up in any rigorous sense, but the point of this is to generate novel ideas that then lead to more hypothesis-driven experiments." Links within this article C.T. Workman et al., "A systems approach to mapping DNA damage response pathways," Science, May 19, 2006. http://www.sciencemag.org M.B. Castan, "DNA damage responses: Cancer and beyond," The Scientist, October 10, 2005. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15766/ Trey Ideker http://chianti.ucsd.edu/idekerlab/index.html J.F. Wilson, "Elucidating the DNA damage pathway," The Scientist, January 21, 2002. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/12816/ S.A. Jelinsky, L.D. Samson, "Global response of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an alkylating agent," PNAS, February 16, 1999. PM_ID: 9990050 Yolanda Sanchez http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sanchezlab/ Grant Brown http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/brown/ +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hflong at pacbell.net Fri May 19 14:32:29 2006 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060518182049.51363.qmail@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060519193230.86130.qmail@web81814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Roy, My best info on DNA repair comes from my classmate, Myron Pollycove, and his publications with Feinendigan. The study below is incomplete, not showing the end result in people (or even mice). Simply put, as with allergy, a little ionizing radiation seems to stimulate 10 orders of magnitude greater repair than damage by stimulating biologic processes. Howard Long ROY HERREN wrote: I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's response about the following article. Sorry, but the graphic associated with this article may not be passed along by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified" Roy Public release date: 18-May-2006 Contact: Jerry Barach jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il 972-258-82904 The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Protein (green dot) shown in this sequence scanning through a cell?s DNA for mutations. Click here for more information. --------------------------------- For the first time anywhere, researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in observing and describing how damaged DNA is naturally identified. The research sheds new light on understanding this molecular mechanism and is likely to aid in research on diseases involving DNA damage, including cancer. An article regarding the work of the Hebrew University researchers appears in the current issue of the scientific journal Cell. The researchers, headed by Dr. Sigal Ben-Yehuda of the Department of Molecular Biology at the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, revealed a new protein which scans DNA at the onset of bacterial sporulation. The protein moves quickly along the chromosome and identifies DNA damage. When the protein identifies such damage, it halts at that spot and signals to other proteins which repair DNA. Under conditions of stress, some bacteria undergo a process of division which produces spores. These spores are particularly resistant to conditions of heat, radiation, dryness and exposure to chemicals, making it difficult to eradicate them with conventional methods, such as antibiotic drugs. Most of the knowledge about sporulation of bacteria has been gathered over the years on a bacterium known as Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium which does not cause any illnesses. When this bacterium enters the sporulation phase, it verifies that the DNA sequence is in proper order and does not contain any mutations. But the process of how this occurs has not been observed until now. "For the first time it is now possible to see how this phenomenon occurs," said Dr. Ben-Yehuda. "Proteins triggered by the bacteria that are similar to the protein that has been revealed in our laboratory are found in all species, including humans, and therefore one can conclude that the way in which the bacterial protein scans the DNA for lesions is similar among many forms of life. "This understanding of the molecular basis of the DNA repair is a basic step in furthering our ability to understand those illnesses stemming from DNA damage, for example cancerous growths. " ### Roy Herren --------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 22 08:40:15 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 06:40:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing for 1st time how DNA damage is identified In-Reply-To: <20060519193230.86130.qmail@web81814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060522134015.52794.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, You are, of course, aware that some people do not develop a "resistance" are you are implying. I believe that a classic case is the response people have to poison ivy http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/921270717.html To continue your analogy, maybe some individuals (or cells) do not adequately repair DNA following radiation or other DNA-altering events, and become more sensitive. Just some thoughts to consider. By the way, can you cite a reference for your statements "a little ionizing radiation seems to stimulate 10 orders of magnitude greater repair than damage by stimulating biologic processes." What model are you using? What is the end-point? --- howard long wrote: > Roy, > My best info on DNA repair comes from my > classmate, Myron Pollycove, and his publications > with Feinendigan. The study below is incomplete, not > showing the end result in people (or even mice). > > Simply put, as with allergy, a little ionizing > radiation seems to stimulate 10 orders of magnitude > greater repair than damage by stimulating biologic > processes. > > Howard Long > > ROY HERREN wrote: > I am looking forward to reading Dr. Long's > response about the following article. Sorry, but the > graphic associated with this article may not be > passed along by my e-mail. to see the graphic go to > http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/medicine.php and > search for the article title, i.e. "Hebrew > University researchers succeed in observing for 1st > time how DNA damage is identified" > > Roy > > Public release date: 18-May-2006 > > Contact: Jerry Barach > jerryb at savion.huji.ac.il > 972-258-82904 > The Hebrew University of Jerusalem > Hebrew University researchers succeed in observing > for 1st time how DNA damage is identified > --------------------------------- > > +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Mon May 22 12:46:32 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 10:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Brain-tumour cluster strikes university Message-ID: <20060522174632.88739.qmail@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> >From news at nature.com Published online: 18 May 2006 (Just for your information) http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/060515-14.html Brain-tumour cluster strikes university Coincidence, or the fault of cell-phone masts? Carina Dennis A Melbourne university has emptied the top floors of one of its buildings after a spate of brain-tumour cases were reported during the past month. Most affected staff worked on the top floor, raising fears that cell-phone masts on top of the building are responsible. But experts say it is far more likely to be an unfortunate coincidence. Since mid-April, five staff from the business school of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University have reported developing brain tumours. Two other cases have been reported since 1999. Of the seven, two are malignant and five benign. "We suspect there might be other cases, but these haven't been confirmed," says National Tertiary Education Union representative Matthew McGowan, who adds that the union and the university have received phone calls and e-mails from additional staff reporting health concerns. Five of the seven staff worked on the top floor, and all except one have worked in the building for a decade, mostly on the top level. Some staff are concerned that mobile-phone-transmitter towers on top of the building are to blame. "It is too much of a coincidence to simply be chance," says McGowan. The university has offered staff on the two top floors alternative office space while it carries out a two-week investigation. No clear link But international studies have been unable to provide a convincing link between cancer and the use of mobile phones or the proximity of mobile-phone towers. "There is no consistent evidence at present that radiation frequency causes brain tumours. That's not to say it's impossible, but it is not convincing," says Anthony Swerdlow, an epidemiologist at the Institute of Cancer Research in London, and member of a radiation advisory group with the United Kingdom's National Radiological Protection Board. Preliminary results from the university's investigation indicate that radiofrequency levels are extremely low, according to an RMIT spokesperson. "Our initial tests show no cause for alarm," he says. Although little is known of what causes brain tumours, a bacterial or viral agent could be responsible. "That is one of many possibilities," says Richard McNally, a statistical epidemiologist at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. McNally previously reported that brain-tumour occurrence in a region of the Netherlands showed a pattern typical of diseases caused by infection1. RMIT is also testing air- and water-quality to investigate this possibility. Chance cluster Many experts say it is most likely to be a coincidental clustering of cases. "My strong hunch is that it may well be a chance occurrence," says David Hill, the Director of the Cancer Council of Victoria in Australia. McNally, who also think that this "may well be a chance occurrence that has sprung to attention," says the university should determine whether those affected had other known risk factors, such as a genetic predisposition or previous exposure to ionizing radiation. Some of the affected staff did have personal histories that may be linked to a higher risk, according to the RMIT spokesperson. The fact that the tumours are different from each other may also make a common cause unlikely. "The tumours detected have varying origins and only three of the seven types have known associations with radiation," says John Gall, of private-health company Southern Medical Services, who has been appointed by RMIT to investigate the epidemiology of the cluster. The university is expected to release its report next week. References Houben M. P., et al. Eur J Cancer., 41. 