From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 12:01:33 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:01:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Polonium-210's quiet trail of death Message-ID: <416271.25515.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-polonium1jan01,1,5516887,full.story?coll=la-news-science Polonium-210's quiet trail of death The radioactive substance had killed long before the unsolved poisoning of a former Russian spy. By Karen Kaplan and Thomas H. Maugh II Times Staff Writers January 1, 2007 The poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko in November caused by the radioactive isotope polonium-210 sparked a sharp interest in the exotic material, but the onetime Russian spy was not the first to swallow the lethal element. At the height of World War II, in an isolated medical ward at the University of Rochester in New York, Dr. Robert M. Fink gave water laced with polonium-210 to a terminal cancer patient and injected four others with the isotope. None of the five apparently died from the minute doses, though one succumbed to his cancer six days later. The ethically dubious experiment, prompted by concern for the safety of workers in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, yielded the first solid information about the isotope's health effects on humans. It also underscores the mystery and intrigue that have marked the history of the element since it was discovered by Marie and Pierre Curie a century ago. The isotope has left a distinctive trail of deaths, most of them a consequence of ignorance. Although scientists suspected polonium-210 was dangerous, they failed to appreciate how easily it could spread ? escaping laboratory confinement like a genie from a bottle and spreading its lethal radiation on faint currents of air. Engineers have struggled to find a use for the isotope, incorporating it for a time in spark plugs, nuclear warhead triggers and spacecraft power supplies. It plays a small role today as an antistatic agent for printing presses. Assassins may have finally hit on its most effective use. "The scientific community is intrigued" by Litvinenko's slaying, said radiation biologist David A. Dooley, who studied exposure levels in workers who produced polonium for the Manhattan Project. "It's pretty clever they came up with this." In many ways, polonium-210 is an ideal poison for espionage ? deadly, and undetectable until it's too late. A dose of the white powder smaller than a grain of salt could have been dropped into Litvinenko's drink at the Millennium Hotel's Pine Bar in London without altering the taste, according to chemist John Emsley of Cambridge University. Within minutes of ingestion, the energetic particles shooting off the polonium-210 molecules began killing the cells lining Litvinenko's gastrointestinal tract. As the cells sloughed off, they caused nausea, severe internal bleeding and enormous pain. "It was as if his internal organs received a severe sunburn and peeled," said Peter Zimmerman, a physicist at King's College London. Pound for pound, polonium-210 is at least a million times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide, the poison used to execute prisoners in gas chambers, according to medical toxicology books. Radiation safety experts calculate that a single gram of polonium could kill 50 million people and sicken another 50 million. But it is extremely hard to get. About 100 grams ? or 3 1/2 ounces ? are produced each year, primarily by Russia. It is also elusive. Whereas most radioactive elements emit gamma rays, which register on radiation detectors, polonium-210 instead emits alpha particles. "There was no way that forensic scientists could detect it" until it had done its damage, Emsley said. Unlike other radioactive elements, polonium-210 is relatively safe to transport. Highly lethal gamma rays pass through most substances, but alpha particles ? each composed of two protons and two neutrons ? can be blocked by a sheet of paper or the thin layer of dead cells on the surface of the skin. To kill, polonium must be inhaled or ingested so that it is in direct contact with healthy tissue. "I could put it in a tiny Ziploc bag, and I would be fine," said Dooley, president and chief executive of MJW Corp., a consulting firm in Amherst, N.Y., that specializes in radiological and health physics services. But that doesn't mean it's easy to handle. Polonium-210 is a determined escape artist. The energy produced as it naturally disintegrates is so great that "small chunks, perhaps a few hundred atoms in size, are blasted out of the surface and then drift around the room," Zimmerman said. "It would tend to creep around the lab," Dooley said. "If you had polonium in an open jar and you left it overnight, the next thing you knew, it would be all over the lab. It would jump on a dust particle and end up on lab benches and floors and things." Since identifying polonium-210 as the poison that killed Litvinenko, investigators have found traces of it in hotel rooms, airplanes, embassy rooms and other sites in the U.S. and Europe visited by Andrei Lugovoy, a former KGB bodyguard who is considered a potential suspect in the case. Lugovoy has said he is being set up by persons unknown. Polonium-210 is found in very low concentrations in Earth's crust. It makes its way into plants, food and water, and occurs in trace amounts in tobacco smoke. Most people's bodies contain about one-millionth the level of a toxic dose, said Vilma Hunt, who studied the health effects of polonium-210 at the Harvard School of Public Health. Of polonium's 25 isotopes, polonium-210 is the most stable. After 138 days, half of it decays into a nonradioactive isotope of lead. It takes 10 half-lives ? about three years ? for all of it to be converted into lead. In the process, it emits a significant amount of heat. A 1-gram lump will reach more than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The first polonium death occurred in 1927. The victim was Nobus Yamada, a Japanese researcher in Marie Curie's lab in France. In 1924, he worked with Curie's daughter Irene Joliot-Curie to prepare polonium sources. After returning home the next year, Yamada fell ill. "There was a poisoning from the emanations," he wrote Irene, according to Susan Quinn, author of "Marie Curie: A Life." Marie and Pierre Curie discovered polonium while they were searching for the cause of excess radiation in a uranium-rich ore called pitchblende. In 1898, they traced the radiation to a substance that they dubbed radium F. When Marie Curie determined that it was a unique element, she named it polonium to bring attention to the plight of her homeland, Poland, which had been partitioned among Russia, Prussia and Austria. The Curies' daughter Irene also fell victim to the isotope. She died of leukemia in 1956, 10 years after a sealed capsule of polonium-210 was accidentally broken in her laboratory at the Radium Institute in Paris. About the same time, scientists developing Israel's nuclear program were exposed to its lethal effects. The first signs of contamination were the traces of radiation on the laboratory desk of Israeli physicist Dror Sadeh. He had taken what he thought were adequate precautions against the hyperactive element. But those precautions weren't enough. Radiation was discovered "in my private home, and on my hands too and on everything that I touched," he wrote in his diary. Within a month, one student who worked in Sadeh's lab at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, was dead from leukemia. The lab's supervisor died a few years later ? contaminated by polonium-210 as well, Sadeh suspected. As a product, polonium-210 has been mediocre at best. Its first use was in automobile spark plugs. The alpha particles emitted during its decay helped produce a stronger spark, claimed a 1929 patent issued to J.H. Dillon of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. The company began marketing the plugs in 1940, but their benefits were never proved. Polonium-210 played a key role in World War II. Manhattan Project engineers alloyed the isotope with beryllium and used it to produce the neutrons that triggered the atomic bomb's chain reaction. Because of polonium's short half-life, the nuclear triggers lost their effectiveness in two years and had to be continually replaced. By the 1970s, engineers abandoned it in favor of the hydrogen isotope tritium, with a half-life of 12.3 years. Polonium was considered as a power source for U.S. satellites, but its short half-life again limited its utility, and plutonium was used instead. The Soviets, however, did employ polonium to keep their Lunokhod moon rovers running in the 1970s. Engineers finally found a viable use for it in printing plants and textile mills, capitalizing on its electron-grabbing ability to neutralize the static electricity generated by moving sheets of paper or fabric. Typically, a small amount of the radioactive material is embedded in a gold foil that is placed near the sources of static electricity. It is also used in photo labs, embedded in the bristles of cleaning brushes to counter the static electricity that causes dust to cling to pictures. Polonium-210 could theoretically be extracted from either the foil or the brushes in a quantity sufficient to poison someone, Emsley said, but it would require a sophisticated knowledge of chemistry and a well-equipped laboratory. Most of the research about polonium-210's health effects stemmed from concerns for the safety of the 2,000 workers who produced the isotope for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. To test its effects, doctors recruited terminal cancer patients who were willing to participate in radiation experiments in 1944, according to reports prepared later by the Department of Energy. Fink and his colleagues determined that most of the polonium went into the gastrointestinal tract and was eliminated in feces. It also collected in the spleen, kidneys and liver. --------------------------------- karen.kaplan at latimes.com thomas.maugh at latimes.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed Jan 3 09:22:53 2007 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:22:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Nightmares: the long silence Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17026E38B4@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> All, FYI. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Bramhall [mailto:bramhall at llrc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:51 AM To: info llrc Subject: Nuclear Nightmares: the long silence Nuclear Nightmares: the long silence 28th December 2006 update. A response to LLRC's complaint about Nuclear Nightmares is more than two months overdue. Nuclear Nightmares, a programme in the BBC's Horizon series, was broadcast on BBC 2 tv on 13th July - the day before the UK Government announced that a new generation of nuclear power stations would be built. It presented arguments and evidence (much of it relating to Chernobyl) suggesting that the dangers of nuclear power have been over-estimated by the conventional Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation risk. It was far from agnostic on the disputed scientific theories of radiation risk, and it dismissed evidence of adverse health effects as "having no credible scientific support." Nuclear Nightmares attracted a number of complaints. We have no idea how many, as the BBC doesn't release this information. At the beginning of September LLRC sent a substantial complaint about the programme's lack of balance. We outlined the theoretical arguments it had ignored or, in our view, misrepresented and the evidence it had left out or dismissed. The BBC said the complaint would be answered by 24th October. Subsequently they have said it's a complex issue and would take longer. There are indications that the matter is being dealt with thoroughly but, of course, we reserve judgement. We have sent you this email circular because you are on our database of people who are concerned about low level radiation and health. If you do not want to receive information from us please reply, putting "remove from LLRC" in the subject line. LLRC's email briefings are widely copied and forwarded. If you want to receive mailings direct from us, please go to http://www.llrc.org/elist.htm and sign up. Low Level Radiation Campaign www.llrc.org bramhall at llrc.org ============================================== End Message ============================================ 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 DSN: 584-4852 From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed Jan 3 09:23:51 2007 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:23:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: the folly of WISE Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17026E38B8@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> All, Yet another. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Bramhall [mailto:bramhall at llrc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:32 AM To: info llrc Subject: the folly of WISE WISE and NIRS (the World Information Service on Energy and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service) have, for reasons which are far from clear, launched an ignorant and unscientific attack on findings of enriched Uranium in the Lebanon. This is in an article in the current issue of Nuclear Monitor - No. 650. We don't intend to waste lot of time on this - it's a distraction from our main purpose of drawing attention to the fact that dose is now seen to be a meaningless term when applied to internal radioactivity, so that regulators have no language in which to quantify the risks of radioactive discharges. This is likely to prove fatal to the prospects for a new generation of nuclear power stations and adds significance to the illegal status of nuclear weapons and Uranium weaponry. We have to ask why a number of organisations (not only WISE and NIRS) consistently deny evidence of Uranium in armaments. We address aspects of the Nuclear Monitor article on www.llrc.org - click on the Is this WISE? button. We have sent you this email circular because you are on our database of people who are concerned about low level radiation and health. If you do not want to receive information from us please reply, putting "remove from LLRC" in the subject line. Low Level Radiation Campaign www.llrc.org bramhall at llrc.org ======================================== End Message ===================================== 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 DSN: 584-4852 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 10:04:41 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:04:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: [Rad_Sci_Health] Re: New Taiwan Study In-Reply-To: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BB5D@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Message-ID: <441288.25855.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jan 3 10:11:33 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Propagandizing Parents about CT? In-Reply-To: <644202.38777.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <247637.621.qm@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Aren't there toxic effects associated with Vitamins D and A? http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/vitamin_toxicity.jsp --- howard long wrote: > "Errors of the second kind", errors of omission, > damage far more people with vit D or A deficiency, > for example, than excess sun or prescribed Vit A or > D. > Data now suggests that insufficient radiation > damages more often than excess. > About 1 rem (CT dose) seems clearly in the > beneficial range. > > 45 years ago, I placed dental film around my x-ray > room to seein there was scatter. With mirror and > lead-lined door I protected my technician from any > exposure. I still would, just as I would not expose > patient to any dose of vitamin or medicine without > knowledge and consent. More people will see in the > data now, reason to want more "Vit R", which I do > seek a convenient way to take (like measured dose > from uranium ore under the bed). > > See Hiserodt's summary book, "Underexposed: What > if radiation is actually good for you?" > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > > When you dispense or prescribe medication to a > patient, does it not entail some risk? Do you care > about exposing your patients to any additional > risks? > > Have you ever told your children, or told your > children to have their children exposured to more > radiation? If not, why not? Do you and your spouse > get more "Vit R," whatever that is? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > NO Injury is cited to support "RISK!" > > > > This misinformation may be depriving the children > > of "Vit R". > > It certainly gives unsupported fear of actually > > beneficial doses of radiation received in the > course > > of Nuclear Power Installations, with job loss for > > HPs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > At > > > http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=cto&Pag=dis&ItemId=74102&wf=1548&d=1 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Teaching parents about CT risks might pare > > unnecessary > > scans in kids > > 12/28/2006 > > By: Eric Barnes > > > > Doctors rarely tell parents about the radiation > > risks > > associated with CT imaging of pediatric patients, > > and > > understandably so. Time is in short supply. The > > subject is complex, potentially troubling for > > parents, > > and could lead to overconcern -- even to the > > detriment > > of necessary imaging exams. > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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 > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Wed Jan 3 11:11:49 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:11:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <441288.25855.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070103171149.10730.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence not LESS in exposed population. Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 uniqueproducts at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 12:01:51 2007 From: uniqueproducts at comcast.net (Jay Caplan) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:01:51 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) References: <20070103171149.10730.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <040801c72f61$3f575650$6400a8c0@JAY> The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study results. This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a collection of results. A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other studies with similar exposures. Jay Caplan ----- Original Message ----- From: howard long To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence not LESS in exposed population. Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk Wed Jan 3 12:02:44 2007 From: mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk (Mark Ramsay) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:02:44 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection Newsletter (UK) Message-ID: Dear All We thought some of you might be interested in our January newsletter (it's a bit ...different). Some of it will be biased towards the UK but we don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. A review of the excellent Rad Pro Calculator is also included which has a nice international flavour. A link to download the PDF is here: http://www.ionactive.co.uk/pdfs/Ionactive_Radiation_Protection_newslette r_January_2007.pdf The PDF is quite large at 1.7MB but its quite graphic intensive and this was the best compromise. If you would like to subscribe to this newsletter on a regular basis then just visit www.ionactive.co.uk and register on the home page (in the newsletter box). There is also a downloadable link in the box so you are not forced to provide an email address before you obtained the PDF. Registration using your email address will comply with our privacy statement available here: http://www.ionactive.co.uk/privacy.html. Apologies to anyone who may have received a similar massage on one of the other list (e.g. the UK SRP or AURPO). This will only happen once. Happy New Year everyone - all the best for 2007 Regards Mark Mark Ramsay MSc, MSRP Radiation Protection Adviser Ionactive Consulting Ltd www.ionactive.co.uk mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk 0118 3759168 07841 435377 (mobile) 0871 7333945 (fax) Ionactive Consulting Ltd 7 Farmers End Charvil Berkshire RG10 9RZ United Kingdom Registered in England & Wales No. 5452329 Radiation Protection Training: RPS Courses in 2007 http://www.ionactive.co.uk/training_services.html From rpo at qu.edu.qa Wed Jan 3 12:34:53 2007 From: rpo at qu.edu.qa (Radiation Protection Office) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:34:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training Message-ID: We are looking for a Professional Training courses (English) in JAPAN in the field of environmental safety and radiation safety in Tokyo or Yokohama. We would appreciate your help in this matter ASAP. From rpo at qu.edu.qa Wed Jan 3 14:35:26 2007 From: rpo at qu.edu.qa (Radiation Protection Office) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:35:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training In-Reply-To: <1A8FD75BC4E45D47BF001408F6B55F12296873@exchange-pitt.cecinc.com> References: <1A8FD75BC4E45D47BF001408F6B55F12296873@exchange-pitt.cecinc.com> Message-ID: Many thanks for all responses. I would like to mention the training should be in JAPAN in Tokyo or Yokohama. Please find below more details regarding our needs. 1. Environmental Health and Safety Management Training Course 2. Advance Radiation Safety Training Course Both of courses should cover the following: ? Advance Safety ? Program Management ? Waste Management ? Monitoring and Analysis ? Emergency Response ? Risk Communication ? Training for the Trainer Radiation Protection Officer Qatar University www.qu.edu.qa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Orthen, Rick" Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2007 6:53 pm Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training To: Radiation Protection Office > We can provide radiological training and would like to learn > more of > your needs at your convenience. Recently we provided nuclear > decommissioning and risk assessment training to engineers from South > Korea. Look forward to discussing this further with you. > > Richard F. Orthen > Senior Project Manager > Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. > Four Triangle Lane, Suite 200 > Export, PA 15632-9255 > 724/327-5200, ext. 231 > www.cecinc.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe- > bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Radiation Protection Office > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:35 PM > To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training > Importance: High > > We are looking for a Professional Training courses (English) in > JAPAN in > the field of environmental safety and radiation safety in Tokyo or > Yokohama. We would appreciate your help in this matter ASAP. > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 16:15:54 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:15:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Lecture on the WEB: Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Message-ID: <20805.31545.qm@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Title:? Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism ? EVENT?DATE/TIME Date/Time:? Thursday, January 04, 2007 ? 3:00pm - 4:30pm ??? Videocast:? Event will be videocast LIVE on the Web ? Videocast URL:? http://videocast.nih.gov ? Event will be available in the videocast ARCHIVE Understanding Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Program date and time: Thursday, January 04, 2007, 3:00:00 PM Description: Dr. Ferguson is an internationally recognized authority on nuclear nonproliferation and security. At the Council on Foreign Relations, he focuses on issues involving Iran and North Korea, nuclear energy, and the prevention of nuclear and radiological terrorism. He recently co-authored the book The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (Routledge, 2005) and was lead author of the report Commercial Radioactive Sources: Surveying the Security Risks, which assessed the threat of radiological dispersal devices such as dirty bombs is available at http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op11/index.htm http://tango01.cit.nih.gov/sig/home.taf?_function=main&SIGInfo_SIGID=136 Author: Dr. Charles Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Wed Jan 3 19:12:28 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:12:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <630663.68062.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Allergy desensitization has always been accepted, increasing from tiny doses of pollens or whatever gave wheeze, hives, or even anaphylactic shock collapse [poison] in shots 2x/week. Howard Long Muckerheide wrote: Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, low-dose radiation immune function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI was a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jan 3 19:33:14 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:33:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <040801c72f61$3f575650$6400a8c0@JAY> Message-ID: <20070104013314.67552.qmail@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, Jay, A different way of stating it it is that the dose beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows up in Ramsar, Iran data? Howard Long Jay Caplan wrote: The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study results. This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a collection of results. A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other studies with similar exposures. Jay Caplan ----- Original Message ----- From: howard long To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence not LESS in exposed population. Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Wed Jan 3 20:16:27 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:16:27 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08F1E6@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph in this report, low-dose radiation stimulates immune functions and damage control: This was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA for the drug companies, then generally referred to as"the drug cartel"). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI has been a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ======================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Wed Jan 3 20:16:52 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:16:52 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08F1E8@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph in this report, low-dose radiation stimulates immune functions and damage control: This was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA for the drug companies, then generally referred to as"the drug cartel"). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI has been a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ======================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jan 3 23:30:10 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:30:10 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Leuren Moret on the Atom Message-ID: While this is supposed to be a 6 part DU series, it starts with false claims about fallout from atomic testing in which Moret claims that most of the tests were atmospheric and that the fallout has caused a lowering of SAT scores and increase in autism. She has also made the claim that DU causes diabetes. I would like to get as many critics as possible to view these videos and make note of the factual inaccuracies. I also see someone in a suit and tie who gives a Moret like speech but who is not Moret, Rokke or Kyne and I wonder who. Go to Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btcVA6-0TaY for the first of the 6 Moret videos where she spoke to Therapists for Social Responsibility on 9/11/06 - how dramatic The suit and tie person should show at the side among the choice of other videos on DU Thanks. Roger Helbig From muckerheide at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 18:32:10 2007 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:32:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology Message-ID: Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, low-dose radiation immune function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI was a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From muckerheide at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 19:54:55 2007 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:54:55 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <20070104013314.67552.qmail@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Friends, Considering the spectrum of biological data, it seems that there is no inherently lesser effect for younger people, except to the extent that younger people have healthier immune functions and damage control systems so they don?t normally have general detriments. A positive response is more readily seen with supplements given to older people. It?s like giving vitamins to people in good health on a normal diet. They don?t seem to do them any good. But for people, young or old, that have significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements are then readily seen as obvious essential nutrients. Regards, Jim on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net wrote: > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose beneficial or harmful to > persons under 30 is less than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > >> >> The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are >> that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to >> gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of >> these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study >> results. >> >> >> >> >> This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a >> collection of results. >> >> >> >> A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults >> over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other >> studies with similar exposures. >> >> >> >> Jay Caplan >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: howard long >>> >>> To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; >>> radsafe at radlab.nl >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM >>> >>> Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis >>> (Taiwan Apts) >>> >>> >>> >>> Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and >>> abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that >>> solid cancer incidence >>> >>> not LESS in exposed population. >>> >>> >>> >>> Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 >>> in 7,000 in 23 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> Howard Long >>> >>> John Jacobus wrote: >>> >>>> Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are >>>> the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of >>>> low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient >>>> to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you >>>> wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever >>>> it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in >>>> later life? >>>> >>>> I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate >>>> Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as >>>> well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you >>>> want, but what are the consequences? >>>> >>>> >>>> --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Friends, FYI. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, Jim >>>>> > =========== >>>>> > >>>>> > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of >>>>> > all cancers for >>>>> > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount >>>>> > (>50 mSv) over the >>>>> > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is >>>>> > in the table on page >>>>> > 885. >>>>> > >>>>> > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a >>>>> > population, it would be >>>>> > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even >>>>> > though it ignored >>>>> > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms >>>>> > the nuclear >>>>> > shipyard worker study results. >>>>> > >>>>> > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate >>>>> > Reduced 40% by Low >>>>> > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the >>>>> > abstract. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jay >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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/ >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline >>>> rationing, beginning December 1. >>>> >>>> -- 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 rad_sci_health at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 20:00:16 2007 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Rad Sci Health) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:00:16 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Friends, > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, low-dose radiation immune > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for > infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and > beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA). > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and > research. NCI was a major controller since the late-40s. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ================== > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators > Determine Risk > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database > provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional > dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is > wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. > Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The > findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast > using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and > offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues > contend. > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been > missed." > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the > 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures > for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or > harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based > on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human > exposures. > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk > assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the > Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound > public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the > fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment > procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental > regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or > theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely > removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that > if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards > may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as > insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can > influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add > fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for > the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is > likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional > testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not > only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. > Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jan 4 04:52:14 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 02:52:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] High Level Radioactive Waste -- Shortest Half-Lived Isotopes Message-ID: <007e01c72fee$7c502ea0$13425142@roger1> Can any of you point me to a readily available source of information on the shortest half-lived isotopes and what constitutes high level radioactive waste? Seeing the article on Polonium-210 got me thinking about ways to put U-238 (aka Depleted Uranium) more in the proper context .. there is a vet who claims his coffin will be radioactive for 4.5 billion years because he claims to be affected by DU poisoning. I have a feeling he is a bit tetched in the head, especially from the way he shoves his views down your throat because he is a former Green Beret, but I would rather just put DU into context and compare it to the really hot and nasty stuff. Thank you. Roger Helbig From jk5554 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 09:31:44 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 07:31:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] High Level Radioactive Waste -- Shortest Half-Lived Isotopes In-Reply-To: <007e01c72fee$7c502ea0$13425142@roger1> Message-ID: <20070104153144.51968.qmail@web32510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Pages 532-536 of _Introduction to Health Physics_ by Herman Cember have a comprehensive table of fission products and their activities. May be in university libraries or at Amazon or alibris. http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Health-Physics-Herman-Cember/dp/0071054618 One thing I learned from that table is that if you let high-level fission products sit for 5 years, about 1/100 of the original activity is present. Very important to remember with the hysterical "4.5 billion years" claims about DU is that there is plenty of natural U out there *in the ground* that has that 4.5 billion year half-life. It's even a small component in the granite that forms the U.S. Capitol and the beautiful Sierra Nevada and Rocky mountains. Natural U is a part of nature, just like earthworms, butterflies, beetles, diamonds, gold, fill for roadbed, moss, Giant Sequoias, or house flies. The point is that humans have distinct biases about our natural world. For example, damonds, gold, and Giant Sequoias are seen by human beings as more valuable or positive than earthworms, beetles, house flies, and road fill. So it is with biases against the presence of U someplace or other. I think I'll start objecting to feldspar [a common ol' rock that's good for roadbed] because of the 0.012 percent of K-40. :-) ~Ruth http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/ --- Roger Helbig wrote: > Can any of you point me to a readily available > source of information on the shortest half-lived > isotopes and what constitutes high level radioactive > waste? Seeing the article on Polonium-210 got me > thinking about ways to put U-238 (aka Depleted > Uranium) more in the proper context .. there is a > vet who claims his coffin will be radioactive for > 4.5 billion years because he claims to be affected > by DU poisoning. I have a feeling he is a bit > tetched in the head, especially from the way he > shoves his views down your throat because he is a > former Green Beret, but I would rather just put DU > into context and compare it to the really hot and > nasty stuff. > > Thank you. > > Roger Helbig > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Thu Jan 4 10:33:39 2007 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:33:39 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Lithuanian nuclear power plant could be built by 2015 Message-ID: <459CBBE3.3958.4A1756A@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Index: New Lithuanian nuclear power plant could be built by 2015 North Qld physicists play down nuclear power fears Malaysia should not rule out nuclear power Britain shuts down nuclear power veterans State regulators close case involving nuclear plant security Neighbors of MN nuclear plants eligible for radiation drug ====================================== New Lithuanian nuclear power plant could be built by 2015 - LithuanianPM Kirkilas VILNIUS. Jan. 4 (Interfax) - The construction of a new nuclear power plant at the site of Lithuania's Ignalina facility may be completed by 2014-1015, according to Lithuanian Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas. "If everything goes well, we can build it even earlier," Kirkilas said in a Thursday interview with Ziniu Radijas radio. All countries involved in the project - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland - are set on its speedy implementation, he added Kirkilas also said that this year participating countries will hold talks on funding, the division of responsibilities and the contribution of each participant. "These will be complicated talks," he added. "Their results will be recorded in a bill on the Ignalina nuclear power plant that will be discussed in Parliament." Kirkilas said there is a tentative understanding regarding equal participation of all countries in the project, although he pointed out that Lithuania will carry most of the load. "But Lithuania will bear greater responsibility," he said. "It will have to be responsible for the burial of radioactive materials, for safety and several other issues, therefore experts and politicians are saying that Lithuania's share in the project should be bigger than [that] of the other parties." At the end of 2004 Lithuania shut down the first of two power units in Ignalina and pledged to stop the station altogether in 2009. In spring 2006 the prime ministers of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia signed a cooperation agreement aimed at building a modern Western-made reactor in Ignalina. Later, Poland joined the project. ---------- North Qld physicists play down nuclear power fears Two north Queensland physicists have labelled the potential effects of radiation from nuclear power sources as 'overstated'. Dr Peter Ridd and Dr Thomas Stieglitz from James Cook University are calling on politicians to investigate in earnest, developing a nuclear power station near Townsville. Dr Ridd says another Chernobyl type accident at a modern nuclear power station would not happen. "You don't have to have it right in the middle of the city, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have," he said. "I certainly would have no difficulty in having one over my back fence. "Modern power stations, nuclear stations are extremely safe devices, certainly nothing like the nuclear power stations such as Chernobyl where they had the bad accident." ----------- Malaysia should not rule out nuclear power Malaysia should not rule out nuclear power as an alternative source of energy for the country, said 2006 International Energy Conference (IEC) for Sustainable Asia organising chairman Hong Lee Pee. "Up till now, its very difficult to provide the (infrastructure) base for renewable energy such as solar and wind. But a lot of countries are moving towards nuclear," he told FinancialDaily after the IEC event in Petaling Jaya recently. The Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia (ACCCIM), the Asean Academy of Engineering and Technology (AAET) along with five other organisations met at the IEC from Nov 26-28. Hong, who is also ACCCIM treasurer, said moving forward, the country?s current production and consumption of energy would become costlier. "It depends on the oil price. I am not saying that in 10 years? time, our oil wells will run dry. It will just get (more) expensive to extract. "Bakun (hydro energy) on the other hand... transportation cost is very high. Undersea cables for example are very expensive," he added. "We have very good engineers (to explore nuclear energy). We have to pull them back; they are now working outside the country. The capital cost to build a nuclear plant is very high, but operational cost is low," Hong said. He also said the country has a lot of room to explore other renewable and sustainable energy. "It is only in the last two years that there?s been talk on sustainable energy. We are so complacent, probably because we have oil and gas. Even in the Ninth Malaysia Plan, allocation for research and development in this area is relatively small. "We subsidise gas and fuel for producing electricity. Why can?t we subsidise solar power?" he said. At the conference, the organisations consulted with over 670 participants representing policy makers, industrialists, academicians and representatives from Asean and East Asia. The participants also discussed concerns on fast-depleting reserves in fossil fuels, uncertainty in oil prices as well as carbon dioxide emission. ------------------ Britain shuts down nuclear power veterans British Nuclear Group has begun the lengthy process to decommission the world's two oldest commercial nuclear power facilities, Dungeness A in Kent and Sizewell A in Suffolk. The two atomic energy facilities were shut down on January 1, 2007, bringing to an end their 40-year life spans. The plants will now begin a two to three year process of defuelling to remove their radioactive content, The Scotsman has reported. The decommissioning represents the start of a period of shutdowns marking the end of cycle for the UK's first wave of nuclear power plants. All but one of Britain's nuclear energy facilities are due to be decommissioned by 2023. According to reports, Dungeness A and Sizewell A have been closed down because they are now significantly less efficient than other power station in Britain's nuclear portfolio and because the Sellafield reprocessing plant, which is necessary to make their spent fuel safe, is due to close in 2012. -------------------- State regulators close case involving nuclear plant security NEW BRITAIN, Conn.Jan 4 AP -- The state Department of Public Utility Control has closed the case of a worker at the Millstone nuclear power complex who lost his job after raising security concerns at the Waterford plant. The case involved Sham Mehta of East Lyme who last year had alleged that Millstone Power Station owner Dominion retaliated against him by eliminating his job after he raised security concerns. The DPUC formally accepted Mehta's and Dominion's request to withdraw the complaint, following a confidential settlement between the parties approved in December by the U.S. Department of Labor. The agency also rejected Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's arguments to keep the case open. "I strongly disagree with the decision, and we are reviewing it to determine what options remain to be pursued," Blumenthal said Wednesday. The labor department had previously found no evidence of retaliation, but Mehta had appealed, and the DPUC had ordered he be reinstated pending a full investigation. Blumenthal, who had intervened on Mehta's behalf, had argued that the case should proceed before the DPUC anyway to ensure that concerns for all employees who raise safety issues, not just Mehta's concerns, are fully protected, along with public safety, under the law. -------------- Neighbors of MN nuclear plants eligible for radiation drug ST. PAUL (AP) Jan 4 - Neighbors of Minnesota?s two nuclear power plants will soon get some extra protection against radiation poisoning. The state Department of Public Safety said people who live within 10 miles of the Monticello and Prairie Island plants will get vouchers in the mail for free doses of a radiation drug. The drug, potassium iodide, could be taken as a precaution if there?s a release of radiation. It would offer some protection against radiation absorption by the thyroid gland, which is particularly vulnerable to cancer-causing radiation. The vouchers should arrive in the mail this week. They can be redeemed after Feb. 1 for two doses per person at six Target store pharmacies. >>> NOTE Personal E-Mail Change - sandyfl at cox.net <<< 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 15:47:31 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:47:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070104214731.52425.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, Was radiation listed? Oh, that is not a drug. Sorry. But then again, physics is not like biology. --- Muckerheide wrote: > Friends, > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, > low-dose radiation immune > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and > treat cancer, and applied > for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the > 1910s to the late-40s > and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific > conditions.) > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits > in the 1930s, by FDA). > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing > Manhattan Project data and > research. NCI was a major controller since the > late-40s. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ================== > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study > Challenges How Regulators > Determine Risk > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National > Cancer Institute > database provides the strongest evidence yet that a > key portion of the > traditional dose-response model used in drug testing > and risk assessment for > toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the > effects of very low doses, > says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the > University of Massachusetts > Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more > than 56,000 tests in 13 > strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in > the journal > Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for > the theory of hormesis, > Calabrese and his colleagues contend. > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the > preponderance of evidence > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in > which low doses have the > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough > that should help scientists > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants > and possibly carcinogens. > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological > principle that has been > missed." > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the > dose response wrong in > the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all > regulations for low-dose > exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These > low-dose effects can be > beneficial or harmful, something that the > regulations miss because they are > currently based on high-dose testing schemes that > differ greatly from the > conditions of human exposures. > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large > and highly standardized > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening > database, Calabrese says the > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, > high doses of anticancer > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low > doses they enhance growth, > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the > critical public policy > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the > major issue is that the risk > assessments models used by the federal Environmental > Protection Agency and > the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately > predict responses in the > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of > their daily lives. > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing > dose-response model has > profound public policy and health implications. "I > believe the hormesis > model is the fundamental dose-response and > government testing and risk > assessment procedures should reflect that," > Calabrese says. For example, in > environmental regulations, it has been assumed that > most carcinogens possess > real or theoretical risks at low levels, and > therefore must be nearly > completely removed from the environments to assure > public safety. Some would > contend that if hormesis is the correct model for > very low levels, that > cleanup standards may have to be significantly > changed. Others, however, see > the evidence as insufficient for such radical change > and worry about other > factors that can influence the effects of chemicals > in low doses. The new > study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese > says. > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have > important implications > for the pharmaceutical industry and medical > practices. He says that hormesis > is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that > were missed through > traditional testing and to markedly improve the > accuracy of patient dosing, > which will not only improve health outcomes but also > reduce adverse side > effects. > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news > release issued by University > Of Massachusetts Amherst. > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jan 4 15:52:40 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:52:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <20070104013314.67552.qmail@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <273559.35723.qm@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jan 4 16:00:55 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:00:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <404314.67482.qm@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie And Tribondeau. How does this factor into your postulate? All you provide below is speculation. --- Muckerheide wrote: > Friends, > > Considering the spectrum of biological data, it > seems that there is no > inherently lesser effect for younger people, except > to the extent that > younger people have healthier immune functions and > damage control systems so > they don?t normally have general detriments. A > positive response is more > readily seen with supplements given to older people. > > It?s like giving vitamins to people in good health > on a normal diet. They > don?t seem to do them any good. But for people, > young or old, that have > significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements > are then readily seen as > obvious essential nutrients. > > Regards, Jim > > > on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net > wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to > > persons under 30 is less than that for older > persons. I wonder if that shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > > >> +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Thu Jan 4 16:33:21 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:33:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <273559.35723.qm@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <911169.33936.