[ RadSafe ] Neutron Source Licensing Requirements
Zaid Farukhi
zfrexon at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 8 16:24:13 CST 2007
What are the sequence of steps to get a neutron source license?
The usage is for a new homeland security detector.
If you like, please respond to zfrexon at yahoo.com.
Zaid Farukhi
Rexon TLD Systems, Inc.
Rexon Components, Inc.
24500 Highpoint Rd
Beachwood, OH 44122
Tel: 216-292-7373 24x7: 440-585-7086
Fax: 216-292-7714
URL: www.rexon.com
Email: sales at rexon.com, zfrexon at yahoo.com
radsafe-request at radlab.nl wrote:
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..."
Important!
To keep threads/discussions more easily readible please observe the following guideline when replying to a message or digest:
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ... and - rather than enclose an entire
article that you quote only the germane sentence to which you're responding".
_______________________________________________
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RADSAFE Message - Number of Atoms of Uranium Ingested
(Bernard L. Cohen)
2. RE: ANSI/HPS N13.12-1978 (Sandy Perle)
3. Re: Stack Emission Limits (dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com)
4. Stack Emission Limits (Eric.Goldin at sce.com)
5. Re: Stack Emission Limits (Otto Raabe)
6. Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of
all cancers - "Environmental - (John Jacobus)
7. Re: IAEA Proceedings (Cehn at aol.com)
8. Re: Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower
incidences of all cancers - " (John Jacobus)
9. Ecological Dose-Response Studies (Otto Raabe)
10. The hot and cold of history & journalistic credibility
(Harold Careway)
11. Re: Shipyard worker study (Keith Welch)
12. Mobile phone controversy (Bjorn Cedervall)
13. Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " NO
selection of healthy workers (howard long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:32:37 -0500
From: "Bernard L. Cohen"
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: RADSAFE Message - Number of Atoms of Uranium
Ingested
To: "Leo M. Lowe" , RadiatSafety
Message-ID: <45CB4295.1000603 at pitt.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
My error. I took the 5 Bq intake in the UNSCEAR Table as Bq/day,
whereas it was Bq/year. There were slight differences in the numbers we
used, so my result should have been a million trillion (1 E18) atoms per
year, not per day.
Leo M. Lowe wrote:
> Dear Dr. Cohen,
>
> Your response on RADSAFE to the claim that even one atom of depleted
> uranium was a threat (Dr. Durakovic) was bang on - this is a direct
> way to show the nonsense of such a claim.
>
> However, I estimate a lower number (by roughly a factor of 1000) than
> your value of a million trillion (1E18). According to UNSCEAR (2000,
> Annex B, Table 16), the reference annual intake of U-238 in the diet
> is 5.7 Bq. Using a specific activity of 1.235E04 Bq U-238/g of
> uranium, this converts to a daily intake of roughly 1 microgram of
> uranium, which is roughly about a million billion atoms (1E15). I am
> presuming that water intake and inhalation are relatively minor
> sources of U in most cases.
>
> All academic, and no effect on your main point, but I was wondering
> how you derived your number.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Leo M. Lowe, Ph.D., P.Phys.
--
ÐÏࡱá
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:11:35 -0800
From: "Sandy Perle"
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ANSI/HPS N13.12-1978
To: "'Dustin G Miller'" ,
Cc: 'David Drupa'
Message-ID:
<2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C0239D328 at gdses.corp.gds.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dustin,,
I am Chair of the Health Physics Society Standards Committee. Many of the
old standards are capable of being put into a PDF file format. The question
is whether the 1978 version was an HPS standard or another Accreditted
Standards Coordinator If that is the case, then there would be a copyright
and HPS can not make a copy.
Please contact David Drupa, HPS Secretariat's Office who can provide you
with the requirements to receive this standard, if it is available, at
David Drupa
HPSSC Secretariat
1313 Dolley Madison Blvd.
Suite 402
McLean, VA 22101
703-790-1745 ext. 30
ddrupa at burkinc.com
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
Tel: (949) 419-1000 Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144
Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Dustin G Miller
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:34 AM
To: 'RADSAFE'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] ANSI/HPS N13.12-1978
Does anyone have a copy of the 1978 version of the ANSI/HPS N13.12 standard?
The title is Surface and Volume Radioactivity Standards for Clearance. I
know it has been superseded by a 1999 version, which is available on the HPS
member website, but the 1978 version has some information that was not
included on subsequent versions.
Please respond outside of radsafe. Thank you.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:09:09 -0500
From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Stack Emission Limits
To: BLHamrick at aol.com
Cc: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl, radsafe at radlab.nl, RADCH-L at in2p3.fr
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Ah yes, the member of the public who continuously moves around the plant
perimeter to maintain his position at the highest dose rate location at all
times. I was just watching a sequel to "The X-Men" (and Women, how did
they get away with that title?) and they had two mutants who would actually
be able to do that if they also had good detection equipment and predictive
tools. Well, okay, also a good catering service and a rapid response
porta-potty service (or astronaut diapers).