2917 - 2923 (2005). +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Wed May 24 01:03:46 2006 From: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 08:03:46 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] JobPosting: RADIATION SAFETY AND TRAINING SPECIALIST Message-ID: <4473F742.7010808@tudelft.nl> Posted on behalf of Russ Johnson, Radiation Safety/Training Specialist, New Mexico State University. If you are interested in this position and would like to apply please do not send your reaction to RadSafe or me (Marcel Schouwenburg) but send them directly to the adress mentioned below in this JobPosting. Begin JobPosting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RADIATION SAFETY AND TRAINING SPECIALIST (Req #2006003896, Grade 36) Bachelor''s degree in health physics, biology, chemistry or related field and four years of related experience. Implements a comprehensive radiation safety program for large research-based university campus which includes radionuclide laboratories, nuclear gauges, analytic and diagnostic xray devices and lasers. Provides training for radioactive materials, laser safety, respiratory protection, and defensive driving. Submit letter, resume, transcript, list of three references. View the attached pdf-file for a more detailed description of this job. For complete listing: http://www.nmsu.edu/~personnel. Evaluations begin May 29, 2006 and continue until filled. Send to: Dr. K. Doolittle, Environmental Health & Safety, Box 30001/Dept 3578, Las Cruces, NM 88003. NMSU is an EEO/AA employer. End JobPosting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg Head Training Centre Delft / RadSafe moderator & listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15 27 86575 Fax +31 (0)15 27 81717 email m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Radsafetyposition.052006.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 13493 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed May 24 15:12:10 2006 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 16:12:10 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Test Message Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE1701208336@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> All, This is a test message because I've not be receiving RADSAFE postings since about 1 May. I will email the administrator shortly. Thank you. Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP Kadix Systems U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Wed May 24 19:55:00 2006 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 20:55:00 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! Message-ID: http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html May 24 Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box Crescent City, Florida (AP) ? A Putnam County couple got a startling surprise when they found a piece of depleted uranium at the bottom of a box of tools. Susan and Lance Greninger called NASA because they had bought the box at an auction near the Kennedy Space Center. A Hazmat team from the fire department examined the metal and said it was a solid piece of depleted uranium about the size of a child's fist. They closed the road in the front of the home for about five hours just to be safe. [[...ohmygawd! only 5h ?!? ...whoa! ...talk about taking chances with the public's well-being !! ]] The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder. They said the piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard to the community. They did say that if the couple had walked around the house with the uranium in their pocket, they would get radiation sickness. [[ ....really ?? ....so i guess my colleague who's been wearing a radium luminous-dial watch for the past 40 years must be fried to a crisp ! ....oddly enough, he doesn't look it ! ]] Authorities said the piece may have been part of a tool. Depleted uranium can be used as a radiation shield and is sometimes used as a ballast in commercial airliners and ships. -- Associated Press -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 5/24/2006 From denison8 at wowway.com Wed May 24 21:48:54 2006 From: denison8 at wowway.com (denison8 at wowway.com) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 22:48:54 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a couple of mrem. At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: >http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >May 24 >Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box > > > >The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder. They said the >piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard to the community. They did >say that if the couple had walked around the house with the uranium in their >pocket, they would get radiation sickness. > [[ ....really ?? ....so i guess my colleague who's been wearing a radium >luminous-dial watch for the past 40 years must be fried to a crisp ! >....oddly enough, he doesn't look it ! ]] > -- ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Eric Denison Westerville, Ohio, USA denison8 at wowway.com Where do you stand? Take "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" online at www.self-gov.org/quiz "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands of those who feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you. May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Wed May 24 23:38:43 2006 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 00:38:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <447534D3.1030109@chartertn.net> denison8 at wowway.com wrote: > Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home > without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a > couple of mrem. > > At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: > >> http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >> May 24 >> Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box >> >> >> >> The state Bureau of Radiation Control retrieved the cylinder. They >> said the >> piece is toxic, but does not pose a health hazard to the community. >> They did >> say that if the couple had walked around the house with the uranium >> in their >> pocket, they would get radiation sickness. >> [[ ....really ?? ....so i guess my colleague who's been wearing a >> radium >> luminous-dial watch for the past 40 years must be fried to a crisp ! >> ....oddly enough, he doesn't look it ! ]] >> I believe that the dose rate from the betas from depleted uranium is about 218 mrad/hr. It does not make any difference how much there is as long as the source is thicker than the range of the betas in U. John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From farbersa at optonline.net Thu May 25 00:28:51 2006 From: farbersa at optonline.net (Stewart Farber) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 01:28:51 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! References: <447534D3.1030109@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <000a01c67fbc$1b551da0$b18e7845@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello all, For authoritative information on this point, see the HPS "Ask the Experts" [link and text below] to see that the 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at CONTACT [emphasis added] with a thick [depleted] uranium slab in metal form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is generally assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on depletion or enrichment. As distance from the slab increases, the 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the surface of the slab will quickly fall away to insignificant levels. Stewart Farber ======================= http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q161.html Answer to Question #161 Submitted to "Ask the Experts" Category: Radiation Basics - Beta Radiation The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field: Q: I'm having a very hard time finding solid information about the radiation field intensities expected at the surface of a depleted uranium slab. We are hoping to use such a slab to test and calibrate beta detectors to establish their beta dose rate response. Such a technique is often mentioned in the literature, but I find very little said about what sort of beta-dose rate to expect at the surface of such a slab. Obviously the exact alpha, beta, and gamma intensities will depend on the precise makeup of this particular batch of depleted uranium, but it would be nice to find a discussion of the general ranges expected for each as well as some examples of how others perform such calibrations. The few mentions I see of this range in the area of 210 to 235 mR/hr beta-dose rate at the surface and somewhere between 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the surface of the slab. (The alpha will be unimportant since we'll have the slab covered by thin (5 mil) mylar to minimize potential contamination). If someone has a good reference for this, or a site URL which discusses this, I'd really appreciate any information. Thanks. A: The 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at contact with a thick uranium slab in metal form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is generally assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on depletion or enrichment. The value is mostly dependent on the beta contribution and will therefore vary depending on additional layers of absorber. The following is an excellent reference for published data on natural and depleted uranium (no, I am not the author of the paper): Preferred Reference: a.. Coleman, R.L.; Hudson, C. G.; Plato, P. A. Depth-dose curves for 90SR and natural and depleted uranium in mylar. Health Phys. 44(4): 395-402; 1983. Other References: a.. Handbook of Safety Procedures for Processing Depleted Uranium, Army Material Command Handbook, No. AMCHDBK-385-1.1-89, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. The relevant charts from the handbook are shown in Question #5 of the 1997 ABHP Exam (the view at this Web site is in a not-completely-clear format). b.. Radiological Health Handbook, Bureau of Radiological Health, Jan. 1970, Page 204. Rules of thumb for dose rates at the surface of uranium materials (no supporting data). Robert L. Coleman Oak Ridge National Laboratory ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Andrews" To: Cc: "RADSAFE" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! > denison8 at wowway.com wrote: > >> Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home >> without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a >> couple of mrem. >> >> At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: >> >>> http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >>> May 24 >>> Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006 From farbersa at optonline.net Thu May 25 00:46:10 2006 From: farbersa at optonline.net (Stewart Farber) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 01:46:10 -0400 Subject: Fw: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! Message-ID: <002f01c67fbe$86c3a3c0$b18e7845@YOUR7C60552B9E> For detailed info showing graphs of the drop in dose rate from a slab of DU with various mass thickness [from which you can derive a decline of about 10 for beta dose within 1 meter in air], as part of an American Board of Health Physics exam question on the subject, see: http://www.hps1.org/aahp/abhp/exams/1997/97exam-1.htm#ques5 Stewart Farber ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Farber" To: "John Andrews" ; Cc: "RADSAFE" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:28 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! > Hello all, > > For authoritative information on this point, see the HPS "Ask the Experts" > [link and text below] to see that the 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at > CONTACT [emphasis added] with a thick [depleted] uranium slab in metal > form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is generally > assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on depletion or > enrichment. > > As distance from the slab increases, the 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the > surface of the slab will quickly fall away to insignificant levels. > > Stewart Farber > ======================= > > http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q161.html > > Answer to Question #161 Submitted to "Ask the Experts" > Category: Radiation Basics - Beta Radiation > > The following question was answered by an expert in the appropriate