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?) Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Thu Jan 4 16:56:59 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics (heat) treatment - biology! Hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: <20070104214731.52425.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <741447.96098.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Heat speeds blood flow and healing when skin red (beware burn!) Microwave 4 lb dry rice knotted in pillowcase for 2 min, apply 3x/d for 20 min." - from my template for patients' record- advice sheet, often circled. I give away about 20 rice packs every 4 months (the record at every patient visit). The heat (physics, John) helps earache, abcess, bursitis, bronchitis, etc! Much more is done by doctors working for patients instead of for government or other insurer. More prevention is used with HSA cash payment, contrary to socialist claims that more prevention would be used with middlemen like government bureaucrats paying the bill (and keeping most of the premium). Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Jim, Was radiation listed? Oh, that is not a drug. Sorry. But then again, physics is not like biology. --- Muckerheide wrote: > Friends, > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, > low-dose radiation immune > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and > treat cancer, and applied > for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the > 1910s to the late-40s > and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific > conditions.) > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits > in the 1930s, by FDA). > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing > Manhattan Project data and > research. NCI was a major controller since the > late-40s. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ================== > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study > Challenges How Regulators > Determine Risk > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National > Cancer Institute > database provides the strongest evidence yet that a > key portion of the > traditional dose-response model used in drug testing > and risk assessment for > toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the > effects of very low doses, > says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the > University of Massachusetts > Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more > than 56,000 tests in 13 > strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in > the journal > Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for > the theory of hormesis, > Calabrese and his colleagues contend. > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the > preponderance of evidence > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in > which low doses have the > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough > that should help scientists > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants > and possibly carcinogens. > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological > principle that has been > missed." > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the > dose response wrong in > the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all > regulations for low-dose > exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These > low-dose effects can be > beneficial or harmful, something that the > regulations miss because they are > currently based on high-dose testing schemes that > differ greatly from the > conditions of human exposures. > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large > and highly standardized > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening > database, Calabrese says the > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, > high doses of anticancer > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low > doses they enhance growth, > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the > critical public policy > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the > major issue is that the risk > assessments models used by the federal Environmental > Protection Agency and > the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately > predict responses in the > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of > their daily lives. > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing > dose-response model has > profound public policy and health implications. "I > believe the hormesis > model is the fundamental dose-response and > government testing and risk > assessment procedures should reflect that," > Calabrese says. For example, in > environmental regulations, it has been assumed that > most carcinogens possess > real or theoretical risks at low levels, and > therefore must be nearly > completely removed from the environments to assure > public safety. Some would > contend that if hormesis is the correct model for > very low levels, that > cleanup standards may have to be significantly > changed. Others, however, see > the evidence as insufficient for such radical change > and worry about other > factors that can influence the effects of chemicals > in low doses. The new > study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese > says. > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have > important implications > for the pharmaceutical industry and medical > practices. He says that hormesis > is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that > were missed through > traditional testing and to markedly improve the > accuracy of patient dosing, > which will not only improve health outcomes but also > reduce adverse side > effects. > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news > release issued by University > Of Massachusetts Amherst. > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 hise at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 4 17:43:21 2007 From: hise at sbcglobal.net (Ed Hiserodt) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:43:21 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <911169.33936.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <027001c7305a$1f284070$6420a8c0@pumpconbsflye1> Where do we sign up? Ed Hiserodt -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of howard long Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:33 PM To: John Jacobus; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76mortality rate!) Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?) Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 hacrad at comcast.net Thu Jan 4 19:29:35 2007 From: hacrad at comcast.net (Harold Careway) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:29:35 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: AAAAADL0i1b2emtAupFUaoCFH52EeyMA Message-ID: <000901c73068$f8bd8350$6401a8c0@CFXPS400> Yes, unfortunately age and health is a factor, otherwise all us old cardiac patients who get annual Cardolite tests would make an interesting statistical study as to variances due to annual radiation increases. (Would such a study propose a low level increase over the year, or just a month, or perhaps a week?). Hal Careway -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:53 PM To: howard long; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: From theo at richel.org Fri Jan 5 10:58:35 2007 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:58:35 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Co 60 in home foundations for radiation hormesis!- copy request In-Reply-To: <4237.1412.qm@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <024301c730ea$bd98d9a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> Can anyone help me to a copy of the article below? I would be most grateful. Thanks, "Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low dose-rate (gamma)-radiation exposure in radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 - 2002," in Int. J. Radiat. Biol., Vol. 82, No. 12, December 2006, pp. 849 - 858. Theo Richel Stationsstraat 43 4421 AK Kapelle theo at richel.org Tel. +31 (0)113330030 Fax +31 (0)113330031 http://www.richel.org/resume http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl http://www.huiselijkgeweld.info From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Fri Jan 5 11:27:35 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:27:35 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Co 60 in home foundations for radiationhormesis!- copy request In-Reply-To: <024301c730ea$bd98d9a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BB6F@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Sent separately. Regards, Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Theo Richel >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:59 AM >To: 'John Jacobus'; 'howard long'; radsafe at radlab.nl >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: Co 60 in home foundations for >radiationhormesis!- copy request > >Can anyone help me to a copy of the article below? I would be >most grateful. > >Thanks, > > >"Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low >dose-rate (gamma)-radiation exposure in >radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 - 2002," in Int. J. >Radiat. Biol., Vol. 82, No. 12, December 2006, pp. 849 >- 858. > >Theo Richel >Stationsstraat 43 >4421 AK Kapelle >theo at richel.org >Tel. +31 (0)113330030 >Fax +31 (0)113330031 > >http://www.richel.org/resume >http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl >http://www.huiselijkgeweld.info > > > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and >understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other >settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 5 14:11:03 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proxy for longevity in radiation supplement trial In-Reply-To: <000901c73068$f8bd8350$6401a8c0@CFXPS400> Message-ID: <898888.48118.qm@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> C reactive protein, blood pressure, and many other proxies for longevity serve to give results sooner, but are less reliable. For example, when stilbesterol was given to patients with prostate cancer, the size of the tumor, blockage of urination and pain were better, but the patients did not live nearly as long as controls because of more coronary thrombosis - heart attacks from clots in the heart blood vessels. Similarly, calcium channel blockers lower blood pressure well but have not shown better longevity yet. Meantime, I sit on thorium welding rods (below a cushion) giving 0.05 mR/hr, up from 0.015. Howard Long Harold Careway wrote: Yes, unfortunately age and health is a factor, otherwise all us old cardiac patients who get annual Cardolite tests would make an interesting statistical study as to variances due to annual radiation increases. (Would such a study propose a low level increase over the year, or just a month, or perhaps a week?). Hal Careway -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:53 PM To: howard long; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 5 14:45:43 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:45:43 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Polonium traces found at another UK restaurant Message-ID: <532217.1168029943103.JavaMail.root@fed1wml14.mgt.cox.net> Index: Polonium traces found at another UK restaurant Radiation therapists strike likely to go ahead Environmental activist denied medical treatment ================================== Polonium traces found at another UK restaurant LONDON (Reuters) Jan 5 - Traces of the radioactive poison which killed Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko have been discovered at another London restaurant, British health authorities said on Friday. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said it had discovered evidence of contamination with polonium 210 at Pescatori restaurant in central London and had offered to test staff there. It said the restaurant was open for business and added there was no public health concern. Litvinenko died on November 23. He accused the Kremlin of assassinating him in a case which has strained relations between London and Moscow. Polonium traces have been discovered at sites visited by two Russian business associates of Litvinenko in London and Hamburg in late October, and on planes on which one of them flew between Moscow and London that month. The men, Andrei Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, met Litvinenko at London's Millennium Hotel on Nov 1, the day he fell ill. A guest and staff at the Millennium are among 12 people the HPA says have tested positive for low levels of polonium, although it says none of them are in any danger. Contamination was also found at a London sushi bar where Litvinenko met an Italian contact on November 1. The manager of Pescatori, Luigi Lavarini, told BBC television: "We have no memory of Mr Litvinenko coming to the restaurant. We really don't know who it could be." Asked about Lugovoy and Kovtun he replied: "This name doesn't mean anything to me. Nobody of this name appears on our reservation list." He said the restaurant had lots of Russian customers. -------------------- Radiation therapists strike likely to go ahead NZcity Jan 5 - There appears to be little chance of last minute negotiations between DHBs and the union for radiation therapists planning strikes from next week. Walkouts are scheduled for Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland and Palmerston North in support of a pay rise. The action will affect treatment for cancer patients. CEO of the MidCentral DHB Murray Georgel says the union's claim for three percent for each of the next two years is difficult. He says the only ones who will be affected by the upcoming action are the patients. Union spokeswoman Dr Deborah Powell says the boards' continuing stubbornness is costing the health sector badly. She says already there are patients planning to go to Australia, where ironically they'll be treated by New Zealanders who have already left to get better pay and conditions. Deborah Powell says it is about time questions were asked of Health Minister Pete Hodgson and what kinds of orders he is giving the DHBs. Dr Powell says if the dispute is not sorted out, more radiation therapists will leave for Australia. ----------------- Environmental activist who exposed radiation pollution in Gansu denied medical treatment Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) Jan 4 ? Environmentalist Sun Xiaodi, who exposed radiation poisoning in Gansu province, could die from a potentially life-threatening tumour because the authorities have denied him medical treatment in Beijing, Human Rights in China (HRC) reported yesterday. The activist has been subjected to constant harassment, his home has been raided several times and his family's electricity and water supplies have been regularly cut. Sun Xiaodi received the Nuclear-Free Future Award in November for publicly exposing the dangers of radiation pollution at a uranium mine in Gansu. The activist said people living near the site had a high incidence of cancerous tumours, leukaemia, birth defects, miscarriages and other afflictions because of the pollution. But he was unable to fly to the United States to receive the award because he was not allowed to leave the country, the HRC said. The human rights group explained that the activist has campaigned against illegal mining practices in Gansu for more than a decade. This kind of mining has led to serious pollution problems in the area. For local Tibetan medical workers, nearly half of the deaths in the region are in fact due to some forms of cancer, according to the human rights group. Mr Sun himself has also been diagnosed with an abdominal tumour. He was thrown into jail in April 2005 for eight months after speaking to foreign journalists about the pollution and was again detained and released in 2006. According to HRC, the activist has been the victim of constant harassment and attacks by unidentified persons since winning the award. And police have entered his home several times and cut off power and water supplies. His family asked local authorities last November to allow the activist to go to Beijing for cancer treatment, but the application was turned down. Mr Sun was a former employee of the Gansu No. 792 Uranium Mine in the Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. He repeatedly petitioned provincial and central authorities to look into local mismanagement and illegal mining, but was instead fired in 1994. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From muckerheide at comcast.net Thu Jan 4 20:18:11 2007 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:18:11 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <404314.67482.qm@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John, B & T didn?t get it right in 1905, as mainstream radiobiology has accepted since blaming rad-induced effects (cancer) on DNA damage in the ?50s (also wrongly). The low-dose x-ray stimulation of lymphocytes (and stimulation by heat) in the 1910s - ?20s that showed reduction and curing of induced cancer in mice (see e.g., JB Murphy, PNAS, 1920). As has been established, cell damage doesn?t lead to adverse health effects. As has been said (paraphrasing Sohei Kondo), ?cancer is not a problem of single cells, but of cell society.? Fortunately, my conclusions are founded on the review and synthesis of >5000 papers in the last 12 years, plus comprehensive reviews and documentation by Luckey, Calabrese and many other credible, unbiased science reviewers; plus attending numerous conferences and meetings, and discussing the evidence and biological bases for physiological responses and health with many of the knowledgeable medical and biological researchers (generally NOT physics from which too many are not adequately informed about the underlying biology ? thinking that hitting a cell in vitro can be informative of health, rather than just a reaction that can be informative of some mechanisms). This, or course, rejects simply parroting the disinformation promulgated by NCRP/ICRP/BEIR et al. which is designed and practiced to ?sound good? to the uninformed (especially when crawling the halls of Congress. :-) Regards, Jim ========= on 1/4/07 5:00 PM, John Jacobus at crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote: > Jim, > I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie And > Tribondeau. How does this factor into your postulate? > All you provide below is speculation. > > --- Muckerheide wrote: > >> > Friends, >> > >> > Considering the spectrum of biological data, it >> > seems that there is no >> > inherently lesser effect for younger people, except >> > to the extent that >> > younger people have healthier immune functions and >> > damage control systems so >> > they don?t normally have general detriments. A >> > positive response is more >> > readily seen with supplements given to older people. >> > >> > It?s like giving vitamins to people in good health >> > on a normal diet. They >> > don?t seem to do them any good. But for people, >> > young or old, that have >> > significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements >> > are then readily seen as >> > obvious essential nutrients. >> > >> > Regards, Jim >> > >> > >> > on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net >> > wrote: >> > >>> > > Yes, Jay, >>> > > >>> > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose >> > beneficial or harmful to >>> > > persons under 30 is less than that for older >> > persons. I wonder if that shows >>> > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Howard Long >>> > > >>> > > Jay Caplan wrote: >>> > > >>>> > >> > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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 jerrycuttler at rogers.com Thu Jan 4 20:36:53 2007 From: jerrycuttler at rogers.com (Jerry Cuttler) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) References: <911169.33936.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007c01c73072$5c49bd90$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased life expectancy. I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's calculation to John Cameron. Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: howard long To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?) Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us Fri Jan 5 06:53:19 2007 From: Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us (Myers, Pete) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 06:53:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] An HP Position is Open in Texas Message-ID: <9D016E7E7930A347AE098135FEFCE84301EE1CFE@DSHSEXVS3.dshs.state.tx.us> A Health Physicist I position is posted on the Texas Department of State Health Services web page at a salary range from $4010.58 to $4320.00 per month. To review the position description, Radioactive Material License Reviewer, Industrial Licensing Program, and submit an on-line application click here HP-I ILP License Reviewer Applications must be received no later than the close of business, January 18, 2007. For additional information concerning the specific duties and responsibilities of the position, please contact: Mike Dunn, Chief Industrial Licensing Program Radiation Safety Licensing Branch (512) 834-6688 x 2207 (512) 834-6690 (FAX) mailto:mike.dunn at dshs.state.tx.us From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 18:07:03 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:07:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor Message-ID: When I see posts like this... http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-November/004495.html I wonder why Dr. Johnson is agreeing with someone who has been proven to have lied about epidemiological birth defect research results. To make a long story short, Dr. Kang, a Veterans Administration epidemiologist, has been tracking an increasing trend of birth defects in the children of 1991 Gulf War veterans, and Colonel Daxon claimed that Dr. Kang's unpublished research indicated the trend had decreased. In fact, in is increasing more sharply than ever. (Roger H, did you ever call Dr. Kang to confirm after I gave you his phone number?) The only reason I can think that Dr. Johnson would want to agree with a proven liar is because he was responsible, in the 1990s for proving the "safety" of depleted uranium munitions. In doing so, he never considered the amount of uranium which becomes gas vapor instead of particulates, which settle much more quickly, when it burns. Neither has anyone else in the military or industrial production of DU munitions. Sadly, this state of affairs has caused otherwise-intelligent people to propose using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas. I note that fully half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor, see page 836 of Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38: http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf I suspect that the people who lie about depleted uranium think that they are doing our military a favor. In fact, they are betraying the interests of truth, science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to recruit, upon which they rely. Sincerely, James Salsman From civildefense2002 at aol.com Mon Jan 8 17:31:32 2007 From: civildefense2002 at aol.com (civildefense2002 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:31:32 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Requesting help with locating older Victoreen parts and manuals Message-ID: <8C9019443A52F48-95C-6591@mblk-r32.sysops.aol.com> Hello fellow list members. We have been looking far and wide for the manuals to some older Victoreen portable instruments. Unfortunately, Victoreen/Fluke Biomedical no longer has these available. Any format - electronic, fax, or original - would be perfectly acceptable. 1. Victoreen 490 "Thyac III" low-range survey meter. 2. Victoreen 493 low-range survey meter. 3. Victoreen 692 low-range ion chamber gamma survey meter. We are also looking for a replacement ion chamber to the Victoreen 692 as well. The 692 is very similar to the somewhat older Victoreen 592B pictured at http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/southrad/victoreen-592b.html , if that provides a reference. The ion chambers may be interchangable between the two models, but I am not sure. On a personal note, I have been looking for one of the CD V-718 Model 1 instruments that FEMA issued out back in 1994. This would be for my collection of civil defense instruments. If anyone has a lead, that'd be most appreciated. I really appreciate any assistance provided. Please all have a pleasant week. Nicholas M. Studer, NREMT-P Environmental Intern Florida Department of Health - Bureau of Radiation Control Civil Defense Radiological Instrument Maintenence & Calibration Facility 407-297-2096 x 239 407-297-2096 (fax) 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. (Disclaimer thanks to Louis N. Molino) ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Tue Jan 9 01:28:26 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 07:28:26 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker Message-ID: BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Tue Jan 9 06:05:43 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:05:43 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MSP launches 'anti-nuclear' bill Message-ID: BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6243639.stm MSP launches 'anti-nuclear' bill A Nationalist MSP is to launch a bill which would criminalise Scottish ministers who prepare the way for the use of nuclear weapons. Michael Matheson's bill aims to prevent the replacement of the Trident nuclear submarines at the Faslane nuclear base on the Clyde. Fred Dawsonfwp_dawson at hotmail.com From radproject at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 9 10:12:01 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:12:01 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker References: Message-ID: <002d01c73408$e5366b00$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello colleagues, Regarding the post by Fred Dawson about a US sub hitting an oil tanker. It is difficult to understand how a nuclear sub, with all its navigation equipment and sensors to detect anything near it [supposedly] can run up and hit an oil tanker. A tanker is a fairly large object on the surface that is not running along in a stealth mode like an enemy attack sub --- isn't it? An unfortunate embarassment for the US Navy. Some will certainly paint this story as a new nuclear attack of sorts on the Japanese. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is supposed to be what subs "aim" for. Theoretically, this could have been quite the disaster. If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac & Medical Imaging Equipment [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 1/9/2007 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 10:23:25 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Physics (heat) treatment - biology! Hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: <741447.96098.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <365313.74506.