Don Kosloff,
Beaver PA and Bedford OH
BLHamrick at aol.com
Sent by:
radsafe-bounces at r To
adlab.nl ograabe at ucdavis.edu,
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at,
RADCH-L at in2p3.fr, radsafe at radlab.nl
02/07/2007 11:53 cc
PM
Subject
Re: [ RadSafe ] Stack Emission
Limits
10 CFR 20.1101 imposes an additional
constraint on the effluents such that the individual member of the public
likely to
receive the highest dose will not receive more than 10 millirem.
-----------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
the original message.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:01:42 -0800
From: Eric.Goldin at sce.com
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stack Emission Limits
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Otto, If I understood your question below, you're asking about the
demonstration of compliance with the 10CFR20.1101(d) dose constraint from
air emissions. It's been a few years since I've used it, but the COMPLY
code endorsed by EPA presents a fairly simple progressive plan to
demonstrate compliance. The simplest level is based on possession limits,
the second level on concentration limits at the stack, the third is a
screening model based on NCRP Commentary 3 that makes conservative
assumptions about releases, and finally the fourth level is a more detailed
modeling that requires information about your facility, stack volume rates,
distances to receptors, etc. Without knowing any more about what you're
doing, the screening model of Level 3 appears to allow for averaging of
releases over the year. Therefore, it doesn't matter under what "profile"
the emissions occur - short bursts followed by long periods of no release.
There may be newer versions of the code and guide (what I used was Revision
2 dated October 1989) documented in EPA 520/1-89-002. And I if I recall
the code was available on the EPA website. I'd have to do some serious
digging but I'm pretty sure that there was guidance from the NRC that
permitted the use of the COMPLY code for demonstrating compliance with
those relatively new Clean Air Act standards. Let me know if you have any
questions. Eric
Eric Goldin, CHP
Southern California Edison
eric.goldin at sce.com
++++++++++++++
February 7, 2007
10 CFR Part 20 sets annual average limitation for stack emissions in the
United States. For example, for carbon-11 monoxide, the annual average
concentration is given as 2E-6 microcuries per milliliter of air. [Sorry
about the American units.] .
My question concerns a brief ultra-high concentration emission that may
occur only occasionally and last only a few seconds. Is there a peak limit
for such an emission? I can always run my exhaust fans for a year to get
the average down to the allowed annual average, but even if the exhaust
fans were turned off after an emission event there is no real difference in
potential exposure risk. But it seems that I can meet the release limit by
simply running my fans while there are no emissions.
Comments please.
Otto
+++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:11:15 -0800
From: Otto Raabe
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Stack Emission Limits
To: "Bryan Bagg" , "Wesley"
, "'Franz Sch?nhofer'"
, "'RADCHEM-LIST \(RADCHEM-LIST\)'"
, "'RADSAFE'"
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070208080959.02c28ac8 at mailbox.ucdavis.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 08:42 PM 2/7/2007, Bryan Bagg wrote:
>Note also that a licensee must demonstrate that air emissions of
>radioactive material (excluding Rn-222 and its daughters) to the
>environment will not exceed a TEDE of 0.1 mSv to the individual member of
>the public likely to receive the highest dose. This is found in 10 CFR
>20.1101 (d), Radiation Protection Programs, and most if not all equivalent
>Agreement State regulations.
************************************************************
February 8, 2007
Thanks Bryan and Barbara and Wes for your useful comments.
Sincerely,
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
***********************************************
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:23:26 -0800 (PST)
From: John Jacobus
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of
all cancers - "Environmental -
To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de, radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
Message-ID: <951676.63944.qm at web54303.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Rainer,
I guess if you only look at the data selectively, you
will find what you want. You just choose to ignore
the leukemia values and the age based incident rates.
Maybe I am just more critical than you since you did
not see the rest of the table.
As the RERF data demonstrated, you need to follow this
population for many years. In 10 years, the incident
values will be different. Of course, if you like what
you have now, why waste the money looking for more
information.
>From what I have read, it is clear that radiation
exposures do not present risk below 100 mSv acute
dose. No harmful risks have also been demonstrate for
fractionated and low dose rates 2 or 3 times
background. I think that low dose experiments are
interesting, but do not contribute much to the
epidemiological data. Your bet (prejudice) may be
realized, but I doubt it.
--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> John,
>
> regarding the "reduced cancer incidences" the
> message of table III is equally clear. Concentrating
> on the pooled incidences for men and women the data
> say:
> all cancers: 95/114.9 -> SIR95%=(0.67, 0.83,
> 1.01) : non-significant
>
> all w/o leukaemia: 88/111.6 -> SIR95%=(0.63, 0.79,
> 0.97) : formally significant
>
> all solid cancers: 82/109.5 -> SIR95%=(0.60, 0.75,
> 0.93) : formally significant
>
> In my view, for the purely statistical evaluation of
> a putative beneficial association the same criteria
> should be applied as for the appraisal of a putative
> detrimental association, i. e., these data at best
> can serve as a justification to continue such
> epidemiological investigations. Hence, I would
> hesitate to claim the above 'positive' associations
> as proof for a beneficial action of those exposures.