field: > > Q: I'm having a very hard time finding solid information about the > radiation field intensities expected at the surface of a depleted uranium > slab. We are hoping to use such a slab to test and calibrate beta > detectors to establish their beta dose rate response. Such a technique is > often mentioned in the literature, but I find very little said about what > sort of beta-dose rate to expect at the surface of such a slab. Obviously > the exact alpha, beta, and gamma intensities will depend on the precise > makeup of this particular batch of depleted uranium, but it would be nice > to find a discussion of the general ranges expected for each as well as > some examples of how others perform such calibrations. The few mentions I > see of this range in the area of 210 to 235 mR/hr beta-dose rate at the > surface and somewhere between 4 and 7 mR/hr for gamma at the surface of > the slab. (The alpha will be unimportant since we'll have the slab covered > by thin (5 mil) mylar to minimize potential contamination). If someone has > a good reference for this, or a site URL which discusses this, I'd really > appreciate any information. Thanks. > > A: The 7 mg/cm2 (dermal) dose rate at contact with a thick uranium > slab in metal form, which includes both beta and gamma contribution, is > generally assumed to be in the range of 200 to 230 mrad/h--depending on > depletion or enrichment. The value is mostly dependent on the beta > contribution and will therefore vary depending on additional layers of > absorber. The following is an excellent reference for published data on > natural and depleted uranium (no, I am not the author of the paper): > > Preferred Reference: > a.. Coleman, R.L.; Hudson, C. G.; Plato, P. A. Depth-dose curves > for 90SR and natural and depleted uranium in mylar. Health Phys. 44(4): > 395-402; 1983. > Other References: > a.. Handbook of Safety Procedures for Processing Depleted Uranium, > Army Material Command Handbook, No. AMCHDBK-385-1.1-89, Department of the > Army, Washington, D.C. The relevant charts from the handbook are shown in > Question #5 of the 1997 ABHP Exam (the view at this Web site is in a > not-completely-clear format). > > b.. Radiological Health Handbook, Bureau of Radiological Health, > Jan. 1970, Page 204. Rules of thumb for dose rates at the surface of > uranium materials (no supporting data). > Robert L. Coleman > Oak Ridge National Laboratory > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Andrews" > To: > Cc: "RADSAFE" > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:38 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] funniest DU scare story ever ! > > >> denison8 at wowway.com wrote: >> >>> Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at home >>> without my books). Off the top of my head I'd guess no more than a >>> couple of mrem. >>> >>> At 20:55 -0400 5/24/06, Jaro wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html >>>> May 24 >>>> Florida Couple Finds Depleted Uranium in Old NASA Tool Box > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006 From gpblackwood at yahoo.com Thu May 25 07:02:28 2006 From: gpblackwood at yahoo.com (Gerry Blackwood) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 05:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] NNSA Marks 2-Year Anniversary of Global Message-ID: <20060525120228.70712.qmail@web80727.mail.yahoo.com> [ Well the NNSA Press shop is doing its thing! " Removing over 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from facilities worldwide that could have been used to make an improvised nuclear device;" Not to shabby.... just another 905 metric tons either not secured or poorly secured to go! ] Though at least soemone is doing something.... Keep up the good fight! Gerry NNSA NEWS National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy For Immediate Release May 24, 2006 Contact: NNSA Public Affairs, (202) 586-7371 NOTE: A detailed list of accomplishments is attached below. ** Tomorrow, May 25th, the head of GTRI will be available for interviews. Please call NNSA Public Affairs to arrange. NNSA Marks 2-Year Anniversary of Global Program to Reduce Nuclear Threats GTRI has secured more than 400 radiological sites around the world and removed enough material for eight nuclear weapons WASHINGTON, D.C. - In the past two years, a key nuclear nonproliferation program of the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has removed more than eight nuclear weapons worth of highly enriched uranium, and secured more than 400 radiological sites around the world containing over 6 million curies - enough for approximately 6,000 "dirty bombs." NNSA marks the two-year anniversary of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, or GTRI, on Friday. This program works with partners around the world to reduce the threat posed by high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials, which could be used by terrorists to make a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb. "The Global Threat Reduction Initiative is an important part of the President's 2006 National Security Strategy to protect Americans," Linton F. Brooks, the head of NNSA, said. "In just two years, GTRI has worked with our international allies to significantly step up international efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials. The Bratislava agreement between Presidents Bush and Putin has accelerated our efforts to keep dangerous materials out of the hands of terrorists." GTRI is part of NNSA's multi-layered strategy to decrease the risk of nuclear terrorism. It is focused on identifying, securing, removing and/or disposing of high-risk, vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials - as quickly and expeditiously as possible - that pose a potential threat to the United States and the international community. Highlights of GTRI's progress during the past two years include: ? Removing over 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from facilities worldwide that could have been used to make an improvised nuclear device; ? Recovering and securing more than 2,700 excess and unwanted radiological sources located within the United States; ? Converting three research reactors from the use of highly enriched uranium, which can be used in a nuclear weapon, to the use of low enriched uranium; and ? Installing and upgrading physical security at more than 400 sites around the world where vulnerable radiological sources are stored. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. ### GTRI: Two Successful Years of Reducing Nuclear Threats Significant Accomplishments from 2004 to 2006 On May 26, 2004, the National Nuclear Security Administration established the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. GTRI, as it is known, works to identify, secure, remove and/or facilitate the disposition of high risk vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world, as quickly as possible, that pose a threat to the United States and the international community. In the past two years, GTRI has removed more than eight nuclear bombs worth of highly enriched uranium and secured more than 400 radiological sites around the world containing over 6 million curies, enough for approximately 6,000 dirty bombs. Since its inception two years ago, GTRI has accelerated its nuclear security efforts and made significant progress to reduce the risk posed by vulnerable civilian nuclear and radiological materials, which could be used by terrorists to make an improvised nuclear device or a radiological dispersal device ("dirty bomb"). GTRI's specific accomplishments to reduce the threat from both nuclear and radiological materials since 2004 include: Nuclear Material Threat Reduction Accelerated conversion of research reactors from the use of highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium ? Prior to the creation of GTRI, only two research reactors were converted during the four-year period from 2000 to 2004. The last U.S. research reactor was converted in 2000 and the last international research reactor was converted in 2004. ? In fiscal year 2006, alone, six research reactors will be converted to operate with low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of using highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used to make a nuclear weapon. o In the past nine months, three research reactors have been converted to LEU. The three research reactors are: ? The VR-1 Sparrow research reactor at the Czech Technical University in Prague. (This conversion in October 2005 was the first time a Russian-supplied research reactor was converted to LEU); ? The HFR Petten reactor in the Netherlands converted in October 2005; and ? The IRT critical assembly in Libya converted in January 2006. o Over the next four months, three additional research reactors will be converted. This includes two U.S. university reactors at the University of Florida and Texas A&M as well as the Russian-supplied IRT-1 research reactor at the Tajoura facility in Libya. Accelerated removal of Russian-origin HEU fresh and spent fuel ? In the two years prior to the creation of GTRI, only four shipments to remove Russian-origin research reactor fuel took place. ? Since May 2004, GTRI has doubled the number of shipments to return Russian-origin research reactor fuel. During the past two years, eight shipments have successfully taken place to remove and return to Russia more than 89 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU. o HEU Fresh Fuel: Four shipments to remove and return 26 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU fresh fuel have taken place since 2004. These shipments include the return of nuclear material to Russia from: ? The Institute of Nuclear Physics in Uzbekistan in September 2004; ? The Rez facility in the Czech Republic in December 2004; ? The Salaspils facility in Latvia in May 2005; and ? The Czech Technical University in the Czech Republic in September 2005. o HEU Spent Fuel: Four shipments to remove and return 63 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU spent fuel from the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Uzbekistan took place from January to April 2006. ? As a result of the Bratislava Joint Statement on Nuclear Security Cooperation issued by Presidents Bush and Putin in February 2005, GTRI has developed an overall prioritized accelerated schedule of shipments: o By the end of 2006, all shipments to return eligible Russian-origin HEU fresh material will be completed; and o By the end of 2010, all shipments to return eligible Russian-origin HEU spent fuel currently stored outside of reactor cores will be completed. ? In accordance with this accelerated schedule, during the next five months, GTRI is planning to repatriate more than 200 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU fresh fuel from facilities worldwide. Removal of U.S.-origin research reactor spent fuel ? Since 2004, more than 78 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU in spent research reactor nuclear fuel was returned to the United States from Germany, Austria, Greece, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden. Removal of "Gap" Material ? Significant progress has been made to secure nuclear material that was not covered by other pre-existing nuclear material threat reduction programs. This material is referred to as "gap" material. ? More than 35 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU fresh material was safely returned in two shipments from Canada and Belgium. ? In addition, in coordination with GTRI, and as a way to encourage collaboration with the private sector, AREVA recently signed contracts for the recovery of more than 85 kilograms of U.S.