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Your point? --- howard long wrote: > "Heat speeds blood flow and healing when skin red > (beware burn!) > Microwave 4 lb dry rice knotted in pillowcase for > 2 min, apply 3x/d for 20 min." > - from my template for patients' record- advice > sheet, often circled. > > I give away about 20 rice packs every 4 months > (the record at every patient visit). > The heat (physics, John) helps earache, abcess, > bursitis, bronchitis, etc! > > Much more is done by doctors working for patients > instead of for government or other insurer. More > prevention is used with HSA cash payment, contrary > to socialist claims that more prevention would be > used with middlemen like government bureaucrats > paying the bill (and keeping most of the premium). > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Jim, > Was radiation listed? Oh, that is not a drug. Sorry. > But then again, physics is not like biology. > > --- Muckerheide wrote: > > > Friends, > > > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, > > low-dose radiation immune > > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and > > treat cancer, and applied > > for infections and inflammatory conditions, from > the > > 1910s to the late-40s > > and beyond. (It is still applied today for > specific > > conditions.) > > > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug > profits > > in the 1930s, by FDA). > > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing > > Manhattan Project data and > > research. NCI was a major controller since the > > late-40s. > > > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > > ================== > > > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study > > Challenges How Regulators > > Determine Risk > > > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. > National > > Cancer Institute > > database provides the strongest evidence yet that > a > > key portion of the > > traditional dose-response model used in drug > testing > > and risk assessment for > > toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the > > effects of very low doses, > > says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the > > University of Massachusetts > > Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more > > than 56,000 tests in 13 > > strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published > in > > the journal > > Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing > for > > the theory of hormesis, > > Calabrese and his colleagues contend. > > > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the > > preponderance of evidence > > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in > > which low doses have the > > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough > > that should help scientists > > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants > > and possibly carcinogens. > > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological > > principle that has been > > missed." > > > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got > the > > dose response wrong in > > the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all > > regulations for low-dose > > exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These > > low-dose effects can be > > beneficial or harmful, something that the > > regulations miss because they are > > currently based on high-dose testing schemes that > > differ greatly from the > > conditions of human exposures. > > > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large > > and highly standardized > > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening > > database, Calabrese says the > > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the > study, > > high doses of anticancer > > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low > > doses they enhance growth, > > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the > > critical public policy > > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the > > major issue is that the risk > > assessments models used by the federal > Environmental > > Protection Agency and > > the Food and Drug Administration fail to > accurately > > predict responses in the > > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of > > their daily lives. > > > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing > > dose-response model has > > profound public policy and health implications. "I > > believe the hormesis > > model is the fundamental dose-response and > > government testing and risk > > assessment procedures should reflect that," > > Calabrese says. For example, in > > environmental regulations, it has been assumed > that > > most carcinogens possess > > real or theoretical risks at low levels, and > > therefore must be nearly > > completely removed from the environments to assure > > public safety. Some would > > contend that if hormesis is the correct model for > > very low levels, that > > cleanup standards may have to be significantly > > changed. Others, however, see > > the evidence as insufficient for such radical > change > > and worry about other > > factors that can influence the effects of > chemicals > > in low doses. The new > > study promises to add fuel to the debate, > Calabrese > > says. > > > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have > > important implications > > for the pharmaceutical industry and medical > > practices. He says that hormesis > > is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that > > were missed through > > traditional testing and to markedly improve the > > accuracy of patient dosing, > > which will not only improve health outcomes but > also > > reduce adverse side > > effects. > > > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news > > release issued by University > > Of Massachusetts Amherst. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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 === 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Tue Jan 9 10:40:01 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:40:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <000901c73068$f8bd8350$6401a8c0@CFXPS400> Message-ID: <20070109164001.57155.qmail@web54311.mail.yahoo.com> Harold, If you are wondering about your dose, see http://www.nuclearonline.org/PI/Cardiolite.pdf --- Harold Careway wrote: > Yes, unfortunately age and health is a factor, > otherwise all us old cardiac > patients who get annual Cardolite tests would make > an interesting > statistical study as to variances due to annual > radiation increases. > (Would such a study propose a low level increase > over the year, or just a > month, or perhaps a week?). > > Hal Careway > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of John Jacobus > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:53 PM > To: howard long; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) > > Of course, radiation effects in older people may not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Tue Jan 9 10:51:26 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:51:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <932933.19482.qm@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, I guess it is a shame that no laws have been changed, no scientific group has validated your hypoteses, no medical treatments have changed. You have refuted every study that was every made. I guess that everyone must be conspiring against you. Maybe you should find a more productive activity. --- Muckerheide wrote: > John, > > B & T didn?t get it right in 1905, as mainstream > radiobiology has accepted > since blaming rad-induced effects (cancer) on DNA > damage in the ?50s (also > wrongly). The low-dose x-ray stimulation of > lymphocytes (and stimulation by > heat) in the 1910s - ?20s that showed reduction and > curing of induced cancer > in mice (see e.g., JB Murphy, PNAS, 1920). > > As has been established, cell damage doesn?t lead to > adverse health effects. > As has been said (paraphrasing Sohei Kondo), ?cancer > is not a problem of > single cells, but of cell society.? > > Fortunately, my conclusions are founded on the > review and synthesis of >5000 > papers in the last 12 years, plus comprehensive > reviews and documentation by > Luckey, Calabrese and many other credible, unbiased > science reviewers; plus > attending numerous conferences and meetings, and > discussing the evidence and > biological bases for physiological responses and > health with many of the > knowledgeable medical and biological researchers > (generally NOT physics from > which too many are not adequately informed about the > underlying biology ? > thinking that hitting a cell in vitro can be > informative of health, rather > than just a reaction that can be informative of some > mechanisms). > > This, or course, rejects simply parroting the > disinformation promulgated by > NCRP/ICRP/BEIR et al. which is designed and > practiced to ?sound good? to the > uninformed (especially when crawling the halls of > Congress. :-) > > Regards, Jim > ========= > > on 1/4/07 5:00 PM, John Jacobus at > crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote: > > > Jim, > > I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie > And > > Tribondeau. How does this factor into your > postulate? > > All you provide below is speculation. > > > > --- Muckerheide wrote: > > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Tue Jan 9 10:55:11 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:55:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <007c01c73072$5c49bd90$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> Message-ID: <999440.90795.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > life expectancy. > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > calculation to John Cameron. > Jerry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > life (p<0.0001?) > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > rad/year. I would participate. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Of course, radiation effects in older people may > not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live > lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the > dose > > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is > less > > than that for older persons. I wonder if that > shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > The "consequences" of looking at different > > ages' results in this study are that we learn > that > > children and those under age 30 should not be > > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 > should be > > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these > approaches > > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the > study > > results. > > > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > > separate results among a collection of > results. > > > > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) > lowering > > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big > news, but > > not new news, it has been shown before in > other > > studies with similar exposures. > > > > Jay Caplan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > > radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > > establishment release, and abstract > inconsistent > > with table 3 data: "highly significant > (p<0.01)" > > that solid cancer incidence > > not LESS in exposed population. > > > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in > 23 > > years. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal > cancers > > are > > the only end-points to be evaluated for the > effects > > of > > low-level radiation exposure. It would be > convenient > > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? > Would > > you > > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin > (whatever > > it is) that would increase their risk of > cancer in > > later life? > > > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood > Cancer > > Rate > > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would > play as > > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data > you > > want, but what are the consequences? > > > > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > > wrote: > > > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > > > Regards, Jim > > > =========== > > > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% > reduction > > of > > > all cancers for > > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial > amount > > > (>50 mSv) over the > > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). > This is > > > in the table on page > > > 885. > > > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to > a > > > population, it would be > > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think > that even > > > though it ignored > > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > > confirms > > > the nuclear > > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult > Cancer Rate > > > Reduced 40% by Low > > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in > the > > > abstract. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > > nationwide gasoline > > rationing, beginning December 1. > > > > -- 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 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 ProRadCon at aol.com Tue Jan 9 12:23:44 2007 From: ProRadCon at aol.com (ProRadCon at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:23:44 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Request for Information on SDMP Sites Message-ID: Greetings, I am researching some of the requirements for SDMP Sites decommissioned within the past 8 or so years. I would appreciate any assistance. I am looking for the following information: ? SDMP/Complex Sites that were closed under the SDMP Action Plan Criteria, especially those that ?grandfathered? the License Termination Rule Criteria (i.e., closed under Action after LTR was in effect). The Molycorp York Site in PA is an example of which I have information. Did any of these sites perform retrospective dose- or risk-based assessments? If so, were they required or performed by the governing agency(ies), or performed voluntarily by the licensee? ? Useful web sites and applicable licensee, contractor, or governing agency contact information. I have looked through some of the NRC Papers (SECY Annual Updates on Decommissioning) and found them to be of use, but I was hoping that someone out there could help me hit the mother lode. You can reply to me directly, or to the list if this information is of general interest... Thank you in advance, Shane Brightwell, MS, CHP President Professional Radiation Consulting, Inc. 7 Balmoral Drive Pittstown, NJ 08867 Office: (908) 730-9224 Fax: (720) 294-1153 Mobile: (631) 278-0610 E-mail: proradcon at aol.com Web Site: _www.proradcon.com_ (http://www.proradcon.com/) From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Tue Jan 9 13:16:35 2007 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:35 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide--The First 1 Message-ID: Distributed at the request of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). Jim Hardeman -- Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us =============================== PRESS RELEASE RDD (Dirty Bomb) First Responder's Guide-The First 12 HoursNow Available! The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. announces publication of theHandbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours. This handbook was developed as a training and reference tool for first responders with various degrees of radiological experience. The RDD Handbook expands on the concepts presented in the RDD Pocket Guide published by CRCPD in March 2006. The RDD Handbook provides guidance in a number of areas, including a flow chart of actions when responding to an RDD, rules of thumb, determination of various radiation zones, use of radiation instrumentation, decontamination guidelines, and multiple forms that can be tailored for specific needs. The RDD Handbook also includes lists of state, local and federal radiation control contacts that can provide assistance. This handbook will be useful for training, exercise and response activities. Many of the concepts introduced in the handbook can be applied to a variety of radiation incidents, and do not apply exclusively to dirty bombs. The RDD Handbook consists of the bound document, a CD containing forms and handouts, and one RDD Pocket Guide. Ordering information is available at or call (502) 227-4543, Ext. 2229. Price: $30, including shipping. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's mission is to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education. CRCPD's headquarters is located at 205 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601. From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 9 13:32:03 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:32:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] First Announcement: The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium Message-ID: <45A37D33.6339.13962A86@sandyfl.cox.net> The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium -- co sponsored by Global Dosimetry Solutions ; Landauerand Panasonic - cordially invites you to the 26th International Dosimetry & Records Symposium AGENDA and other details: http://www.dosimetryresources.com from there, click on the tab for the 2007 Symposium As in 2006, this will be a joint symposium for Dosimetry and Records - with common plus parallel track sessions Topics planned are "Nuclear Renaissance" ; Nuclear Cycle ; Homeland Security ; Emergency Response ; Regulatory changes and updates ;Litigation ; Environmental ; Confidentiality ; Dose Reconstruction ; EPD ; Establishing a Program for Accreditation etc Special sessions are also planned for " Hands On" equipment training and panel discussions on open issues REGISTRATION: Attendees $350 Guests ( over12) $175 We will shortly post an On Line Registration Link -and also advice you by email DATES: Arrival on Sunday, June 3, 2007 Sessions from Monday, June 4 (8:00am) to Friday, June 8, 2007 (5:00pm) Depart on Saturday, June 9 at your leisure VENUE: Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks 200 Sable Oaks Drive South Portland Maine 04106 USA (207) 871 8000 (800) 752 8810 http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/PWMAP HOTEL ROOM RESERVATION Please contact the Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks directly at (800) 752 8810 and identify yourself as an attendee of the "Dosimetry & Records Symposium June 3 -9; 2007 " to avail yourself of the special negotiated rates: Single or Double Guestroom @ $ 149 plus 7% tax Gov?t Rate @ $ 82 plus 7% tax (Applicable only to active U.S. Gov?t/DOD/DOE employees - Valid ID required) AIRPORT: Portland ; Maine(PWM) http://www.portlandjetport.org/ Other nearby aiports are Boston Logan (BOS) approx 2 hours by car and Manchester (MHT) approx 1 1/2 hours by car. GROUND TRANSPORTATION: Hotel provides complimentary transportation from and to Portland , Maine (PWM) airport Looking forward to your participation Thank you, 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium Task Force Inid Deneau Landauer Chairperson Sandy Perle Global Dosimetry Solutions Co-Chairperson Bruce Dicey Consultant Dante Wells Savannah River Company Deborah O?Connor TXU/Comanche Peak Isabelle McCabe Radiation Safety and Control Services Pam Heckman Energy Solutions Richard Cadogan Argonne National Labs Ash Chabra Panasonic ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From hflong at pacbell.net Tue Jan 9 18:24:23 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:24:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <999440.90795.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070110002423.18549.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only used a one tail test, showing only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the papers, like the Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > life expectancy. > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > calculation to John Cameron. > Jerry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > life (p<0.0001?) > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > rad/year. I would participate. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Of course, radiation effects in older people may > not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live > lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the > dose > > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is > less > > than that for older persons. I wonder if that > shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > The "consequences" of looking at different > > ages' results in this study are that we learn > that > > children and those under age 30 should not be > > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 > should be > > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these > approaches > > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the > study > > results. > > > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > > separate results among a collection of > results. > > > > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) > lowering > > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big > news, but > > not new news, it has been shown before in > other > > studies with similar exposures. > > > > Jay Caplan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > > radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > > establishment release, and abstract > inconsistent > > with table 3 data: "highly significant > (p<0.01)" > > that solid cancer incidence > > not LESS in exposed population. > > > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in > 23 > > years. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal > cancers > > are > > the only end-points to be evaluated for the > effects > > of > > low-level radiation exposure. It would be > convenient > > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? > Would > > you > > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin > (whatever > > it is) that would increase their risk of > cancer in > > later life? > > > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood > Cancer > > Rate > > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would > play as > > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data > you > > want, but what are the consequences? > > > > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > > wrote: > > > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > > > Regards, Jim > > > =========== > > > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% > reduction > > of > > > all cancers for > > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial > amount > > > (>50 mSv) over the > > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). > This is > > > in the table on page > > > 885. > > > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to > a > > > population, it would be > > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think > that even > > > though it ignored > > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > > confirms > > > the nuclear > > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult > Cancer Rate > > > Reduced 40% by Low > > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in > the > > > abstract. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > > nationwide gasoline > > rationing, beginning December 1. > > > > -- 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 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Wed Jan 10 09:14:27 2007 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:14:27 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? Message-ID: Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about what they used to manufacture. If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jan 10 09:12:17 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:12:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A50251.9010206@peoplepc.com> J. Marshall Reber wrote: > Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could > access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their > very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that > time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so > that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's > remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about > what they used to manufacture. > > If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could > purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. > > > > J. Marshall Reber, ScD > 165 Berkeley St. > Methuen MA 01844 > > Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 > Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu > ============================== Marshall, will any of this material help you? Best, Maury&Dog =============================== My Saved Results 5340 style (PDF File) ... tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW (Each): $5.-TRANSFER COROTRON ASSEMBLY 5340TCA ... 5855 s of tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/cat5340.pdf ? Save Vintage 1020 (PDF File) ... conserve space in our Catalog, we've compressed a few of the older models ... 45.-FUSER LAMP 1025FL $40.- COROTRON WIRES(Pre-Cut) 4 in ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/catVintage.pdf ? Save More Results from www.partsdrop.com electron Tube Data sheets - Victoreen documents 2002-08-19 Victoreen Tubes Catalog Spark gaps, Corotron Tubes, GM Counter Tube. Thanks to John Atwood 6,032,375 bytes ... frank.pocnet.net/other/Victoreen/index.html ? Save UED.net Catalog - Item Index Page 273 - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP Union Electronic Distributors Catalog - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... UH0515001 COROTRON CASE (R) BLACK HL10V BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... www.unionel.com/catalog/cat_item_idx_273.html ? Save Xerox 5818 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 5818 W5180 5818 N/A CORONA - Precut Corotron ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-5818.html ? Save Xerox 1025 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 1025 W5690 1025 600K15950 CORONA - Wire - ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-1025.html ? Save More Results from www.precisionroller.com ISO Parts - National Stock Number (NSN) Index - Page 1877 - Free ... Free Locator Service for Military and Aviation parts, spares and components. Free online databases of Government Data such as MCRL. We are ... www.iso-parts.com/index/1877 ? Save TarguMures.info - Portalul Judetului Mures - Targu Mures - ... Nostra, CORSA s.r.l., Corotron Service srl, Cornisa, CORIZ S.A., Corbet Transair, COPYTECH SRL ... www.targumures.info/ ? Save Photocopier Hazards and a Conservation Case Study ... a corotron. It is well known in the photocopy industry that corotron charging devices ... gases generated by a corotron in positive ... aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v08/bp08-05.html ? Cached ? Save AnaLog's Electronic Component ID Menu AnaLog Services, Inc. provides services to the oil well, water well, and mineral logging / wireline industries. www.logwell.com/tech/components/component_identification.html From radproject at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 10 11:19:21 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:19:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker References: <002d01c73408$e5366b00$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> <6.0.0.22.2.20070110082331.01dbbd70@nis-mail.