[ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4
Shawn Hughes (Road2)
srh at esper.com
Wed May 3 19:04:56 CDT 2006
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" <uniqueproducts at comcast.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 41, Issue 3
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>, <ellison1 at localnet.com>
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" <ellison1 at localnet.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Update?: First Ever Intentional Hormetic X-Ray
> Exposure ?
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID: <NGBBIOBJJGGDJFFHAMIGCEOEFAAA.ellison1 at localnet.com>
> 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" <sandyfl at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night
To: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow at pnl.gov>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>,
"Conklin, Al \DDOH\"" <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV>
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" <jim.dukelow at pnl.gov>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night
To: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>, radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID:
<AF293AF0A07C8A44A6098DA99D0371300407E8DD at pnlmse24.pnl.gov>
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 <loc at icx.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] A NEW PRONUCLEAR ADVOCACY GROUP WAS LAUNCHED
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at radlab.nl>
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, <www.cleansafeenergy.org/>.
Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:30:50 -0400
From: Susan Gawarecki <loc at icx.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at radlab.nl>
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 <www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-602T>.
Excerpted from ANS Late News Section / May 2006 Nuclear News
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:04:30 -0700
From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at california.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] AJR 39 Assembly Joint Resolution - INTRODUCED
To: "radsafelist" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
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 <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night
To: Sandy Perle <sandyfl at earthlink.net>, 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 <sandyfl at earthlink.net> 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" <edmond.baratta at fda.hhs.gov>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Phone radiation 'impairs thinking'
To: "'John Jacobus'" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>, "Susan Gawarecki"
<loc at icx.net>, "RADSAFE" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
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 <loc at icx.net> 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 <james at bovik.org>
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 <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
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" <jim.dukelow at pnl.gov> 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 \(DOH\)" <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night
To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>, "Sandy Perle"
<sandyfl at earthlink.net>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
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 <sandyfl at earthlink.net> 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" <Danb at DNFSB.GOV>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 60 Minutes feature on Hanford last night
To: "Al Conklin" <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV>,<radsafe at radlab.nl>
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)" <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV> 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 <sandyfl at earthlink.net> 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 <hflong at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] More on Hanford - GAO audit
To: Susan Gawarecki <loc at icx.net>, RADSAFE <radsafe at radlab.nl>
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 <loc at icx.net> 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
**************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list