-origin HEU from several facilities within Europe. Radiological Threat Reduction ? Physical protection upgrades have been completed in over 40 countries at more than 400 radiological sites, including industrial, medical, and commercial facilities. Specifically, during the past two years, GTRI secured 421 vulnerable radiological sites around the world containing over 6,000,000 curies - enough for approximately 6,000 dirty bombs. ? In the United States, during the past two years, GTRI removed 2,700 at-risk radiological sources totaling 74,350 curies - enough for more than 74 dirty bombs. o This work included recovering over 60,000 curies of Cobalt-60 from several U.S. university irradiators in December 2005, and removing 19 large gammators containing Cesium-137 from one hospital, six universities and five small colleges around the U.S. by October 2005. From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 25 09:39:14 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] News: The lasting efficiency and versitility of nuclear energy Message-ID: <20060525143914.93084.qmail@web54313.mail.yahoo.com> Story at http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/05/23/voyager.2/index.html About the plutonium power source, see http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/top10_voyager_020820-7.html -------------------------------- Voyager II detects solar system's edge By Ker Than http://SPACE.com Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Posted: 10:24 a.m. EDT (14:24 GMT) Voyager II is about 6.5 billion miles away and moving at about 3.3 AU per year. RELATED Interactive: Voyager I pushes into the final frontier ? SPACE.com: Top 10 Voyager facts http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/top10_voyager_020820-1.html ? SPACE.com: Voyager images http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=1567&gid=130&index=0 ? NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Voyager http://www.nasa.gov/mov/52704main_heliopause.mov (SPACE.com) -- Voyager II could pass beyond the outermost layer of our solar system, called the "termination shock," sometime within the next year, NASA scientists announced at a media teleconference Tuesday. The milestone, which comes about a year after Voyager 1's crossing, comes earlier than expected and suggests to scientists that the edge of the shock is about one billion miles closer to the sun in the southern region of the solar system than in the north. This implies that the heliosphere, a spherical bubble of charged low-energy particles created by our sun's solar wind, is irregularly shaped, bulging in the northern hemisphere and pressed inward in the south. Scientists determined that Voyager I was approaching the termination shock when it began detecting charged particles that were being pushed back toward the sun by charged particles coming from outside our solar system. This occurred when Voyager 1 was about 85 AU from the sun. (Full story) One AU is the distance between the Earth and the sun, or 93 million miles. In contrast, Voyager II began detecting returning particles while only 76 AU from the sun. "This tells us that the shock down where Voyager II is must be closer the sun than where Voyager I is," said Ed Stone, Voyager project scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The researchers think that the heliosphere's asymmetry might be due to a weak interstellar magnetic field pressing inward on the southern hemisphere. "The [magnetic] field is only 1/100,000 of the field on the Earth's surface, but it's over such a large area and pushing on such a faint gas that it can actually push the shock about a billion miles in," Stone explained. Both Voyager spacecrafts were launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida: Voyager II headed out on August 20, 1977, Voyager I on September 5, 1977. Currently, Voyager I is about 8.7 billion miles from the sun and traveling at a speed of 3.6 AU per year while Voyager II is about 6.5 billion miles away and moving at about 3.3 AU per year. ------------------------------------------------------- Copyright ? 1999-2005 SPACE.com, Inc. +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 25 15:22:52 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: Predicting solar storms and radiation effects Message-ID: <20060525202252.41115.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> >From Nature 441, 402-404 (25 May 2006) Published online 24 May 2006 at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7092/full/441402a.html The dark side of the Sun Stuart Clark1 Abstract: The Sun occasionally hurls streams of particles towards Earth, where they can wreak havoc with satellites. Predicting these solar storms is hard, but some physicists believe we're about to face the biggest bout of solar flares in years. Halloween is supposed to be a time of weird phenomena and spooky events. But by any standards what happened in late October 2003 was unusual. Telecommunications around the world were disrupted, half of NASA's satellites malfunctioned, 50,000 people in Sweden were left without electricity, and the global airline industry lost millions of dollars. The link between these events was not supernatural, it was something far more familiar: the Sun. The chaos was caused as our star went through one of the more active moments in its 11-year cycle. And according to some predictions, what happened that October is nothing compared with what is going to occur in five or six years' time. "Solar activity in the next cycle could be more of a problem than ever," warns Peter Gilman, a physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. And it's not just satellites and telecommunications that face problems. Some researchers claim that the Sun's behaviour affects Earth's atmosphere ? in particular influencing cloud formation. This claim has attracted global-warming sceptics, who argue that the Sun has greater influence than human activities on our changing climate. The Sun's 11-year cycle is driven by its magnetic field, and generates a flow of charged particles known as the solar wind. At the quieter parts of the cycle, activity is fairly low and the solar wind is reasonably uniform. But at the 'solar maximum', sunspots ? dark patches caused by the magnetic field twisting at the surface ? appear on the Sun's face. Huge solar flares explode above these spots causing turbulence in the solar wind and sending streams of charged particles hurtling through space. The most recent solar cycle was fairly moderate when measured by the number of sunspots (see graphic). Yet in late October 2003, three years after the cycle's peak, two monstrous sunspots appeared, each more than ten times the diameter of Earth. Both were in a state of almost constant eruption, spewing out billions of tonnes of electrically charged particles. These were the particles that caused such havoc when they hit Earth's atmosphere. The global maritime emergency call system blacked-out, contact was lost with expeditions on Mount Everest, and the accuracy of the global positioning system was impaired. As well as NASA's satellite malfunctions, the Japanese lost contact with one of their weather satellites altogether. The cost to the airline industry arose as planes were re-routed to lower altitudes, congesting the airways and burning more fuel. Lucky escape The sunspots bombarded Earth, on and off, for two weeks as the Sun's rotation carried them across its face. On 4 November, as the second sunspot was about to be lost from sight, it let loose another tremendous explosion. Solar physicists calculated that it was one of the largest solar flares in recorded history1. By sheer luck it exploded into deep space, catching Earth only in the side wash. Those who saw it breathed a sigh of relief and wondered what the damage might have been if such a flare had exploded facing Earth. If the latest prediction comes true for the next solar cycle, we may yet find out. Predicting the timing and strength of such solar eruptions is clearly important, but it is hampered by the fact that scientists know relatively little about the Sun's inner workings. So to coincide with the start of the next solar cycle, the largest coordinated study of the Sun will be launched next year. Known as the International Heliophysical Year (IHY), the initiative hopes to build awareness of the Sun's possible influence on Earth's climate and to bring researchers from different disciplines together to study solar activity. Currently, the Sun is at a solar minimum, and most predictions suggest that the next solar maximum in five or six years' time will be weak. But the most recent forecast, the first to be based on a completely physical model of the Sun, suggests otherwise. This forecast has been generated by Mausumi Dikpati and her team at the NCAR2. They have developed a computer simulation that mixes the Sun's internal magnetic dynamo with theories about how solar plasma circulates near the surface. And they have reached a sobering conclusion. "We expect between 30% and 50% more sunspots and solar activity than the cycle just ending," says Gilman, who is a member of Dikpati's team. The last time solar activity occurred on this scale was in 1958, when there was little technology in orbit. Now things are very different: Earth is surrounded by thousands of active satellites. Satellite operators rely on predictions of solar activity to estimate the lifetime of space missions. The solar wind heats Earth's thin upper atmosphere, increasing atmospheric density and causing more drag. Gilman estimates that a 30% increase in activity will almost double the atmospheric density at an altitude of 300 km, affecting low-altitude satellites. Mission planners looking ahead to 2012 may want to boost their spacecraft to higher orbits, or accept a shorter operational lifetime. Even above 800 km, where satellites are safe from atmospheric drag, other dangers remain. The solar wind can cause a build up in electrical charge, which then short-circuits and burns out sensitive equipment. This is the suspected fate of the Japanese Midori 2 satellite, lost during the 2003 flares. And as more satellites die in orbit, operators have to worry about dodging 'space junk'. In the aftermath of a large solar storm, the change in atmospheric drag can shift the orbit of space debris, endangering active satellites. The Sun's influence over space hardware is only one aspect of the latest drive to understand the star. The possible effects of the solar cycle on our climate, especially cloud formation, are also receiving a lot of attention. A link between the two was suggested in 1997, when meteorologists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, both at the Danish Meteorology Institute in Copenhagen, analysed weather satellite records for 1979 to 1992. They found that during solar minima, Earth was 3% cloudier than at solar maxima3. They also noticed that the influx of high-energy particles reaching Earth from deep space, phenomena known as cosmic rays, was up to 25% higher at solar minima, hinting that they might seed cloud formation. The pair called their finding a "missing link in solar?climate relationships". Climate sceptics who argue that human activities are not responsible for global warming have seized on these results. They claim it shows that the Sun is largely responsible for variations in our climate. So convinced are they that last year two Russian sceptics placed a $10,000 bet that global temperatures will show an average fall for 2012?17 ? on