>
>
> However, such - by controlled, truly low dose and
> dose-rate laboratory work - well established
> phenomena like induced radiation resistance,
> adaptive response, non-monotonous dose response
> functions for several cancer related radiobiological
> endpoints at all levels of biological organization
> yield some plausibility to the assumption that
> biological mechanisms do exist which indeed might
> CAUSE the above association. My present bet
> (prejudice) is that eventually the mechanisms behind
> these laboratory observations will be sufficiently
> elucidated so that the inference of a causation of
> the statistical observations will be justified.
>
> Regarding the "consideration of all studies and not
> just one report" I would urgently invite you to
> quote the one or two studies which you consider as
> presenting the most compelling evidence that low
> dose and dose-rate exposure to low LET ionizing
> radiation below say 500 mSv causes cancer.
>
> Kind regards, Rainer
>
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX: +49 2203 61970
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 20. Januar 2007 17:05
> An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower
> incidences of all cancers - "Environmental -
>
> Rainer,
> I am aware of that interpretation about the
> significans of the of SIR values. That being said,
> are the values for reduced cancer incidents also
> insignificant? Or does the relevance of the numbers
> not important if you have a political view the
> radiation is good?
>
> Cherry-picking data is common. It is used by those
> who are anti-radiation and who are looking for a
> hormetic effect. Nevertheless, one needs to
> consider all of the studies, and not just one
> report.
>
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > if you were able to properly interpret the numbers
> given by you, you
> > would not claim that they prove an increased
> incidence, not to speak
> > of a causal relation.
> >
> > The 95% SIR confidence interval for leukaemia (all
> > types) is (0.85, 2.12, 4.37), i.e., utterly
> insignificant.
> > For malignant lymphoma it is (1.01, 3.13, 7.29),
> i.e., essentially
> > insignificant again.
> >
> > If you ask professional epidemiologists, you will
> find a consensus
> > that in order for an association to be considered
> established by such
> > studies, the confidence interval for standard
> mortality or incidence
> > ratios should exclude the value of three or at
> least two, i.e., the
> > _lower_ confidence limit should be above that
> value. Findings below
> > that value at best can serve as a rationale to
> spend money on a
> > repetition of a study.
> >
> > Kind regards, Rainer
> >
> > Dr. Rainer Facius
> > German Aerospace Center
> > Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> > Linder Hoehe
> > 51147 Koeln
> > GERMANY
> > Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> > FAX: +49 2203 61970
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von
> John Jacobus
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 16:16
> > An: radsafe
> > Cc: Rad Science List
> > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower
> incidences of all cancers
> > - "Environmental -
> >
> > Dr. Long,
> > Again, another typical example of cherry-picking
> data.
> >
> > As noted in Table III
> > Leukemia (all-types) Observed 7; Expected 3.3
> > Malignant Lymphoma Observed 5; Expected 1.6
> >
> > If you are unable to read the article, how can one
> expect to have an
> > intelligent discussion with you?
> >
> > Why do you constantly quote the incomplete data of
> Chen, et.al. of
> > 2004?
> >
> > --- howard long wrote:
> >
> > > John Jacobus, the paper you refer to did,
> indeed,
> > mislead in its
> > > "Conclusion", comparing its tables and
> discussion.
> > > HPs can judge for themselves:
> > > "Correspndence: Dr W Peter Chang, Inst. of
> > Environmental Health
> > > Sciences, National Y U Med School 155, sec2
> Linong
> > St. Taipei112,
> > > Taiwan"
> > >
> > > Int.J. Radiat. Biol, Vol82, No.12, Dec. 2006
> pp
> > > 849-858
> > > (The Environmental Health Sciences review by
> > Chang et al of cancer
> > > risks in 7,271 persons exposed to 1 to 2,363 mSv
> > gamma over 23 years),
> > > "ABSTRACT
> > > Conclusion [ in entirety],
> > > The results suggest that prolonged low dose
> > radiation exposure
> > > appeared to increase risks of developing certain
> > cancers in specific
> > > subgroups of this population in Taiwan."
> > >
> > > "Received 12 May 2005; revised 11 Sept. 2006;
> > accepted 18 Oct.
> > > 2006".
> > >
> > > The opposite impression, much cancer was
> > prevented by the radiation,
> > > is clear from its
> > >
> > > Table III "All cancers - Observed 95 Expected
> > > 114.9 "
> > > "Solid cancers - Observed 82
> > Expected 109.5" and
> > > "Discussion: - Compared to the reference
> > population, the study
> > > population had lower incidences of all cancers
> > combined, all cancers
> > > combined except leukemia and all solid cancers
> > combined (Table III)."
> > >
> > >
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "We must face the fact that the United States is
> neither
=== message truncated ===
+++++++++++++++++++
“We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient — that we are only 6 percent of the world’s population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list