the assumption that the next solar cycle will be weak4. But most proponents of the solar?climate link are proceeding more carefully. "We're not suggesting that all clouds are formed by solar activity, merely that the process might be modulated by solar activity," says Robert Bingham, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, UK. He is part of an international experiment known as CLOUD, or Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets. This will use CERN's particle accelerator on the French?Swiss border to fire charged particles through a chamber holding gases to simulate Earth's atmosphere and determine whether 'clouds' are created. Global network To take advantage of the next solar cycle more directly, the United Nations is heading an initiative to install radio receivers in all 191 of its member states. For the first time, the upper atmosphere's response to the continual collision of solar radiation would be monitored on a global basis. Although space officially starts at an altitude of about 100 km, scientists know little about this region because it is difficult to study. The UN project is one of the planned elements in the IHY. Although it has no dedicated research budget, the IHY has initiated a call-for-proposals aimed at making it easier for scientists from any discipline to gain access to solar instruments and data. "We are inviting ideas from the community," says Rutherford's Richard Harrison, the joint UK coordinator for the IHY. Certainly 2007 will put at scientists' disposal the largest-ever fleet of space missions for studying solar?terrestrial interactions. A dozen spacecraft that track solar activity are already in orbit, and another three should launch this year, including the most sophisticated solar watchdog yet. NASA's Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) consists of two nearly identical craft that will watch the Sun from different locations, one preceding Earth in its orbit and the other following behind. This will allow them to take stereoscopic images of the Sun and to track the three-dimensional structure of particle eruptions. In this way, STEREO might be able to supply advance notice of the speed and direction of eruptions as they head towards Earth. Such information should help satellite operators respond to imminent dangers, but for proper planning they will need long-term forecasts of solar activity. Some researchers, such as Harrison, believe that scientists don't yet understand the Sun enough to make meaningful long-term predictions. Certainly, past forecasts have relied on tracking signposts of future solar activity, without worrying too much about the mechanisms behind them. For example, in the 1970s, astronomers recognized that the build up of magnetism at the Sun's poles after the cycle has peaked has a bearing on the strength of the next cycle. Just last year, one of the pioneers of this method, Leif Svalgaard, used the Sun's polar magnetic field to predict that the next solar cycle will be the weakest for a century5. Other 'signpost' methods, such as those looking at the amount of 10.7-centimetre radio waves coming from the Sun or the number of bright patches near the Sun's poles, also forecast a weak cycle. The only signpost method to predict a strong cycle comes from solar physicists David Hathaway and Robert Wilson at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. In 2004, they noticed that a solar cycle's strength correlates to the number of sunspots two cycles before. Applying that rule of thumb to the next cycle, they have predicted strong activity in 2012 (ref. 6). Dikpati's model agrees with this forecast and, crucially, puts the reason for it on a physical footing. In the past decade, physicists have discovered a vast conveyor belt of plasma on the Sun that seems to flow from the equator to the poles in each hemisphere at around 30?65 kilometres per hour. Sunspots are typically active for just a few weeks before fading from view, but their magnetic fields linger on. These weak fields are carried by the flow and accumulate at the poles before being submerged below the surface, where they presumably flow back towards the equator7. Dikpati's work combines sunspot observations dating back to the 1900s with a computer simulation of the Sun's magnetic dynamo and the conveyor belt (see graphic). In the simulation, the conveyor belt sweeps along old sunspots, submerging them at the poles. During the deep return flow, the Sun's rotation rejuvenates the old magnetic fields, creating new sunspots and fresh areas of solar activity. It is the only prediction in which every step uses a physics-based computer model, which is why it is being taken seriously by solar physicists. "The solid physics of Dikpati's model is a high hurdle for the other techniques to get over," says Hathaway. Solar memory The key to Dikpati's forecast is how fast the Sun's conveyor belt runs. The deep return flow is unmeasurable but the model suggests that it is slower than the surface flow, perhaps just 5 kilometres per hour. If so, the return leg of the journey would take a couple of decades. "This shows that the Sun retains a memory of its magnetic field for about 20 years," says Dikpati. So in her model, the Sun's activity is not based solely on the previous cycle's magnetic field but on the interplay with earlier cycles. In contrast, most 'signpost' prediction methods assume that the previous solar cycle immediately kicks off the activity of the next. "It is good for science that the predictions are now diverging," says Svalgaard, although he disagrees with Dikpati's conclusions. Solar physicists are now waiting to see if this physics-based forecast is right. And they may not have to wait for the peak of activity in six years' time to find out. All methods predict only the average number of sunspots, but records show that large cycles have always begun early and raced to their peak. That means that the telltale signs of a large solar cycle should be evident within just three or four years from now. "We must now let Mother Nature tell us who is right," says Svalgaard. But Dikpati and her team are refining their model to see whether it can predict features such as an early start. Either way, there will be plenty of sun watchers ? from mission planners to climate sceptics ? tracking the way the solar wind blows. References 1. Tsurutani, B. T. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03S09 (2005). 2. Dikpati, M. , de Toma, G. & Gilman, P. A. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L05102 (2006). 3. Svensmark, H. & Friis-Christensen, E. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 59, 1225?1232 (1997). 4. Giles, J. Nature 436, 897 (2005). 5. Svalgaard, L. , Cliver, E. W. & Kamide, Y. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L01104 (2005). 6. Hathaway, D. H. & Wilson, R. M. Solar Phys. 224, 5?19 (2004). 7. Hathaway, D. H. et al. Astrophys. J. 589, 665?670 (2003). +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu May 25 15:38:28 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: Fitting the linear-quadratic model to detailed data sets for different dose ranges Message-ID: <20060525203828.37935.qmail@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> >From *Physics in Medicine and Biology* Volume 51, 7 June 2006 Fitting the linear-quadratic model to detailed data sets for different dose ranges L M Garcia, J Leblanc, D Wilkins and G P Raaphorst 2006 Phys. Med. Biol. 51 2813-2823 Abstract: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/-alert=1462/0031-9155/51/11/009 Full text PDF: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-alert=1462/0031-9155/51/11/009/pmb6_11_009.pdf Survival curve behaviour and degree of correspondence between the linear-quadratic (LQ) model and experimental data in an extensive dose range for high dose rates were analysed. Detailed clonogenic assays with irradiation given in 0.5 Gy increments and a total dose range varying from 10.5 to 16 Gy were performed. The cell lines investigated were: CHOAA8 (Chinese hamster fibroblast cells), U373MG (human glioblastoma cells), CP3 and DU145 (human prostate carcinoma cell lines). The analyses were based on χ2-statistics and Monte Carlo simulation of the experiments. A decline of LQ fit quality at very low doses (<2 Gy) is observed. This result can be explained by the hypersensitive effect observed in CHOAA8, U373MG and DU145 data and an adaptive-type response in the CP3 cell line. A clear improvement of the fit is discerned by removing the low dose data points. The fit worsening at high doses also shows that LQ cannot explain this region. This shows that the LQ model fits better the middle dose region of the survival curve. The analysis conducted in our study reveals a dose dependency of the LQ fit in different cell lines. --------------------- As noted in the Discusson: "A drop in the fit quality was found when low doses were included. This could be a result of the linearity in the trend of the survival curve at low doses that will affect the total fit in a range from 0 Gy to the final dose in the linear?quadratic region. "However, the very low dose region (∼0?2 Gy) strongly influences the decline of the fit quality. This outcome can be explained by the hypersensitive effect observed in CHOAA8 and U373MG data and an adaptive-type response in CP3 cell line. Detailed study becomes necessary to assess a hyper-radiosensitive/induced-radioresistant response in both cell lines, especially, because this effect has not been detected in human U373MG and hamster ovarian CHOAA8 cells, but has been reported in other cell lines (Marples et al 2004, Bartkowiak et al 2001). "The LQ behaviour characterizes the survival curves in the middle dose region, which is demonstrated by a clear improvement of goodness of fit and Monte Carlo analyses. "The fit worsening at high doses showed as expected that the LQ model cannot explain this region. LQ model predicts a constant increasing slope at high doses in contrast to the constant slope observed in experimental survival curves. This can be translated in our study as a deterioration of goodness of fit at those dose ranges. "Exactness of region delimitation is affected by hypersensitivity, adaptive response at very low doses and data uncertainties." +++++++++++++++++++ "You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From alstonchris at netscape.net Thu May 25 15:47:43 2006 From: alstonchris at netscape.net (alstonchris at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:47:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: funniest DU scare story ever ! Message-ID: <5EEC26CF.3B7C5D44.48616B36@netscape.net> "Exposure rate", I don't know, but the beta doserate at contact with a DU source of infinite density (1/8" ?), e.g., the plaques used to calibrate survey meters, is 230 mrad/h, as best I recall. The 60 and 90 keV x-rays only sum to about 7%, so that wouldn't be much exposure; but there's bremsstralung, too ...(?) Cheers cja denison8 at wowway.com wrote: >Anybody got a ref for the exposure rate from a kilo of DU (I'm at >home without my books). ?Off the top of my head I'd guess no more >than a couple of mrem. __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp From isurveyor at vianet.net.au Fri May 26 20:17:34 2006 From: isurveyor at vianet.net.au (Ivor Surveyor) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 09:17:34 +0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Storage of spent fuel Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060527090532.023fa078@vianet.net.au> The following message was posted on an Australian site There is currently an active debate in Australia on the question of nuclear energy. I wonder if those with specialist knowledge could comment on the background to the message as it relates to the US and /or UK. please? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Nuclear spent fuel in the USA languishes in over 70 stirred ponds awaiting a decision as to what to do with it finally. Recent arrivals have to be carefully placed so as not to be adjacent to the previous arrivals to avoid neutron exchange. Some of the longer term resident fuel elements are put in dry containers, adequately spaced internally so as to avoid interaction. The ponds have to be constantly stirred and cooled, so if they lose their electricity supply for a protracted period, the spent fuel elements might melt down and catch fire, contaminating the internal space inside the containment shield or the surrounding area if they are outside. It would be possible to send the dry containers to Australia in return for the earned revenue from past uranium exports. The procrastination experienced in finding a final solution is to be deprecated. In the UK's Sellafield the external ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls and poor records mean that the exact contents are unknown. Tenders are out to private contractors invited to quote to clear up the mess. The first tranche of taxpayers' money to clean up the closed Magnox and research stations and the processing plant at Sellafield totals ?70 billion. The sums needed to clean up the working reactors at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from the generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4. Are the Australians really wanting to join the nuclear generation club? Posted by John Busby, Saturday, 27 May 2006 2:44:57 AM" Ivor Surveyor [ isurveyor at vianet.net.au ] From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sat May 27 01:04:28 2006 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Off subject issue...cancer related? Dartmouth study finds that arsenic inhibits DNA repair Message-ID: <20060527060428.63301.qmail@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 26-May-2006 Contact: Sue Knapp Sue.Knapp at Dartmouth.edu 603-646-3661 Dartmouth College Dartmouth study finds that arsenic inhibits DNA repair --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Authors of the study, from left to right: Eugene Demidenko, Angeline Andrew, Joshua Hamilton, Margaret Karagas, all at Dartmouth Click here for more information. --------------------------------- HANOVER, NH ? Dartmouth researchers, working with scientists at the University of Arizona and at the Department of Natural Resources in Sonora, Mexico, have published a study on the impact of arsenic exposure on DNA damage. They have determined that arsenic in drinking water is associated with a decrease in the body's ability to repair its DNA. "This work supports the idea that arsenic in drinking water can promote the carcinogenic effects of other chemicals," says Angeline Andrew, the lead author and a research assistant professor of community and family medicine at Dartmouth Medical School. "This is evidence that it's more important than ever to keep arsenic out of drinking water." The study, which was published online on May 10, 2006, in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the drinking water and measured the arsenic levels in samples of urine and toenails of people who were enrolled in epidemiologic studies in New Hampshire, and in Sonora, Mexico. Andrew and her colleagues examined the data in conjunction with tissue samples from the study participants to determine the effect of arsenic on DNA repair. To further corroborate their findings, the researchers conducted laboratory studies to examine the effects of arsenic on DNA repair in cultured human cell models. "The DNA repair machinery normally protects us from DNA-damaging agents, such as those found in cigarette smoke," says Andrew. "The concern is that exposure to drinking water arsenic may exacerbate the harmful effects of smoking or other exposures." Andrew explains that in regions of the United States where the rock contains higher levels of arsenic, the greater the likelihood that drinking water sources contain some potential adverse levels of the toxin. While the levels of arsenic in municipal water systems are regularly monitored, there is no mandated testing of arsenic levels in private wells. This is of particular concern since the regions where arsenic levels are high are in rural regions, such as New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan and some regions of the Southwest and Rockies. Private wells are common in these areas as primary sources of drinking water. ### (More information on drinking water testing and remediation options can be found from the NH Department of Environmental Services: http://www.des.state.nh.us/ws.htm or the US Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/drinkwater/private_well_owners.html) Andrew's co-authors on this paper are: Jefferey Burgess, Maria Meza, Eugene Demidenko, Mary Waugh, Joshua Hamilton, and Margaret Karagas, all from Dartmouth Medical School, the Department of Environmental and Community Health at the University of Arizona, or the Department of Natural Resources at the Technological Institute of Sonora, Mexico. The research was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Cancer Institute, the Dartmouth and Arizona Superfund Programs, and the American Society of Preventive Oncology. Roy Herren --------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1?/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. From JGinniver at aol.com Sat May 27 10:03:36 2006 From: JGinniver at aol.com (JGinniver at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 11:03:36 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Storage of spent fuel Message-ID: <2df.7d71486.31a9c448@aol.com> In a message dated 27/05/2006 02:21:48 GMT Standard Time, isurveyor at vianet.net.au writes: "Nuclear spent fuel in the USA languishes in over 70 stirred ponds awaiting a decision as to what to do with it finally. A descision was made many years ago about what to do with sepnt nuclear fuel from US nuclear power plants. As part of a deal to end commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in the United States, the US government agreed to take ownership of US spent nuclear fual at a set date (which I think has passed) and to dispose of it in a national disposal facility. This facility is to be constructed at Yucca Mountain (if all of the licensing requirements are successfully completed). However many of the spent fuel facilities at Nuclear Plants are reaching capacity and because Yucca Mountain is not available the plants are having to look at alternative storage options. Some utilities/plants have successfully sued the US government for not taking the nuclear fuel at the agreed date. The option most are adopting is to place the fuel in large steel, concrete or composite (steel and concrete containers) known as spent fuel flasks or casks (as mentioned below). Recent arrivals have to be carefully placed so as not to be adjacent to the previous arrivals to avoid neutron exchange. It is necessary to plan where to place recently discharged fuel to ensure that the stoarge arrangement cannot produce a nuclear excursion known as a criticality. However this is simple and does not present problems for the operators. In addition neutron absorbing chemicals can (and ofetn are) be added to the water the fuel is stored in to make sure that a criticality cannot occur. , Some of the longer term resident fuel elements are put in dry containers, adequately spaced internally so as to avoid interaction. These are the dry fuel casks mentioned above. Some anti-nuclear activities have actually campaigned to have the nuclear fuel stored this way. E.g. Robert Alvarez wrote an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recommending this approach. The ponds have to be constantly stirred and cooled, so if they lose their electricity supply for a protracted period, the spent fuel elements might melt down and catch fire, contaminating the internal space inside the containment shield or the surrounding area if they are outside. There are two issues here. The first is that fuel recently discharged from a nuclear reactor must be stored under water and that the water must be circulated and cooled to remove the heat produced from the radioactive decay taking place inside the fuel. The rate of heat produce is very high immediately after a nuclear reactor shuts down, but the amount of heat produced decreases rapidly as the radionuclides with very short half lives decay away. So the longer the fuel is stored the less heat that is produced and the longer the fuel can go without cooling. It's also important to recognise that key safety systems on nuclear power plants are provided with several diverse methods of electricity supply to minimise the likelyhood that a complete loss of power to any safety system occurs. In the extreme it would probably be possible to cool the fuel using water supplied by fire vehicles/appliances. The second issue is that fuel cannot be rapidly transferred to dry fuel casks as it is still generating too much heat. However after a period of time in the cooling ponds the amount of heat being produced dies down to a point where the fuel can be cooled by natural circulation of air around the fuel storage flask/cask. At this point it can be transferred for long term storage in a cask. The whole point of the dry fuel storage containers is that they are passive and require no additional safety precautions. It would be possible to send the dry containers to Australia in return for the earned revenue from past uranium exports. The procrastination experienced in finding a final solution is to be deprecated. In the UK's Sellafield the external ponds are full of sludge and guano from seagulls and poor records mean that the exact contents are unknown. This is a whole lot of balderdash. In the early days of the Magnox power plant programme all ponds were open to atmosphere and problems did occur. However, as far as I'm aware all fuel storage ponds are enclosed to prevent seagulls from floating around on the nice warm water. The sludge that is mentioned is an issue that relates to the design of the Magnox (MAgnesium Non OXidising) cladding used on the first generation of Nuclear Power Plants in the UK. This cladding can corrode in the cooling pond if the water is not kept clean and maintained with the appropriate water chemistry. The Magnox cladding will burn readily and once buring is very difficult to put out. Amongst other reasons, it's because Magnox Fuel is so diffficult to store, that the UK has a civil nuclear reprocessing programme. Even if the UK decided to end commercial reprocessing tomorrow, it would still have to complete the reprocessing of the Magnox fuel from the civil nuclear programme. Tenders are out to private contractors invited to quote to clear up the mess. The first tranche of taxpayers' money to clean up the closed Magnox and research stations and the processing plant at Sellafield totals ?70 billion. The UK has over the last few years changed how it manages the civil nuclear liabilities in the UK. Work is ongoing to put out to tender the contracts for the clean up and restoration of the Civil Nuclear research and re-processing programmes. It is expected that a more commercial approach will lead to reductions in the cost of restoring these sites. For example the cost of cleaning up the sites from the reactor research programmes (currently operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) has been reduced by over ?1 Billion in the last few years. What has also not been recognised is the revenue that the UK Goverment has recieved from Fuel Enrichment, Fuel manufacture and Reprocessing for UK and foreign customers. It also doesn't show how much of the ?70 billion is to cover the clean up of much of the early Nuclear Weapons Programme in the UK. These costs to recognise the enormous spin offs that have come from the UK Civil Nuclear research programme. For example Amersham International that is now owned by GE Health Care and is one of the worlds biggest suppliers of Radiopharmceuticals was once part of the UK Civil Nuclear Programme. There have been advances in many areas from technolgies to destroy chemical weapons (the Silver II) process to advanced battery technologies used in space etc. It would be nice if at sometime someone could actually review the overall cost of the programme including clean up and site restoration against the benefits from that programme. For example after all the rhetoric from the anti nuclear groups about the UK Government bailing out British Energy, for very little initial cost the Governement now owns a stake in the company which, according to a report the other day, is know worth over $6 billion, and now that the company is profitable the Governement is not going to have to put nearly as much money towards the decomissioning liabilities. The sums needed to clean up the working reactors at the end of their lives is yet to be calculated, but the total bill exceeds the revenue from the generated electricity by a factor of 3 or 4. More nonsense. There are a number of very successful projects taking place around the world decommssioning Nuclear Power Plants. In the UK, the prototype Advanced Gas Reactor at Windscale (part of the larger Sellafield site) is one of the European Union demonstration projects for Nuclear Power Plant decommissioning. It is currently below budget and ahead of time, other European projects include the larger multi reactor site at Grafenwhalde(? not sure about the spelling). The projects indicate that it will cost between ?300 - ?500 million to decommission a large Nuclear power station (which in the case of the UK, generally have two reactors per power plant). In the UK Electricity Generators are currently receiving on average about ?30 per Megawatt Hour (this works out at 3 pence a killowatt hour). The large Advanced Gas Reactor Plants can prove about 1200 Megawatts per hour to the national grid. So they earn about ?36,000 per hour, or ?864,000 per day, or ?315,360,000 per year if they generate all year. However UK plants currently only have an average load factor (time spent generating) of about 75% (although it should be noted that some reactoirs have been able to generate for more than 650 days without shuting down). So if we take the figure for the year and multiply by 75% we get, ?236,520,000 a year. The plants have a nominal lifetime of about 35 years although work is ongoing to see if this can be extended, so over the lifetime of the plant the revenue would be about ?8,278,2000,000 at todays prices. As you can see this exceeds the cost of decommissioning by a factor of between 16.5 and 27.5, for decomissioning to exceed revenue by a factor of 3 or 4, the cost would have to be ?24 Billion to ?32 Billion per site. These are UK figures, if anyone can do something similar for US plants I would be interested. It is worth noting that Pressurised Water Reactor Power Plants are comparatively simple to decomission compared to some other types, and so I would expect the cost for many US plants to be a bit lower. I hope this helps, feel free to contact me for more inormation if required. Are the Australians really wanting to join the nuclear generation club? Posted by John Busby, Saturday, 27 May 2006 2:44:57 AM" From theo at richel.org Sun May 28 06:01:37 2006 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:01:37 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Hormesis evidence from Chernobyl- Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski Message-ID: <009101c68246$17368b50$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> The source for the claim that Chernobyl resulted in 100.000-200.000 abortions is: L.E. Ketchum, 1987. "Lessons of Chernobyl: SNM members try to decontaminate the world threatened by fallout. Experts face challenge of educating public about risk and radiation." J. Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 28, pp. 933-42. Theo Richel theo at richel.org From bill.schaper at mjwts.com Thu May 25 15:08:19 2006 From: bill.schaper at mjwts.com (Bill V. Schaper) Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:08:19 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Manual For Tri-Med (Ballard) MicroCOUNT 9605 LSC Message-ID: <985B62D710A3654487FFD73973D855AA80A3D0@MJWEXCHANGE.mjwcorp.com> I am in need of an operation manual for the Tri-Med (BALLARD) MicroCOUNT Mdl 9605 Liquid Scintillation Counter any help in finding one would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, William V. Schaper VP of Operations MJW Technical Services, Inc 243 Root St Olean, NY 14760 (716) 372-5300 (716) 432-6890 Cell (716) 372-5307 Fax bill.schaper at mjwts.com From corgano at rpii.ie Wed May 24 03:09:06 2006 From: corgano at rpii.ie (Catherine Organo) Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:09:06 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NORM V conference announcement - FYI Message-ID: For all those of you who didn't know about it, the NORM V conference information website can be found at the following address: www.us.es/normv/ Conference dates: 19-22 March 2007 Location: Seville Cordially Catherine ORGANO Radiological Protection Institute Of Ireland Advisory Services Division / Natural Radioactivity Advice & Information Section 3 Clonskeagh Square Clonskeagh Road Dublin 14 - IRELAND email: corgano at rpii.ie Phone: + 353 1 206 69 06 (direct line) Phone: + 353 1 269 77 66 (main switch) Fax: + 353 1 269 74 37 Website: www.rpii.ie From theo at richel.org Mon May 29 06:14:32 2006 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:14:32 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] quiz Message-ID: <029601c68311$0fb9df00$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> As a science journalist from the Netherlands ( see www.richel.org/resume ) I am very much interested in the health effects of radiation. While researching the subject I found that many scientific studies indicate that low levels of radiation might even be beneficial. Now the public climate is currently such that it is almost impossible to publish anything that goes against the tide of radio-phobia. So instead of an article I decided to make a quiz that will hopefully stir the debate. Through this I invite you to do that quiz and eventually mail me your comments. The quiz is here: http://www.richel.org/radiation/welcome.php . Thank you for your interest, Theo Richel Stationsstraat 43 4421 AK Kapelle The Netherlands Tel. +31 113 330030 theo at richel.org From maurysis at ev1.net Mon May 29 12:09:57 2006 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 12:09:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Message-ID: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of warning markings on your own printer, go to: http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ Cheers and Happy Decoration Day Maury&Dog From andrewsjp at chartertn.net Mon May 29 13:15:20 2006 From: andrewsjp at chartertn.net (John Andrews) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:15:20 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> References: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> Message-ID: <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> Maury Siskel wrote: > Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the > trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of > warning markings on your own printer, go to: > http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ > > Cheers and Happy Decoration Day > Maury&Dog > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > I thought something was wrong with that radiation symbol. It is upside down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs are in 10CFR20, I think. The distance from the center dot to the blade of the symbol should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee From maurysis at ev1.net Mon May 29 13:29:06 2006 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:29:06 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> References: <447B2AE5.1050101@ev1.net> <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <447B3D71.2010907@ev1.net> Thanks for telling me, John. Don't know if they will do anything with it but I'm going pass your into that website to see if they will fix it. Your picky picky is worthwhile. I failed to even notice that it was inverted! Thanks again, Maury&Dog ============ John Andrews wrote: > Maury Siskel wrote: > >> Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the >> trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of >> warning markings on your own printer, go to: >> http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ >> >> Cheers and Happy Decoration Day >> Maury&Dog >> _______________________________________________ >> > I thought something was wrong with that radiation symbol. It is > upside down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs are in > 10CFR20, I think. The distance from the center dot to the blade of > the symbol should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. > > OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > > . > From frantaj at aecl.ca Mon May 29 13:31:19 2006 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:31:19 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F70B4F55EF@sps13.aecl.ca> Its possible these labels are for people who tend to stick things on up side down.... (the rest of us can learn, I assume....) Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of John Andrews Sent: May 29, 2006 2:15 PM To: Maury Siskel; Mailing List for Risk Professionals; RadiatSafety Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Maury Siskel wrote: > Question has arien in past about warning labels and expecially the > trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a wide selection of > warning markings on your own printer, go to: > http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ > > Cheers and Happy Decoration Day > Maury&Dog > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > I thought something was wrong with that radiation symbol. It is upside down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs are in 10CFR20, I think. The distance from the center dot to the blade of the symbol should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee _______________________________________________ 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/ 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 PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From toro at ispt.ro Tue May 30 02:54:48 2006 From: toro at ispt.ro (Toro) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:54:48 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker Message-ID: At the The IRPA Congress on Radiation Protection, Paris, May 15 - May 19 2006 there were an interesting paper on some proposals to change the radiation warning sign: New Radiation Warning Sign, C.J. Mac Kenzie (International Atomic Energy Agency) The whole paper is not on the net, I can send the abstract (in pdf format). Unfortunatelly in the Proceeding CD they have only the abstract (it was a poster). Yours, Laszlo Toro -- ====================================================================== Laszlo Toro PhD senior scientist Institute of Public Health Timisoara Radiation Hygiene Dept. RO 300226 Timisoara Bd. V. Babes 16-18 Romania ph. +40 256 492101 ext 34 fax +40 256 492101 e-mail toro at ispt.ro ====================================================================== ________________________________________________ VHCS Webmail From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue May 30 07:42:01 2006 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 05:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: <447B3A38.5090606@chartertn.net> Message-ID: <20060530124201.36885.qmail@web54307.mail.yahoo.com> John, I believe that the upside-down trefoil is the symbol for a fall-out shelter. See http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/signs/index.html --- John Andrews wrote: > Maury Siskel wrote: > > > Question has arien in past about warning labels > and expecially the > > trefoil for radioactivity. For kaking this and a > wide selection of > > warning markings on your own printer, go to: > > http://www.warninglabelgenerator.com/ > > > > Cheers and Happy Decoration Day > > Maury&Dog > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > I thought something was wrong with that radiation > symbol. It is upside > down! And, the center dot is too small. The specs > are in 10CFR20, I > think. The distance from the center dot to the > blade of the symbol > should be 1/2 the radius of the dot. > > OK, so I am picky, picky, picky... > > John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee > _______________________________________________ > 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 get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor." GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Tue May 30 09:24:01 2006 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:24:01 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shipping Electronics from Germany to USA Message-ID: Can anyone suggest the cheapest means to ship two 25 kg. boxes from Wolfen to Boston? J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From stanford at stanforddosimetry.com Tue May 30 09:37:43 2006 From: stanford at stanforddosimetry.com (Neill Stanford) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:37:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002a01c683f6$9d28fb60$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> Reading this thread re-inspired me to find an image of the new sign presented at last year's HPS meeting. Here is a link to a pdf of the presentation: http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/meetings/general-conference05/new-radiation -warning-sign.pdf Neill Stanford, CHP ----------------------------------------------------- Stanford Dosimetry, LLC 2315 Electric Ave. Bellingham, WA 98229 www.stanforddosimetry.com 360 527-2627 (voice) 360 715 1982 (fax) 360 770-7778 (cell) ------------------------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Toro Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:55 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re:[ RadSafe ] Warning laber maker At the The IRPA Congress on Radiation Protection, Paris, May 15 - May 19 2006 there were an interesting paper on some proposals to change the radiation warning sign: New Radiation Warning Sign, C.J. Mac Kenzie (International Atomic Energy Agency) The whole paper is not on the net, I can send the abstract (in pdf format). Unfortunatelly in the Proceeding CD they have only the abstract (it was a poster). Yours, Laszlo Toro -- ====================================================================== Laszlo Toro PhD senior scientist Institute of Public Health Timisoara Radiation Hygiene Dept. RO 300226 Timisoara Bd. V. Babes 16-18 Romania ph. +40 256 492101 ext 34 fax +40 256 492101 e-mail toro at ispt.ro ====================================================================== ________________________________________________ VHCS Webmail _______________________________________________ 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/ From pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us Tue May 30 10:05:22 2006 From: pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:05:22 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another tritium in gw article. In-Reply-To: <002a01c683f6$9d28fb60$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> References: <002a01c683f6$9d28fb60$6a01a8c0@SDOSE> Message-ID: <447C0AD202000036000026AC@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us> Another tritium in gw article. don't shoot me (this is not my area of expertise), I just pass em along... http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-29-02.asp Phil Egidi EPS III Radiation Management Unit Radiation Control Program Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division CDPHE NEW ADDRESS: 222 S. 6th St. Rm. 232 Grand Junction, CO 81501 (970) 248-7162 (970) 248-7198 fax alternate numbers: (303)692-3447 (303)759-5355 (fax) From Cehn at aol.com Tue May 30 13:14:03 2006 From: Cehn at aol.com (Cehn at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 14:14:03 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stoessel report on TV Message-ID: <247.bb308e9.31ade56b@aol.com> I have a VHS tape of the report that John Stoessel did on ABC. Can someone convert it to a PC format (.wmv or .mpg)? If so, I'll send you the tape. Joel I. Cehn joelc at alum.wpi.edu From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 31 03:06:05 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 01:06:05 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: [DU-WATCH] Latest Gulf War Illness Research Message-ID: <010d01c68489$140389c0$0100007f@roger1> Compliments of one of the least factually accurate anti-DU crusaders Irving Hall http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/Minutes_Dec2005_Text.pdf > > DU discussion from official minutes of the Dec. 2005 > meeting of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' > Illnesses: Some of you might like to attend the next one of these meetings so that there would be some balance .. From maurysis at ev1.net Wed May 31 05:57:49 2006 From: maurysis at ev1.net (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 05:57:49 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Wired 14.06: Don't Try This at Home Message-ID: <447D76AD.7060207@ev1.net> Regarding nuclear energy and rational, empirical risk analysis: http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry_pr.html The above is a link to one more sad situation which is developing from our collective urge for security. No relief from this kind of thing is in sight; thus we continue to encourage intellectual eunuchs who will become intellectually sterile scientists, engineers, and politicians. This impotence is part of the overall loss or decline of functional science and engineering in the US. For increasingly illogical reasons, we continue to demand freedom form dependence on 'foreign' oil and energy even as we compromise this freedom in the use of an infinitude of other products. We are dependent upon foreign TVs and an overwhelming array of electronic gadgets; upon foreign automobiles, vehicles and vessels. We are dependent upon foreign components and parts which are necessary for conducting all kinds of military operations. We cannot even produce our own vaccines anymore! But we will NOT depend on foreign petrol! The United States can no longer harvest its own head lettuce or build its own automobiles. But by George, we will not depend on foreign petroleum products. At the same time, we must ensure that our views of land and seascapes remain uncluttered and that we do not risk any damage to our beaches. Better that we drill those gas wells here within our cities where we can really keep a close eye on the wells and new city tax revenues at all times. (This is happening now throughout the Ft. Worth Dallas metroplex). And Heaven forbid that we risk any contamination of our air with additional petrol refineries or that we endanger our posteriors by building new nuclear power plants. At the same time, we try to impose upon ourselves the same prohibitions that we seek to impose on Iran. When we can get along without oil and nuclear power, then that's good enough for the rest of the world. Let those stupid French continue to supply 70% of their own electricity with their own nuclear power plants. In any event, we will make enough grain alcohol and import enough foreign drugs to continue our high living standards and enjoy our leisure time.. And in passing, note that we continue to ensure insufficient supplies of alcohol by keeping tariffs high enough to preclude any dependence on foreign alcohol. (Tee hee, just wait until our supplies of bourbon are depleted!!!) Anyway, by Allah if it's good enough for us, then by God, it's good enough for Iran. How could any collection of such good sense be more logical? What's wrong with this picture? Oh well. As some say, if you cannot eat it or make love to it, then urinate on it, blame someone else, and and get on with your safe life. At least, we elected these devils; they are not imported and they are ours! Natural and organic -- Jake and I love this sensible living. Cheers? Maury&Dog From theo at richel.org Wed May 31 16:15:07 2006 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:15:07 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stoessel report on TV In-Reply-To: <247.bb308e9.31ade56b@aol.com> Message-ID: <02d001c684f7$4b020550$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> I havent seen the program (I live in Holland where Stossel is not aired), but I do know where the radiation part of this film is based on. It is a book by Ed Hiserodt called 'Underexposed - What if radiation is actually good for you?' from last year. Strange enough no one has mentioned this book yet on the Radsafe-list. I think it is quite good and for this list it is exactly on topic. As a free lance journalist I write similar stories as are in that book, but as you understand pro-nuclear and other scare-debunking-stories are not exactly popular in the media so in order to supply my income I have decided to sell this book at my website. If you want to promote better reporting on radiation and health then here is your chance: buy the book. Read more about it here: http://www.richel.org/grk/bookshop/hiserodt/mailing.htm I hope no one is offended by this commercial abuse of this list. Regards Theo Richel Stationsstraat 43 4421 AK Kapelle theo at richel.org Tel. +31 (0)113330030 Fax +31 (0)113330031 http://www.richel.org/resume http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl http://www.huiselijkgeweld.info -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Namens Cehn at aol.com Verzonden: dinsdag 30 mei 2006 20:14 Aan: radsafe at radlab.nl Onderwerp: [ RadSafe ] Stoessel report on TV I have a VHS tape of the report that John Stoessel did on ABC. Can someone convert it to a PC format (.wmv or .mpg)? If so, I'll send you the tape. Joel I. Cehn joelc at alum.wpi.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/ From rhelbig at california.com Wed May 31 21:09:04 2006 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:09:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] B-52 Fly By Message-ID: I verified this with USS Ranger Museum foundation website .. the encounter happened and picture is genuine .. Roger --- the forwarded message follows ---