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello all, As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such an extent. Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you." Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the wrong field. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Rees To: stewart farber ; Dawson, Fred Mr ; radsafe at radlab.nl ; srp-uk at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker Having spent quite a bit of time submerged on nuclear power, and some of that may have been in the Straits of Hormuz, I'd like to make a few comments. First of all, a submarine can't hear very effectively directly behind it, so when they come up to periscope depth, they turn from side to side, listening in that "cone" for somebody who may be coming up behind you. So if you come up too quickly, and don't do that job well, you can get in trouble. Exciting, to say the least!!! Secondly, the Straits of Hormuz are a "target-rich" environment, and keeping track of who's where, going in which direction, at what speed is very challenging, and the ships can change speed and direction at will. Remember, they aren't on roads. And the ocean and ocean bottom can do funny things to reflect sounds. Submarines don't use active sonar very much (kinda defeats their purpose!). Thirdly, sea state and weather conditions aren't mentioned, so this may have contributed as well, a periscope is a radar target, and isn't put up any farther than required. Any substantial sea will limit your horizon, and although an oil tanker is big tonnage, loaded they can sit fairly low in the water. All that said, yes, it's an embarrassment. The collision between the USS Greeneville and the Japanese Ship Ehime Maru was a combination of some of the factors above, and poor conduct of operations in the control room of the USS Greeneville. It's too bad that the people who claim to know Conduct of Ops don't know more about that accident and apply lessons learned to operations, rather that some of the BS that they do. As far as a radioactive release as a result of a collision, that's extremely remote, a Submarine's hull is quite thick and strong, and there are multiple layers between radioactive materials and the fishes. For more (quite good) reading about submarine life, I highly recommend Andy Karam's (!) book: Rig Ship for Ultra Quiet - available from Amazon Books. Brian Rees At 09:12 AM 1/9/2007, stewart farber wrote: Hello colleagues, Regarding the post by Fred Dawson about a US sub hitting an oil tanker. It is difficult to understand how a nuclear sub, with all its navigation equipment and sensors to detect anything near it [supposedly] can run up and hit an oil tanker. A tanker is a fairly large object on the surface that is not running along in a stealth mode like an enemy attack sub --- isn't it? An unfortunate embarassment for the US Navy. Some will certainly paint this story as a new nuclear attack of sorts on the Japanese. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is supposed to be what subs "aim" for. Theoretically, this could have been quite the disaster. If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac & Medical Imaging Equipment [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007 From joseph.demers at wch-rcc.com Wed Jan 10 12:20:14 2007 From: joseph.demers at wch-rcc.com (DeMers, Joseph W) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:20:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DOE Contractor Looking for LB4100 Message-ID: <6ED9464012BE854ABA07FEBE6EFBBEFA020C6CB6@rccex01.wch-rcc.com> Folks, I am looking for a used or surplus Tennelec LB4100 multi-detector counter. I am particularly interested if another DOE contractor may have one that they are looking to excess or get rid of, where we can work a property transfer. Please respond to me off list if you can help. Regards, Joe DeMers Radiological Control Technical Support Manager Washington Closure Hanford (509) 372-9040 (Desk) (509) 521-0203 (Mobile) From Alan.Remick at nnsa.doe.gov Tue Jan 9 14:53:31 2007 From: Alan.Remick at nnsa.doe.gov (Remick, Alan) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:53:31 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device Fi rst Responder's Guide--The First 12 Hours Message-ID: In addition to this reference document, the DOE/NNSA Emergency Operations Training Academy has just published the "First Responder Guide for Radiological Unknowns". This handy pocket guide will be made available in limited quantities to State and Local responders through the Radiological Assistance Program next week. Please contact your RAP Regional Office for more information... Alan L. Remick NNSA AMS and REAC/TS Program Manager NA-42 202-586-8312 202-586-3859 (fax) "Leading Nuclear Response" _____ From: REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com [mailto:REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:17 PM To: RADSAFE Mailing List; REP Planners Mailing List Subject: [REP Planners] Fwd: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide--The First 1 Distributed at the request of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). Jim Hardeman -- Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us =============================== PRESS RELEASE RDD (Dirty Bomb) First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours Now Available! The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. announces publication of the Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours. This handbook was developed as a training and reference tool for first responders with various degrees of radiological experience. The RDD Handbook expands on the concepts presented in the RDD Pocket Guide published by CRCPD in March 2006. The RDD Handbook provides guidance in a number of areas, including a flow chart of actions when responding to an RDD, rules of thumb, determination of various radiation zones, use of radiation instrumentation, decontamination guidelines, and multiple forms that can be tailored for specific needs. The RDD Handbook also includes lists of state, local and federal radiation control contacts that can provide assistance. This handbook will be useful for training, exercise and response activities. Many of the concepts introduced in the handbook can be applied to a variety of radiation incidents, and do not apply exclusively to dirty bombs. The RDD Handbook consists of the bound document, a CD containing forms and handouts, and one RDD Pocket Guide. Ordering information is available at or call (502) 227-4543, Ext. 2229. Price: $30, including shipping. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's mission is to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education. CRCPD's headquarters is located at 205 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601. __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Emergency preparedness Nh lake region real estate Emergency preparedness supply New hampshire lake region real estate Emergency preparedness kit Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jan 10 14:06:36 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:06:36 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] A brief different sight Message-ID: <45A5474C.2070604@peoplepc.com> Admittedly off topic, no risk and probably no irradiation here. But take a minute from your shop and enjoy this .... You'll work better tomorrow. http://spaceweather.com Comet McNaught has continued to brighten as it approaches the sun and it is now the brightest comet in 30 years. For observers in the northern Hemisphere, tonight is probably the best time to see it: Go outside this evening and face the sunset. A clear view of the western horizon is essential, because the comet hangs very low. As the twilight fades to black, it should become visible to the naked eye. Observers say it's a fantastic sight through binoculars. From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 17:04:43 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:04:43 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker In-Reply-To: <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> References: <002d01c73408$e5366b00$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> <6.0.0.22.2.20070110082331.01dbbd70@nis-mail.lanl.gov> <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: Dear all, I read today two Austrian papers. One was on the internet, which did not mention the incident at all. The other one I read as a paper copy had a short note on approximately page 17, mentioning that a US submarine had collided with a Japanese tanker. There was not a single word on the fact that it was a nuclear-powered submarine. If not even newspapers in Austria, a country which is fiercly antinuclear, mentions this it seems that this fact does not play a big role in public perception worldwide. Best regards, Franz 2007/1/10, stewart farber : > > Hello all, > > As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster > involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely > tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a > radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a > collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such > an extent. > > Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which > was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: > > "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, > there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of > Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. > Coming soon to a theatre near you." > > Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If > the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature > films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the > wrong field. > > Stewart Farber, MS Public Health > Farber Medical Solutions, LLC > Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation > [203] 441-8433 [office] > email: radproject at sbcglobal.net > > > From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 18:05:48 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy Message-ID: <264810.8126.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 10-Jan-2007 Contact: Karen Richardson krchrdsn at wfubmc.edu 336-716-4453 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine are the first to report that in animal studies, a common diabetes drug prevents the memory and learning problems that cancer patients often experience after whole-brain radiation treatments. "These findings offer the promise of improving the quality of life of these patients," said Mike Robbins, Ph.D., senior researcher. "The drug is already prescribed for diabetes and we know the doses that patients can safely take." Whole-brain radiation is widely used to treat recurrent brain tumors as well as to prevent breast cancer, lung cancer and malignant melanoma from spreading to the brain. About 200,000 people receive the treatment annually, and beginning about a year later, up to one-half develop progressive cognitive impairments that can affect memory, language and abstract reasoning. In the current issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology - Biology ?Physics, Robbins and colleagues report that rats receiving the diabetes drug piolitazone (sold under the trade name Actos?) before, during and after radiation treatments did not experience cognitive impairment. The scientists compared whether treatment with Actos for four weeks or for 54 weeks after radiation would be more effective, and found there was not a significant difference. The study involved young adult rats that received either radiation treatment equal to levels received by humans or a "sham" treatment involving no radiation. Animals in both groups received either a normal diet or a diet containing the diabetes drug. Cognitive function was assessed a year after the completion of radiation therapy using an object recognition test. Rats receiving radiation exhibited a significant decrease in cognitive function, unless they received the diabetes drug for either four or 54 weeks after radiation. "This could be easily applied to patients," said Robbins, a professor of radiation biology. "We know the drugs don't promote tumor growth, and in some cases may inhibit it." Currently, there are no known treatments to prevent cognitive impairments, and Robbins said the aging of the American population makes it imperative to solve the problem. "Cancer is a disease of old age, so the number of people getting whole-brain radiation will increase," he said. In essence, radiation causes the cognitive problems because it speeds up the brain's aging process. Recent research suggests that a cause may be chronic inflammation or oxidative stress. Oxidative stress occurs when cells cannot remove free radicals, or structurally unstable cells that can damage healthy cells. The study by Robbins and colleagues was based on evidence that the diabetes drug pioglitazone prevents inflammation. The drug activates a specific type of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) that control fat and glucose metabolism, and may be involved in inflammation. Robbins said because the drug shows promise for preventing cognitive impairment, it may allow doctors to give higher doses of radiation. Currently, while higher doses of radiation have been associated with longer survival, dose is limited because of potential damage to surrounding healthy tissue. ### The research is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Co-researchers were Weiling Zhao, Ph.D., Valerie Payne, B.S., Ellen Tommasi, B.S., Debra Diz, Ph.D., and Fang-Chi Hsu, Ph.D., all with Wake Forest. Media Contact: Shannon Koontz, shkoontz at wfubmc.edu; at 336-716-4587 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is an academic health system comprised of North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences, which operates the university's School of Medicine. U.S. News & World Report ranks Wake Forest University School of Medicine 18th in family medicine, 20th in geriatrics, 25th in primary care and 41st in research among the nation's medical schools. It ranks 35th in research funding by the National Institutes of Health. Almost 150 members of the medical school faculty are listed in Best Doctors in America. --------------------------------- Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 19:16:05 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:16:05 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective In-Reply-To: <264810.8126.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <025a01c7351e$12260100$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Example of Iranian Press: Comments? http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/11/2007&Cat=4&Num=014 Uranium killing Italian troops ROME (BBC News) -- Italian soldiers are still dying following exposure to depleted uranium in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, their relatives say. Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions. The U.S. says it fired around 40,000 depleted uranium rounds during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. A pressure group says 50 veterans have died and another 200 are seriously ill. Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust. The Italians who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were involved in the clear-up of battlefields and came into close contact with exploded ammunition. ----------Children with disabilities The association representing the soldiers, known as Anavafaf, says many of those who have died or are ill have contracted cancer. In 2002 the Italian defense ministry published a report compiled by independent scientists which found a higher than average number of servicemen were suffering from cancer. It said there was an excessive number of Hodgkin's disease victims among Italian Balkan peacekeepers. A number of children fathered by the soldiers have been born with disabilities. There are similar reports from soldiers' associations in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Wed Jan 10 19:38:19 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:38:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective In-Reply-To: <025a01c7351e$12260100$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Message-ID: Dan and other Radsafers The main risk is "chemical toxicity". I think the consenios is that the radiation risk is not important. But I don't think that the chemical toxicity can account for the "projected" effects. See these Uranium references Radiation Risks and Uranium Toxicity, A Brodsky, RSA Publications, 1996 A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses Harley et al RAND, 1999 Depleted Uranium Sources, Exposure and Heath Effects, World Health Organization, 2001 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 Dan W McCarn Sent: January 10, 2007 5:16 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective Example of Iranian Press: Comments? http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/11/2007&Cat=4&Num=014 Uranium killing Italian troops ROME (BBC News) -- Italian soldiers are still dying following exposure to depleted uranium in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, their relatives say. Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions. The U.S. says it fired around 40,000 depleted uranium rounds during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. A pressure group says 50 veterans have died and another 200 are seriously ill. Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust. The Italians who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were involved in the clear-up of battlefields and came into close contact with exploded ammunition. ----------Children with disabilities The association representing the soldiers, known as Anavafaf, says many of those who have died or are ill have contracted cancer. In 2002 the Italian defense ministry published a report compiled by independent scientists which found a higher than average number of servicemen were suffering from cancer. It said there was an excessive number of Hodgkin's disease victims among Italian Balkan peacekeepers. A number of children fathered by the soldiers have been born with disabilities. There are similar reports from soldiers' associations in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. _______________________________________________ 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 HansenRG at nv.doe.gov Wed Jan 10 19:55:47 2007 From: HansenRG at nv.doe.gov (Hansen, Richard) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:55:47 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <5ie951$vu3h@smtp.nv.doe.gov> Message-ID: Thank you Robert Best Regards, Rick Hansen Senior Scientist Counter Terrorism Operations Support Program Office: (702) 295-7813 Cell: (702) 630-1131 Fax: (702) 295-5555 National Security Technologies (NSTec), PO Box 98521, MS CF 128, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521 http://www.nv.doe.gov/nationalsecurity/homelandsecurity/responder.htm Shipping Address: National Securities Technologies, 2621 Losee Rd MS CF 128, North Las Vegas, NV 89030 "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire...Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Sir Winston Churchill -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:22 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 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. First Announcement: The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium (Sandy Perle) 2. Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) (howard long) 3. Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? (J. Marshall Reber) 4. Re: Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? (Maury Siskel) 5. Re: nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker (stewart farber) 6. DOE Contractor Looking for LB4100 (DeMers, Joseph W) 7. RE: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device Fi rst Responder's Guide--The First 12 Hours (Remick, Alan) 8. A brief different sight (Maury Siskel) 9. Re: nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker ( Franz Sch?nhofer ) 10. Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy (ROY HERREN) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:32:03 -0800 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: [ RadSafe ] First Announcement: The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium To: radsafe at radlab.nl, powernet at hps1.org Message-ID: <45A37D33.6339.13962A86 at sandyfl.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium -- co sponsored by Global Dosimetry Solutions ; Landauerand Panasonic - cordially invites you to the 26th International Dosimetry & Records Symposium AGENDA and other details: http://www.dosimetryresources.com from there, click on the tab for the 2007 Symposium As in 2006, this will be a joint symposium for Dosimetry and Records - with common plus parallel track sessions Topics planned are "Nuclear Renaissance" ; Nuclear Cycle ; Homeland Security ; Emergency Response ; Regulatory changes and updates ;Litigation ; Environmental ; Confidentiality ; Dose Reconstruction ; EPD ; Establishing a Program for Accreditation etc Special sessions are also planned for " Hands On" equipment training and panel discussions on open issues REGISTRATION: Attendees $350 Guests ( over12) $175 We will shortly post an On Line Registration Link -and also advice you by email DATES: Arrival on Sunday, June 3, 2007 Sessions from Monday, June 4 (8:00am) to Friday, June 8, 2007 (5:00pm) Depart on Saturday, June 9 at your leisure VENUE: Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks 200 Sable Oaks Drive South Portland Maine 04106 USA (207) 871 8000 (800) 752 8810 http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/PWMAP HOTEL ROOM RESERVATION Please contact the Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks directly at (800) 752 8810 and identify yourself as an attendee of the "Dosimetry & Records Symposium June 3 -9; 2007 " to avail yourself of the special negotiated rates: Single or Double Guestroom @ $ 149 plus 7% tax Gov?t Rate @ $ 82 plus 7% tax (Applicable only to active U.S. Gov?t/DOD/DOE employees - Valid ID required) AIRPORT: Portland ; Maine(PWM) http://www.portlandjetport.org/ Other nearby aiports are Boston Logan (BOS) approx 2 hours by car and Manchester (MHT) approx 1 1/2 hours by car. GROUND TRANSPORTATION: Hotel provides complimentary transportation from and to Portland , Maine (PWM) airport Looking forward to your participation Thank you, 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium Task Force Inid Deneau Landauer Chairperson Sandy Perle Global Dosimetry Solutions Co-Chairperson Bruce Dicey Consultant Dante Wells Savannah River Company Deborah O?Connor TXU/Comanche Peak Isabelle McCabe Radiation Safety and Control Services Pam Heckman Energy Solutions Richard Cadogan Argonne National Labs Ash Chabra Panasonic ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:24:23 -0800 (PST) From: howard long Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) To: John Jacobus , Jerry Cuttler , Jay Caplan , Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl, Rad Science List Message-ID: <20070110002423.18549.qmail at web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 John, Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only used a one tail test, showing only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the papers, like the Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > life expectancy. > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > calculation to John Cameron. > Jerry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > life (p<0.0001?) > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > rad/year. I would participate. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Of course, radiation effects in older people may > not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live > lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the > dose > > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is > less > > than that for older persons. I wonder if that > shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > The "consequences" of looking at different > > ages' results in this study are that we learn > that > > children and those under age 30 should not be > > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 > should be > > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these > approaches > > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the > study > > results. > > > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > > separate results among a collection of > results. > > > > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) > lowering > > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big > news, but > > not new news, it has been shown before in > other > > studies with similar exposures. > > > > Jay Caplan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > > radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > > establishment release, and abstract > inconsistent > > with table 3 data: "highly significant > (p<0.01)" > > that solid cancer incidence > > not LESS in exposed population. > > > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in > 23 > > years. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal > cancers > > are > > the only end-points to be evaluated for the > effects > > of > > low-level radiation exposure. It would be > convenient > > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? > Would > > you > > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin > (whatever > > it is) that would increase their risk of > cancer in > > later life? > > > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood > Cancer > > Rate > > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would > play as > > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data > you > > want, but what are the consequences? > > > > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > > wrote: > > > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > > > Regards, Jim > > > =========== > > > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% > reduction > > of > > > all cancers for > > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial > amount > > > (>50 mSv) over the > > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). > This is > > > in the table on page > > > 885. > > > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to > a > > > population, it would be > > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think > that even > > > though it ignored > > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > > confirms > > > the nuclear > > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult > Cancer Rate > > > Reduced 40% by Low > > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in > the > > > abstract. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > > nationwide gasoline > > rationing, beginning December 1. > > > > -- 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 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." -- John F. Kennedy -- 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: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:14:27 -0500 From: "J. Marshall Reber" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? To: radsafelist Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about what they used to manufacture. If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:12:17 -0600 From: Maury Siskel Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? To: "J. Marshall Reber" Cc: radsafelist Message-ID: <45A50251.9010206 at peoplepc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed J. Marshall Reber wrote: > Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could > access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their > very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that > time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so > that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's > remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about > what they used to manufacture. > > If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could > purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. > > > > J. Marshall Reber, ScD > 165 Berkeley St. > Methuen MA 01844 > > Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 > Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu > ============================== Marshall, will any of this material help you? Best, Maury&Dog =============================== My Saved Results 5340 style (PDF File) ... tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW (Each): $5.-TRANSFER COROTRON ASSEMBLY 5340TCA ... 5855 s of tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/cat5340.pdf ? Save Vintage 1020 (PDF File) ... conserve space in our Catalog, we've compressed a few of the older models ... 45.-FUSER LAMP 1025FL $40.- COROTRON WIRES(Pre-Cut) 4 in ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/catVintage.pdf ? Save More Results from www.partsdrop.com electron Tube Data sheets - Victoreen documents 2002-08-19 Victoreen Tubes Catalog Spark gaps, Corotron Tubes, GM Counter Tube. Thanks to John Atwood 6,032,375 bytes ... frank.pocnet.net/other/Victoreen/index.html ? Save UED.net Catalog - Item Index Page 273 - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP Union Electronic Distributors Catalog - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... UH0515001 COROTRON CASE (R) BLACK HL10V BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... www.unionel.com/catalog/cat_item_idx_273.html ? Save Xerox 5818 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 5818 W5180 5818 N/A CORONA - Precut Corotron ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-5818.html ? Save Xerox 1025 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 1025 W5690 1025 600K15950 CORONA - Wire - ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-1025.html ? Save More Results from www.precisionroller.com ISO Parts - National Stock Number (NSN) Index - Page 1877 - Free ... Free Locator Service for Military and Aviation parts, spares and components. Free online databases of Government Data such as MCRL. We are ... www.iso-parts.com/index/1877 ? Save TarguMures.info - Portalul Judetului Mures - Targu Mures - ... Nostra, CORSA s.r.l., Corotron Service srl, Cornisa, CORIZ S.A., Corbet Transair, COPYTECH SRL ... www.targumures.info/ ? Save Photocopier Hazards and a Conservation Case Study ... a corotron. It is well known in the photocopy industry that corotron charging devices ... gases generated by a corotron in positive ... aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v08/bp08-05.html ? Cached ? Save AnaLog's Electronic Component ID Menu AnaLog Services, Inc. provides services to the oil well, water well, and mineral logging / wireline industries. www.logwell.com/tech/components/component_identification.html ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:19:21 -0500 From: "stewart farber" Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker To: "Brian Rees" , , , "Dawson, Fred Mr" Message-ID: <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0 at YOUR7C60552B9E> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello all, As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such an extent. Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you." Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the wrong field. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Rees To: stewart farber ; Dawson, Fred Mr ; radsafe at radlab.nl ; srp-uk at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker Having spent quite a bit of time submerged on nuclear power, and some of that may have been in the Straits of Hormuz, I'd like to make a few comments. First of all, a submarine can't hear very effectively directly behind it, so when they come up to periscope depth, they turn from side to side, listening in that "cone" for somebody who may be coming up behind you. So if you come up too quickly, and don't do that job well, you can get in trouble. Exciting, to say the least!!! Secondly, the Straits of Hormuz are a "target-rich" environment, and keeping track of who's where, going in which direction, at what speed is very challenging, and the ships can change speed and direction at will. Remember, they aren't on roads. And the ocean and ocean bottom can do funny things to reflect sounds. Submarines don't use active sonar very much (kinda defeats their purpose!). Thirdly, sea state and weather conditions aren't mentioned, so this may have contributed as well, a periscope is a radar target, and isn't put up any farther than required. Any substantial sea will limit your horizon, and although an oil tanker is big tonnage, loaded they can sit fairly low in the water. All that said, yes, it's an embarrassment. The collision between the USS Greeneville and the Japanese Ship Ehime Maru was a combination of some of the factors above, and poor conduct of operations in the control room of the USS Greeneville. It's too bad that the people who claim to know Conduct of Ops don't know more about that accident and apply lessons learned to operations, rather that some of the BS that they do. As far as a radioactive release as a result of a collision, that's extremely remote, a Submarine's hull is quite thick and strong, and there are multiple layers between radioactive materials and the fishes. For more (quite good) reading about submarine life, I highly recommend Andy Karam's (!) book: Rig Ship for Ultra Quiet - available from Amazon Books. Brian Rees At 09:12 AM 1/9/2007, stewart farber wrote: Hello colleagues, Regarding the post by Fred Dawson about a US sub hitting an oil tanker. It is difficult to understand how a nuclear sub, with all its navigation equipment and sensors to detect anything near it [supposedly] can run up and hit an oil tanker. A tanker is a fairly large object on the surface that is not running along in a stealth mode like an enemy attack sub --- isn't it? An unfortunate embarassment for the US Navy. Some will certainly paint this story as a new nuclear attack of sorts on the Japanese. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is supposed to be what subs "aim" for. Theoretically, this could have been quite the disaster. If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac & Medical Imaging Equipment [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:20:14 -0800 From: "DeMers, Joseph W" Subject: [ RadSafe ] DOE Contractor Looking for LB4100 To: "'radsafe at radlab.nl'" Cc: "DeMers, Joseph W" Message-ID: <6ED9464012BE854ABA07FEBE6EFBBEFA020C6CB6 at rccex01.wch-rcc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Folks, I am looking for a used or surplus Tennelec LB4100 multi-detector counter. I am particularly interested if another DOE contractor may have one that they are looking to excess or get rid of, where we can work a property transfer. Please respond to me off list if you can help. Regards, Joe DeMers Radiological Control Technical Support Manager Washington Closure Hanford (509) 372-9040 (Desk) (509) 521-0203 (Mobile) ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:53:31 -0500 From: "Remick, Alan" Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device Fi rst Responder's Guide--The First 12 Hours To: REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com, "RADSAFE Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain In addition to this reference document, the DOE/NNSA Emergency Operations Training Academy has just published the "First Responder Guide for Radiological Unknowns". This handy pocket guide will be made available in limited quantities to State and Local responders through the Radiological Assistance Program next week. Please contact your RAP Regional Office for more information... Alan L. Remick NNSA AMS and REAC/TS Program Manager NA-42 202-586-8312 202-586-3859 (fax) "Leading Nuclear Response" _____ From: REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com [mailto:REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:17 PM To: RADSAFE Mailing List; REP Planners Mailing List Subject: [REP Planners] Fwd: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide--The First 1 Distributed at the request of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). Jim Hardeman -- Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us =============================== PRESS RELEASE RDD (Dirty Bomb) First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours Now Available! The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. announces publication of the Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours. This handbook was developed as a training and reference tool for first responders with various degrees of radiological experience. The RDD Handbook expands on the concepts presented in the RDD Pocket Guide published by CRCPD in March 2006. The RDD Handbook provides guidance in a number of areas, including a flow chart of actions when responding to an RDD, rules of thumb, determination of various radiation zones, use of radiation instrumentation, decontamination guidelines, and multiple forms that can be tailored for specific needs. The RDD Handbook also includes lists of state, local and federal radiation control contacts that can provide assistance. This handbook will be useful for training, exercise and response activities. Many of the concepts introduced in the handbook can be applied to a variety of radiation incidents, and do not apply exclusively to dirty bombs. The RDD Handbook consists of the bound document, a CD containing forms and handouts, and one RDD Pocket Guide. Ordering information is available at or call (502) 227-4543, Ext. 2229. Price: $30, including shipping. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's mission is to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education. CRCPD's headquarters is located at 205 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601. __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Emergency preparedness Nh lake region real estate Emergency preparedness supply New hampshire lake region real estate Emergency preparedness kit Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:06:36 -0600 From: Maury Siskel Subject: [ RadSafe ] A brief different sight To: Mailing List for Risk Professionals , radsafe Message-ID: <45A5474C.2070604 at peoplepc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Admittedly off topic, no risk and probably no irradiation here. But take a minute from your shop and enjoy this .... You'll work better tomorrow. http://spaceweather.com Comet McNaught has continued to brighten as it approaches the sun and it is now the brightest comet in 30 years. For observers in the northern Hemisphere, tonight is probably the best time to see it: Go outside this evening and face the sunset. A clear view of the western horizon is essential, because the comet hangs very low. As the twilight fades to black, it should become visible to the naked eye. Observers say it's a fantastic sight through binoculars. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:04:43 +0100 From: " Franz Sch?nhofer " Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker To: "stewart farber" Cc: "Dawson, Fred Mr" , srp-uk at yahoogroups.com, radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Dear all, I read today two Austrian papers. One was on the internet, which did not mention the incident at all. The other one I read as a paper copy had a short note on approximately page 17, mentioning that a US submarine had collided with a Japanese tanker. There was not a single word on the fact that it was a nuclear-powered submarine. If not even newspapers in Austria, a country which is fiercly antinuclear, mentions this it seems that this fact does not play a big role in public perception worldwide. Best regards, Franz 2007/1/10, stewart farber : > > Hello all, > > As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster > involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely > tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a > radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a > collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such > an extent. > > Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which > was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: > > "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, > there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of > Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. > Coming soon to a theatre near you." > > Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If > the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature > films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the > wrong field. > > Stewart Farber, MS Public Health > Farber Medical Solutions, LLC > Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation > [203] 441-8433 [office] > email: radproject at sbcglobal.net > > > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) From: ROY HERREN Subject: [ RadSafe ] Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <264810.8126.qm at web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Public release date: 10-Jan-2007 Contact: Karen Richardson krchrdsn at wfubmc.edu 336-716-4453 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine are the first to report that in animal studies, a common diabetes drug prevents the memory and learning problems that cancer patients often experience after whole-brain radiation treatments. "These findings offer the promise of improving the quality of life of these patients," said Mike Robbins, Ph.D., senior researcher. "The drug is already prescribed for diabetes and we know the doses that patients can safely take." Whole-brain radiation is widely used to treat recurrent brain tumors as well as to prevent breast cancer, lung cancer and malignant melanoma from spreading to the brain. About 200,000 people receive the treatment annually, and beginning about a year later, up to one-half develop progressive cognitive impairments that can affect memory, language and abstract reasoning. In the current issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology - Biology -Physics, Robbins and colleagues report that rats receiving the diabetes drug piolitazone (sold under the trade name Actos?) before, during and after radiation treatments did not experience cognitive impairment. The scientists compared whether treatment with Actos for four weeks or for 54 weeks after radiation would be more effective, and found there was not a significant difference. The study involved young adult rats that received either radiation treatment equal to levels received by humans or a "sham" treatment involving no radiation. Animals in both groups received either a normal diet or a diet containing the diabetes drug. Cognitive function was assessed a year after the completion of radiation therapy using an object recognition test. Rats receiving radiation exhibited a significant decrease in cognitive function, unless they received the diabetes drug for either four or 54 weeks after radiation. "This could be easily applied to patients," said Robbins, a professor of radiation biology. "We know the drugs don't promote tumor growth, and in some cases may inhibit it." Currently, there are no known treatments to prevent cognitive impairments, and Robbins said the aging of the American population makes it imperative to solve the problem. "Cancer is a disease of old age, so the number of people getting whole-brain radiation will increase," he said. In essence, radiation causes the cognitive problems because it speeds up the brain's aging process. Recent research suggests that a cause may be chronic inflammation or oxidative stress. Oxidative stress occurs when cells cannot remove free radicals, or structurally unstable cells that can damage healthy cells. The study by Robbins and colleagues was based on evidence that the diabetes drug pioglitazone prevents inflammation. The drug activates a specific type of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) that control fat and glucose metabolism, and may be involved in inflammation. Robbins said because the drug shows promise for preventing cognitive impairment, it may allow doctors to give higher doses of radiation. Currently, while higher doses of radiation have been associated with longer survival, dose is limited because of potential damage to surrounding healthy tissue. ### The research is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Co-researchers were Weiling Zhao, Ph.D., Valerie Payne, B.S., Ellen Tommasi, B.S., Debra Diz, Ph.D., and Fang-Chi Hsu, Ph.D., all with Wake Forest. Media Contact: Shannon Koontz, shkoontz at wfubmc.edu; at 336-716-4587 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is an academic health system comprised of North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences, which operates the university's School of Medicine. U.S. News & World Report ranks Wake Forest University School of Medicine 18th in family medicine, 20th in geriatrics, 25th in primary care and 41st in research among the nation's medical schools. It ranks 35th in research funding by the National Institutes of Health. Almost 150 members of the medical school faculty are listed in Best Doctors in America. --------------------------------- Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 ************************************** From Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us Wed Jan 10 15:55:27 2007 From: Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us (Myers, Pete) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:55:27 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another HP Position is Open in Texas Message-ID: <9D016E7E7930A347AE098135FEFCE84301EE1D72@DSHSEXVS3.dshs.state.tx.us> Another Health Physicist I position is posted on the Texas Department of State Health Services web page at a salary range from $4010.58 to $4320.00 per month. To review the position description, Chief, Industrial Radiographer Certification Program, and submit an on-line application click here Chief, IRCP Applications must be received no later than the close of business, January 23, 2007. For additional information concerning the specific duties and responsibilities of the position, please contact: Jan Endahl, Chief (Retiring) Industrial Radiographer Certification Program Radiation Safety Licensing Branch 512-834-6688 ext 2229 512-834-6690 (fax) mailto:jan.endahl at dshs.state.tx.us From jerrycuttler at rogers.com Wed Jan 10 22:30:14 2007 From: jerrycuttler at rogers.com (Jerry Cuttler) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:30:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) References: <999440.90795.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015a01c73539$310be6a0$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472. 4 Discussion The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan. So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% reduction). Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jacobus" To: "Jerry Cuttler" ; "howard long" ; "Jay Caplan" ; "Muckerheide" Cc: "Rad Science List" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of > the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good > enough if the results are what you want? > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > >> I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in >> mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased >> life expectancy. >> I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 >> year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's >> calculation to John Cameron. >> Jerry >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: howard long >> To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide >> Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM >> Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived >> longer (0.76 mortality rate!) >> >> >> Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of >> life (p<0.0001?) >> Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 >> rad/year. I would participate. >> >> Howard Long >> >> John Jacobus wrote: >> Of course, radiation effects in older people may >> not >> be demonstrated as the individuals do not live >> lone >> enough for the effects to be seen. >> >> --- howard long wrote: >> >> > Yes, Jay, >> > A different way of stating it it is that the >> dose >> > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is >> less >> > than that for older persons. I wonder if that >> shows >> > up in Ramsar, Iran data? >> > >> > Howard Long >> > >> > Jay Caplan wrote: >> > The "consequences" of looking at different >> > ages' results in this study are that we learn >> that >> > children and those under age 30 should not be >> > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 >> should be >> > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these >> approaches >> > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the >> study >> > results. >> > >> > This is not cherry picking, just looking at >> > separate results among a collection of >> results. >> > >> > >> > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) >> lowering >> > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big >> news, but >> > not new news, it has been shown before in >> other >> > studies with similar exposures. >> > >> > Jay Caplan >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: howard long >> > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; >> > radsafe at radlab.nl >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM >> > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data >> > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) >> > >> > >> > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to >> > establishment release, and abstract >> inconsistent >> > with table 3 data: "highly significant >> (p<0.01)" >> > that solid cancer incidence >> > not LESS in exposed population. >> > >> > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and >> > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in >> 23 >> > years. >> > >> > Howard Long >> > >> > John Jacobus wrote: >> > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal >> cancers >> > are >> > the only end-points to be evaluated for the >> effects >> > of >> > low-level radiation exposure. It would be >> convenient >> > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? >> Would >> > you >> > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin >> (whatever >> > it is) that would increase their risk of >> cancer in >> > later life? >> > >> > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood >> Cancer >> > Rate >> > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would >> play as >> > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data >> you >> > want, but what are the consequences? >> > >> > >> > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Friends, FYI. >> > > >> > > Regards, Jim >> > > =========== >> > > >> > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% >> reduction >> > of >> > > all cancers for >> > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial >> amount >> > > (>50 mSv) over the >> > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). >> This is >> > > in the table on page >> > > 885. >> > > >> > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to >> a >> > > population, it would be >> > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think >> that even >> > > though it ignored >> > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and >> > confirms >> > > the nuclear >> > > shipyard worker study results. >> > > >> > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult >> Cancer Rate >> > > Reduced 40% by Low >> > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in >> the >> > > abstract. >> > > >> > > Jay >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > 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/ >> > > >> > >> > >> > +++++++++++++++++++ >> > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered >> > nationwide gasoline >> > rationing, beginning December 1. >> > >> > -- 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 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." > -- John F. Kennedy > > -- 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 Jan 11 01:31:14 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:31:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective In-Reply-To: <025a01c7351e$12260100$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Message-ID: <20070111073114.3978.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Comments? How about answering a question with two questions? If the Iranians think that Uranium is so bad why are they working so hard to enrich Uranium? What will the Iranians do with the mountain of Depleted Uranium that will be left behind when and if they acquire all the enriched Uranium that they so desire? Perhaps we should judge them not by their words, but rather by their actions! Roy Herren Dan W McCarn wrote: Example of Iranian Press: Comments? http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/11/2007&Cat=4&Num=014 Uranium killing Italian troops ROME (BBC News) -- Italian soldiers are still dying following exposure to depleted uranium in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, their relatives say. Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions. The U.S. says it fired around 40,000 depleted uranium rounds during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. A pressure group says 50 veterans have died and another 200 are seriously ill. Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust. The Italians who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were involved in the clear-up of battlefields and came into close contact with exploded ammunition. ----------Children with disabilities The association representing the soldiers, known as Anavafaf, says many of those who have died or are ill have contracted cancer. In 2002 the Italian defense ministry published a report compiled by independent scientists which found a higher than average number of servicemen were suffering from cancer. It said there was an excessive number of Hodgkin's disease victims among Italian Balkan peacekeepers. A number of children fathered by the soldiers have been born with disabilities. There are similar reports from soldiers' associations in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 01:43:29 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:43:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected Message-ID: <660934.57219.qm@web81613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> bV = parseInt(navigator.appVersion); if (bV >= 4) window.print(); http://www.physorg.com/news87657811.html Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from the University of Cambridge and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported this week in the journal Nature. The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. This could lead to swelling, loss of physical strength and possible cracking of the mineral as soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had decayed to safe levels, said lead author and Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. According to current thinking, highly radioactive substances could be rendered less mobile by combining them, before disposal, with glass or with a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to form a crystal. However, the crystal structure can only hold the radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks down. This may increase the likelihood for radioactive materials to leak, although co-author William J. Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples used in the study, cautioned that this work did not address leakage, and researchers detected no cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing zircon can remain intact for millions of years and is one of the most durable materials on earth. Some earth and materials scientists believe it is possible to create a structure that rebuilds itself after these "alpha events" so that it can contain the radioactive elements for much longer. The tests developed by the Cambridge and PNNL team would enable scientists to screen different mineral and synthetic forms for durability. As well as making the storage of the waste safer, new storage methods guided by the NMR technique could offer significant savings for nations facing disposal of large amounts of radioactive material. Countries including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan are all considering burying their nuclear waste stockpiles hundreds of meters beneath the earth's surface. Doing so necessitates selection of a site with sufficiently stringent geological features to withstand any potential leakage at a cost of billions of dollars. For example, there is an ongoing debate over the safety of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. A figure published in Science in 2005 put that project's cost at $57 billion. "By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions of dollars worth of savings and improve the overall safety," Farnan said. "At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how materials behave over the extremely long timescales we are talking about. Our new research is a step towards that. "We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and before anyone tried to engineer around it. This would have substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view." PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert Herman Cho, who co-wrote the report, said: "When the samples were made in the 1980s, NMR was not in the thinking. NMR has enabled us to quantify and look at changes in the crystal structure as the radiation damage progresses. "This method adds a valuable new perspective to research on radioactive waste forms. It has also raised the question: 'How adequate is our understanding of the long-term behavior of these materials?' Studies of other waste forms, such as glass, could benefit from this technique." Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory This news is brought to you by PhysOrg.com Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jk5554 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 08:55:00 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:55:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <015a01c73539$310be6a0$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> Message-ID: <946993.16694.qm@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All - The 2.8 y figure was from Dr. Cameron. I believe that he obtained it from Bernie Cohen, unless he calculated it himself. Best wishes - Ruth Sponsler --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. > J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found > the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472. > > 4 Discussion > The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the > 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < > 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR > implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan. > > So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life > extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% > reduction). > > Jerry ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From grantjoh at pacbell.net Thu Jan 11 11:13:28 2007 From: grantjoh at pacbell.net (John A Grant) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:13:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected In-Reply-To: <660934.57219.qm@web81613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <312998.44729.qm@web81004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ROY HERREN wrote: > bV = parseInt(navigator.appVersion); if (bV >= > 4) window.print(); > http://www.physorg.com/news87657811.html > > Radiation degrades nuclear > waste-containing materials faster than expected > Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for > hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to > structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from > the University of Cambridge and the Pacific > Northwest National Laboratory reported this week in > the journal Nature. > The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or > NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from > plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon > rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. > > This could lead to swelling, loss of physical > strength and possible cracking of the mineral as > soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had > decayed to safe levels, said lead author and > Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. > > According to current thinking, highly radioactive > substances could be rendered less mobile by > combining them, before disposal, with glass or with > a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to > form a crystal. > > However, the crystal structure can only hold the > radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal > radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments > called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying > nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types > repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks > down. > > This may increase the likelihood for radioactive > materials to leak, although co-author William J. > Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national > laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples > used in the study, cautioned that this work did not > address leakage, and researchers detected no > cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or > structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing > zircon can remain intact for millions of years and > is one of the most durable materials on earth. The above paragraph disagrees with the rest of the report. John Grant From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Thu Jan 11 11:29:59 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:29:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materialsfaster than expected In-Reply-To: <312998.44729.qm@web81004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BB92@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John A Grant >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:13 PM >To: ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl > >--- ROY HERREN wrote: > >> http://www.physorg.com/news87657811.html >> >> Radiation degrades nuclear >> waste-containing materials faster than expected >> Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for >> hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to >> structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from >> the University of Cambridge and the Pacific >> Northwest National Laboratory reported this week in >> the journal Nature. >> >> The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or >> NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from >> plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon >> rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. >> >> This could lead to swelling, loss of physical >> strength and possible cracking of the mineral as >> soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had >> decayed to safe levels, said lead author and >> Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. >> >> According to current thinking, highly radioactive >> substances could be rendered less mobile by >> combining them, before disposal, with glass or with >> a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to >> form a crystal. >> >> However, the crystal structure can only hold the >> radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal >> radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments >> called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying >> nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types >> repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks >> down. >> >> This may increase the likelihood for radioactive >> materials to leak, although co-author William J. >> Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national >> laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples >> used in the study, cautioned that this work did not >> address leakage, and researchers detected no >> cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or >> structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing >> zircon can remain intact for millions of years and >> is one of the most durable materials on earth. > >The above paragraph disagrees with the rest of the >report. > >John Grant Well, Weber at PNNL makes the stuff, and isn't in the same "fear-monger" business as "the Cambridge team" and "earth scientist" Farnan. He could even be "just an engineer." Regards, Jim PS: He IS "just an engineer." :-) See: http://www.pnl.gov/fsd/people/fellows_lab/weber_william.stm From DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com Thu Jan 11 11:37:59 2007 From: DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com (Landers, Darrell L.) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:37:59 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Introduction to Radiological Shipping Message-ID: I'm interested in suggestions for some Introduction to Radiological Shipping Classes. Course descriptions, websites, etc. are appreciated. Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 From DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com Thu Jan 11 11:42:25 2007 From: DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com (Landers, Darrell L.) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:42:25 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors Message-ID: I'm in need of any information (Calibration or User manuals) for the GSM-110 radiation meters manufactured by William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors. Thanks, Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 From cdillard at labsafety.org Thu Jan 11 12:37:36 2007 From: cdillard at labsafety.org (Christina Dillard) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Introduction to Radiological Shipping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005901c735af$92aa4610$6f01a8c0@PC1> Darrell, I found the course that Global Transport Training puts on to be quite helpful. They hold seminars in cities all across the country. The Radioactive shipping portion is one-day, but they require that you are either already IATA certified or take their IATA course. Anyway, check them out at http://www.gttstraining.com/radioactive.htm Note, the Radioactive shipping portion covers more than IATA regulations, but they certainly stress the "by air" regulations. And please let me know if LSI can help you with any general Radiation Safety consulting or training. Thanks, Christina Dillard Assistant Director cdillard at labsafety.org A Nonprofit International Organization for Safety in Science and Science Education The Laboratory Safety Institute 192 Worcester Road Natick, MA 01760-2252 Phone: 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 www.labsafety.org Making Health, Safety, and the Environment an Integral and Important Part of Education, Work, and Life -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Landers, Darrell L. Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:38 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Introduction to Radiological Shipping I'm interested in suggestions for some Introduction to Radiological Shipping Classes. Course descriptions, websites, etc. are appreciated. Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Jan 11 13:39:53 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:39:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: NMR finds holes in nuclear waste storage Message-ID: <278104.85413.qm@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> >From http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/1/5 NMR finds holes in nuclear waste storage 10 January 2007 A ceramic material touted for its potential to store radioactive waste is much less resilient to radiation damage than previously thought. Physicists in the UK used a high-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technique to show that alpha-radiation causes too much damage in zircon to ensure safety over long timescales. They now claim the NMR technique will help to assess the long-term durability of other potential ceramics by providing a deeper, atomic-scale understanding of damage events (Nature 445 190). Integrating radioactive material into mineral-based ceramics is a leading contender for the disposal of nuclear waste. Some of these ceramics, such as "zircon" (ZrSiO4), already occur naturally with slowly-decaying radioactive isotopes incorporated into their crystalline structure. Nevertheless, they have remained intact over billions of years despite the damage caused by the onslaught of high-energy alpha particles produced in the decay process. Some scientists had hoped that zircon could withstand much higher doses of the radioactive plutonium isotope 239Pu, which is found in spent nuclear fuel. The risk is that increased exposure to alpha particles would displace too many atoms and damage the crystalline structure irrevocably. But this damage had been difficult to measure and in the past scientists relied on vague empirical calculations based on the assessment of large defects to predict how long the ceramics would last. Mineral physicists Ian Farnan and colleagues at the University of Cambridge may now have the answer, however. They used a technique called "magic-angle spinning" NMR on zircon, showing that each alpha-particle displaces up to 5000 atoms in the crystal lattice, rather than the 1000 to 2000 estimated before. The technique enhances the resolution of the NMR spectrum by spinning a sample at high speeds and at a certain angle to the applied magnetic field. This is the first time individual damage events have been witnessed, and could put an end to the "back of the envelope" calculations that had prevented scientists from accurately determining a material's lifespan. Unfortunately this means that zircon containing 10% of 239Pu (roughly the dose required for radioactive waste storage) would break down after just 1400 years ? nowhere near the 250 000 years that regulation dictates. Although the technique has ruled-out zircon, it could pave the way for characterizing other materials over long timescales. "The main issue with siting a nuclear waste repository is that there are many uncertain factors," said Farnan. "When you extrapolate these into the future you get a very large uncertainty, which can make the idea of a repository intractable. But we feel that by working on the material itself, that's where you are going to get the biggest effect." +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 13:57:53 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:57:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <20070110002423.18549.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070111195753.39118.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message any more than it already it? --- howard long wrote: > John, > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > your own? > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > establishment not only used a one tail test, showing > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > critical review of the data in the papers, like the > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > some of my suggestions to make his language > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > Cameron > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > of > the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good > enough if the results are what you want? > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > > life expectancy. > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > > calculation to John Cameron. > > Jerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > > life (p<0.0001?) > > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > > rad/year. I would participate. > > > > Howard Long > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 14:05:02 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:05:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <015a01c73539$310be6a0$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> Message-ID: <823791.45451.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Jerry, You didn't answer my questions: Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. > J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found > the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472. > > 4 Discussion > The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the > 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < > 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR > implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan. > > So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life > extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% > reduction). > > Jerry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jacobus" > To: "Jerry Cuttler" ; > "howard long" ; "Jay Caplan" > ; "Muckerheide" > > Cc: "Rad Science List" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer > (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the > results of > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > indicate? > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > >> I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > >> mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > >> life expectancy. > >> I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > >> year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > >> calculation to John Cameron. > >> Jerry > >> +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:13:33 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:13:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <809325.25664.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Loo at: http://www.johnsonnuclear.com/contact.html Questions about our products? Contact us by phone, fax, email or mail: Phone: 304.645.6568 Fax: 304.645.2182 Email: buyjohnson at msn.com Mail/UPS/FEDEX Address: William B. Johnson and Associates 200 AEI Drive Lewisburg, West Virginia 24901 "Landers, Darrell L." wrote: I'm in need of any information (Calibration or User manuals) for the GSM-110 radiation meters manufactured by William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors. Thanks, Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 _______________________________________________ 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/ Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:48:28 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Message-ID: <771185.37994.qm@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 11-Jan-2007 Contact: Herman Suit hsuit at partners.org Radiation Research Society New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Concerns about the risk of radiation-induced cancer are growing with the increasing number of cancer patients surviving long term. To address these concerns, Herman Suit and his colleagues Saveli Goldberg, Andrzej Niemeierko, Marek Ancukiewicz, Eric Hall, Michael Goitein, Winifed Wong and Harald Paganetti examined data on radiation-induced neoplastic transformation of mammalian cells in vitro and on the risk of an increase in cancer incidence after radiation exposure in mice, dogs, monkeys, the atomic bomb survivors, persons exposed occupationally, and patients treated with radiation. The study appears in the January issue of the journal Radiation Research. The authors found that there is great heterogeneity in the risk of radiation-associated cancer between species, strains of a species, and organs within a species. Currently, the heterogeneity between and within patient populations of virtually every parameter considered in risk estimation results in substantial uncertainty in quantification of a general risk factor. One implication of their review is that reduced risks of secondary cancer should be achieved by any technique that achieves a dose reduction down to ~0.1 Gy (i.e., the dose to tissues distant from the target). Based on their study, they conclude that the proportionate gain should be greatest for dose decrement to less than 2 Gy. ### --------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 11 18:59:54 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:59:54 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Former nuclear plant site OK for public use, government says Message-ID: <45A66D0A.5066.258F779@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Former nuclear plant site OK for public use, government says Humanetics to Test Anti-Radiation Drug New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Poisoned spy's contact released from radiation treatment Indian Point nuclear plant seeks extension for new siren system ======================================== Former nuclear plant site OK for public use, government says TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- A federal agency Thursday declared the grounds of the former Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant safe for any kind of public use, including housing or recreation. The roughly 435-acre property north of Charlevoix falls below the maximum allowable radiation dosage of 25 millirems per year from residual contamination, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. A millirem is a unit of absorbed radiation. "Our goal was to ensure that the property was well below the very strict standards established by regulations," said Kurt Haas, the Big Rock site's general manager. "This beautiful piece of property is ready to be enjoyed by those who come after us." Consumers Energy, a subsidiary of Jackson-based CMS Energy Corp., operated the plant and owns the land. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources last fall proposed buying the site, which includes mature woodlands and 1.5 miles of undeveloped shoreline, and converting it into a state park or recreation area. The price was under negotiation but expected to be around $20 million. DNR officials withdrew an application to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board for $3 million as an initial payment after critics attacked the plan. Opponents contended the soil was still contaminated, although the nuclear plant shut down in 1997. It was later dismantled, and site restoration was finished last year. Critics also said the property was unsuitable because highly radioactive waste fuel from the plant's 35 years of power generation will be stored nearby until being shipped eventually to a national storage facility. A 100-acre buffer zone separates the concrete casks holding the waste from the larger property. DNR resource management deputy Mindy Koch said last month the DNR considered the land safe and still wanted to buy it but needed time to refine its plan. The Michigan Environmental Council, which fought the purchase, said the nuclear commission's seal of approval for the property was based partly on data supplied by Consumers Energy or its contractors. "If the state is still going to pursue the purchase of this land, we would continue to press for independent third-party assessment of its environmental condition," spokesman Hugh McDiarmid Jr. said. The commission said its surveys verified that the site met federal standards. McDiarmid also described as a "red flag" the commission's requirement that Consumers maintain $44.4 million in liability insurance. "The taxpayers shouldn't assume one cent of that liability," he said. Company spokesman Tim Petrosky said the insurance was required by law for dry-cask nuclear waste storage areas. "It is not in any way related to the unrestricted property," he said. ---------------- Humanetics to Test Anti-Radiation Drug Red Orbit Breaking News - U.S. firm Humanetics said Thursday it has been cleared to begin a phase 1 study of its anti-radiation drug. The privately held company said it would launch a trial of its drug, BIO 300, to test the oral drug for the prevention and prophylactic treatment of Acute Radiation Syndrome. There are currently no drugs approved by the FDA for the prevention or treatment of ARS. Humanetics' drug is designed to ameliorate the effects of ARS- related damage, such as damage to progenitors of blood platelets and infection-fighting white blood cells in bone marrow. FDA clearance to begin human trials under our IND is an important milestone in our commitment to develop BIO 300 as the first practical solution for the protection of mass civilian populations, said Ronald Zenk, president and chief executive officer of Humanetics. ARS is a potentially deadly condition that may be caused by whole- body exposure to radiation resulting from a nuclear or radiological terrorist attack or from an accident at a nuclear facility, the company said. ---------------- New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Concerns about the risk of radiation-induced cancer are growing with the increasing number of cancer patients surviving long term. To address these concerns, Herman Suit and his colleagues Saveli Goldberg, Andrzej Niemeierko, Marek Ancukiewicz, Eric Hall, Michael Goitein, Winifed Wong and Harald Paganetti examined data on radiation- induced neoplastic transformation of mammalian cells in vitro and on the risk of an increase in cancer incidence after radiation exposure in mice, dogs, monkeys, the atomic bomb survivors, persons exposed occupationally, and patients treated with radiation. The study appears in the January issue of the journal Radiation Research. The authors found that there is great heterogeneity in the risk of radiation-associated cancer between species, strains of a species, and organs within a species. Currently, the heterogeneity between and within patient populations of virtually every parameter considered in risk estimation results in substantial uncertainty in quantification of a general risk factor. One implication of their review is that reduced risks of secondary cancer should be achieved by any technique that achieves a dose reduction down to ~0.1 Gy (i.e., the dose to tissues distant from the target). Based on their study, they conclude that the proportionate gain should be greatest for dose decrement to less than 2 Gy. -------------- Poisoned spy's contact released from radiation treatment VANCOUVER (CBC) - A key figure in the poisoning death of a former KGB agent has left the hospital where he was reportedly being treated for radiation exposure. Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB bodyguard questioned by Scotland Yard detectives and Russian authorities last month, told the Associated Press Tuesday he was released from a Moscow hospital and was "resting," but did not elaborate. He said he would make further comment on Sunday. British and Russian investigators have been interested in Lugovoi since it was determined he was one of the last people to have met with former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in London, along with another businessman, Dmitry Kovtun. Following their dinner at a hotel in November, Litvinenko fell ill and died weeks later from the effects of overexposure to the radioactive substance polonium-210. Traces of radiation were since discovered at the London hotel where Litvinenko stayed, and both Lugovoi and Kovtun were reportedly admitted to hospital later to undergo treatment for radiation poisoning. Kovtun's whereabouts were not immediately known. About a dozen sites around London have been tested for traces of polonium-210. On Thursday, Prof. Pat Troop, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, told ITN News that "just over 100 people ... had evidence that they were in contact with this radiation." The number includes customers and staff in the London hotel where Litvinenko stayed. In most cases, the levels of exposure were so low they pose no health risk to people, the Health Protection Agency said. Litvinenko, a critic of the Kremlin, had been living in exile in London and was meeting with contacts before his poisoning in order to investigate the murder of a Russian journalist known for her anti- Kremlin views. Days before he died, Litvinenko blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for ordering his murder -------------- Indian Point nuclear plant seeks extension for new siren system WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. AP - The state-of-the-art system that was supposed to replace Indian Point?s balky emergency sirens this month will not be ready until spring, the owner of the nuclear power station said Thursday. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the twin reactors in Buchanan, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a deadline extension from Jan. 30 to April 15. It said the new equipment may be too much for an existing 470-foot tower to bear, so it needs time to strengthen the tower. Additional time will be needed to train workers on the new system after the tower is re-engineered, the company said. The sirens, which have occasionally failed during tests in recent years, are meant to warn residents within 10 miles of Indian Point if there is an emergency. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Entergy is permitted to seek delays "if it can show good cause." "The object here is for them to get it right," he added. However, the NRC has not yet ruled on the application for an extension. Entergy promised the new sirens after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., pushed legislation mandating a backup power system. Entergy decided it would be easier to install a new system rather than retrofit the existing system with backups. Clinton said Thursday she was disappointed to hear of the delay. "The community deserves to know that there are backup systems in place to ensure that the sirens will work, no matter what," she said. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From hflong at pacbell.net Thu Jan 11 19:02:26 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:02:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070111195753.39118.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070112010226.57205.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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).? More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality data. No answer to, Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health showed, ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years, in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths.? Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with that dose of radiation. Chang?s table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so by the radiation. John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment? Viva hormesis! Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message any more than it already it? --- howard long wrote: > John, > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > your own? > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > establishment not only used a one tail test, showing > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > critical review of the data in the papers, like the > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > some of my suggestions to make his language > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > Cameron > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > of > the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good > enough if the results are what you want? > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > > life expectancy. > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > > calculation to John Cameron. > > Jerry From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 11 22:22:24 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:22:24 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question: Does OSHA still reject use of Effecyive Dose Equivalent? Message-ID: <45A69C80.29943.3125AB3@sandyfl.cox.net> The following is a letter from a 1999 OSHA determination that rejected the use of Effective Dose Equivalent dose calculation and reporting. I am inquiring whether or not this position has ever been revised. I find no evidence that it has. If it has not, it appears to be an interesting position for OSHA to continue to pursue, considering that the various methodologies have been routinely accepted by state and other federal agencies (even the NRC now accepts the methodology when a individual who works with RAM also is exposed from radiologic procedures where a protective apron is worn). NCRP 122 provides significant details on all of the methodologies. Any information will be appreciated. Thanks, Sandy -------------------- REFERENCE POSITION August 4, 1999 Charles H. Rose (MA,MSPH,D(ABSNM)) Executive Director American Association for Nuclear Cardiology, Inc. 5660 Airport Boulevard Suite 101 Boulder Colorado 80301 Dear Mr. Rose: This is in response to your January 19, 1999 letter regarding the measurement of employee exposures to ionizing radiation. We apologize for the delay in our reply. You report that some organizations have proposed and implemented a new method of monitoring the occupational radiation exposure of individuals who wear a protective apron. You state that these individuals may be monitored, for example, as follows: One monitoring device is worn under the protective apron and a second one is worn outside the protective apron at the neck. An effective dose equivalent for external radiation is determined by multiplying the reading of the device located at the waist under the protective apron by 1.5 and adding this value to 0.04 of the reading of the device located at the neck. You state that, "The American Association for Nuclear Cardiology (AANC) strongly opposes this "new" method of calculating occupational exposure." The AANC requests that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state its position on this issue. The "new" method of determining occupational exposure to external radiation does not conform with OSHA's standard for ionizing radiation, 29 CFR 1910.1096. As indicated by Table G-18 within 29 CFR 1910.1096(b)(1), OSHA considers the components of the whole body to be the head and trunk, the active blood-forming organs, the lenses of the eyes, and the gonads. The head and trunk includes the neck, thus the neck is part of the whole body. According to 29 CFR 1910.1096(a)(5), a dose to the whole body is the quantity of ionizing radiation absorbed, per unit mass, by any portion of the whole body. Therefore, the actual reading of the monitoring device that is positioned at the individual's neck indicates the whole body dose received by the individual. In point of fact, the whole body dose must be reported as the highest dose received by any region of the whole body. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that OSHA's enforcement guidance is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. Subsequent rulemaking could also affect such guidance. In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact OSHA's Office of Health Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-2190. Sincerely, Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 11 23:32:27 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:32:27 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVknyQA Message-ID: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Mr. Salsman, Your accusation (I am a liar) is unfounded. I provided the information I based my statements upon and this is an old discussion. A recently released National Academy of Sciences report (2006) is in line with my original statement as are the many other independent, published studies cited in this work. Unpublished results are just that. I would suggest you read earlier posts that discuss the topic of lying. I disagree with your connecting Dr. Kang's results as an endorsement of your position that DU is a causal factor. There are no data that support your inference. I would like to see the references for "... people to propose using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas." If anyone on the list has information to corroborate or to disprove the statement, I would appreciate it. I believe it to be incorrect. Once again you are discussing the vapor issue, the uranium trioxide and DoD testing which has already been laid to rest multiple times. I skimmed the 1970 article you provided and saw no mention of uranium trioxide and very little discussion of uranium. The paper focused on Pu. If you read the discussion with an understanding of vapors and the experiment itself, the results are in line with the many articles published since this work was done. Dr. Johnson's statement that you provided in your link was accurate. He agreed with my statement, I am assuming, because of his study and the rest of the scientific community's research into the health effects of DU. Your argument appears to be that if someone disagrees with you they are either a "liar" or "...are betraying the interests of truth, science..." Your post illustrates a previous discussion thread on this web site. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 6:07 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor When I see posts like this... http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-November/004495.html I wonder why Dr. Johnson is agreeing with someone who has been proven to have lied about epidemiological birth defect research results. To make a long story short, Dr. Kang, a Veterans Administration epidemiologist, has been tracking an increasing trend of birth defects in the children of 1991 Gulf War veterans, and Colonel Daxon claimed that Dr. Kang's unpublished research indicated the trend had decreased. In fact, in is increasing more sharply than ever. (Roger H, did you ever call Dr. Kang to confirm after I gave you his phone number?) The only reason I can think that Dr. Johnson would want to agree with a proven liar is because he was responsible, in the 1990s for proving the "safety" of depleted uranium munitions. In doing so, he never considered the amount of uranium which becomes gas vapor instead of particulates, which settle much more quickly, when it burns. Neither has anyone else in the military or industrial production of DU munitions. Sadly, this state of affairs has caused otherwise-intelligent people to propose using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas. I note that fully half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor, see page 836 of Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38: http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf I suspect that the people who lie about depleted uranium think that they are doing our military a favor. In fact, they are betraying the interests of truth, science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to recruit, upon which they rely. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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 Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Fri Jan 12 08:58:57 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:58:57 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Progress report, next ICRP Recommendations and Radiological protection in medicine Message-ID: >From the ICRP http://www.icrp.org/ 1. Progress report, next ICRP Recommendations The second round of public consultation on the draft next Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection met with overwhelming interest, and ICRP has received over 700 pages of written comments and suggestions, which are visible at http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/listcomments.asp .In addition, the process was augmented by several workshops and meetings organised by international and national bodies with an interest in radiological protection. Based on this considerable and very helpful input from the stakeholders, ICRP has now prepared a substantially revised document, which is now being considered by the Main Commission of ICRP with the intention of taking a final decision concerning the Recommendation at its meeting 19-21 March 2007. Thanks to the world-wide scientific exchange of ideas during a process of public and expert participation that began with a journal paper 8 years ago, in 1999, and has since involved numerous international and national meetings and two rounds of full-fledged public consultation on complete draft texts, the main principles are now fairly firmly established. A number of organisations that are using ICRP Recommendations as a basis for their decisions are now keen for ICRP to complete its process so that they can update their system of protection accordingly, and the remaining amendments to the draft Recommendations will be primarily of an editorial nature. We are thus now past the stage of formal consultations. Nevertheless, editorial comments are of course welcome, and may be e-mailed to the Scientific Secretary of ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin (scient.secretary at ircp.org), preferably before the end of February. Any such messages received will be posted for information on this web site after the March 2007 meeting of ICRP. 2. Radiological protection in medicine The work of an ICRP Task Group is nearing completion. The report of the Task Group addresses Radiological Protection in Medicine. This summary constitutes a building block underpinning the imminent next fundamental Recommendations of ICRP, and can also be seen as amending and updating ICRP Publication 73. The draft is posted for consultation on our comments page - on that page, just to the right of the Document drop-down menu, please click 'view document' to download it! We would appreciate your comments no later than Friday 6 April, 2007. Fred Dawson Fwp_dawson at hotmail.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 09:16:28 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:16:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070112010226.57205.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070112151629.33389.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> 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).? > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > of mortality data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis > Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same > population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 > Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org > Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the > Health and Vital Statistics for the population of > Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer > deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, > ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and > solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected > after 20 years, in addition to a number of > spontaneous cancer deaths.? > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences > do seem higher with that dose of radiation. Chang?s > table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The > absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 > years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less > severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so > by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate > these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental > establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a > reliable study, and the recently published study of > the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your > beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to > confuse you message any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > > your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > > establishment not only used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > > critical review of the data in the papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > > some of my suggestions to make his language > > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > > of > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 12 11:16:43 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 9:16:43 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida Message-ID: <21532386.1168622203338.JavaMail.root@fed1wml11.mgt.cox.net> Index: FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida RPT-US utilities look to nuclear, but costs a worry-S&P INTERVIEW -Bulgaria says EU should let nuclear plant run again Africa claims right to nuclear energy California coastal commission sued over nuclear power plant No leaks at Nuclear One plant at Russellville Keng Yaik: No nuclear, hydro preferred Duke CEO joins Nuclear Energy Institute board Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy Namibia to develop nuclear power plant Germany reconsidering nuclear power? Mikisew Cree uneasy about nuclear power ============================================== FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida early this year Jan 12 - Florida Power & Light Co. plans to announce the site for a proposed nuclear power plant in the state during the first quarter of the year, moving it a step ahead in the process that could result in Florida's first new nuclear plant in more than two decades. Juno Beach-based FPL, which operates two nuclear complexes at Turkey Point and St. Lucie, has not committed to building a new nuclear generating facility. But choosing a site represents an early step in the long and complicated process of deciding on the economic merits of building a new plant, which could cost $5 billion to $6 billion, developing the project and obtaining licensing and other approvals from federal, state and local authorities. If a new plant is built, FPL customers could see their bills rise to cover a variety of costs, including preconstruction expenses and operating and maintenance costs. The last time FPL built a nuclear reactor was in the early 1980s. The second unit at its St. Lucie complex went into operation in 1983. The company is still evaluating potential sites and studying different technologies that could be used, said FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott. Last April, the company initiated the approval process when it notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its intention to submit a license application in 2009 for a new nuclear plant. Obtaining a license for a new plant, which would include a reactor design approved by the NRC, takes several years. FPL estimates that it could take 12 years between initial planning for a nuclear complex and putting it into operation. Last month, St. Petersburg-based Progress Energy Florida, which operates a nuclear plant in Crystal River, selected a site in Levy County for another proposed nuclear facility. FPL is considering a nuclear plant as part of its long-term plan to meet increasing demand for electricity and to diversify its fuel sources, Scott said. Currently, the company uses natural gas to generate about 42 percent of its electricity, while nuclear power accounts for 19 percent. High prices for natural gas in past years have driven up electric bills, encouraging the company to study nuclear power as an alternative. The Public Service Commission is looking at ways to reimburse utilities for pre-construction costs on nuclear plants, which can run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Under a current plan, pre-construction costs approved by regulators would be passed along to customers. After a plant goes into operation, base rates would also rise if approved by regulators. While FPL would not comment on sites under consideration, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that choosing a site that has already been approved, for example, the location of an existing plant, could speed up the approval process. There are 103 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, but no new facilities are under construction. Aside from FPL and Progress Energy, 12 companies or consortia are at various stages of planning for new nuclear plants. FPL's parent, FPL Group Inc., operates nuclear, wind, solar, fossil fuel and hydroelectric power facilities outside Florida. ------------------ RPT-US utilities look to nuclear, but costs a worry-S&P LOS ANGELES, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Resurgent interest has U.S. utilities viewing nuclear power more positively but high costs will restrain them from building plants for several years, said a report issued this week by Standard & Poor's. While rust grows on the 1980s protest "No Nukes" buttons, there remains considerable public opposition, which is a factor in nuclear's future, the report said. Even if America embraces nuclear power as a reliable source of no-emissions electricity, hefty costs for obtaining permits and construction of up to $3-$4 billion per plant, will give utilities pause. "Standard & Poor's does not anticipate construction of new nuclear plants to start in the next few years," said the report, whose main author was S&P analyst Dimitri Nikas. "While nuclear generation can provide many benefits, the challenges of successfully completing the next construction cycle will be significant," the report said. New units could be on line by 2014, the industry trade group Nuclear Energy Institute has said. S&P showed that the estimated operating costs of a nuclear power plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build would produce electricity at $55 per megawatt hour (MWh). This is near the $53 per MWh cost of pulverized coal power production and $50 per MWh for an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant that burns coal. Spot uranium prices have also doubled to $72.0/lb in the past 12 months, said Ux Consulting, a publisher of uranium prices and price forecasts, as speculative investors have rushed to take advantage of rising energy costs and a market sharply in deficit. But nuclear power construction costs are expected to decline after a first wave of units to about $1.5 million per MW. At that level, which S&P said makes electricity at about $44 per MWh, "is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectric generation." S&P said these operating cost estimates assume full recovery by utilities of all operating and capital costs. The newer permitting process will help stem cost overruns that plagued the industry during the last nuclear building boom in the 1970s and 1980s, S&P said. ON EXISTING SITES Attaining permits alone will cost a utility aiming to construct a nuclear plant $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Construction costs will be another $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion, S&P said, not including financing costs. The report lists 13 proposed nuclear power plants encompassing at least 22 reactors, culled from public statements by 13 companies. The first license applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency are expected this year. No nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978, the year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. There are now 103 working U.S. reactors with the capacity to produce about 98,560 megawatts, enough to power about 75 million homes. That is 10 percent of U.S. generating capacity. The first nuclear power plant in the world opened in 1957 near Pittsburgh. Companies that have said they are considering building new nuclear power plants -- mainly on sites of existing ones as a way to cut down on public opposition -- include Dominion Resources (D.N: Quote, Profile , Research); the federal Tennessee Valley Authority; Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile , Research); 11-company consortium NuStart Energy; Southern Co. (SO.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Progress Energy (PGN.N: Quote, Profile , Research); South Carolina public utility Santee Cooper and SCANA (SCG.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Duke Energy Corp. (DUK.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Unistar Nuclear, a joint venture of Constellation Energy (CEG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and French-owned energy group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile , Research); FPL Group Inc. (FPL.N: Quote, Profile , Research); NRG Energy (NRG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and Amarillo Power; and TXU Corp. (TXU.N: Quote, Profile , Research). ---------------------- INTERVIEW -Bulgaria says EU should let nuclear plant run again SOFIA, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Bulgaria will try to push the European Union's executive next month to let it reopen two Soviet-made nuclear reactors closed due to safety concerns or to pay it more in compensation, its energy minister said on Friday. The Balkan country agreed to shut down two 440 megawatt nuclear reactors at its Kozloduy plant at the end of 2006 ahead of its entry into the bloc on Jan. 1. Now, using its new member status and pointing to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that say upgrades have improved safety levels at the plant, it hopes to overcome concern among older EU members and restart the units. If not, the country will seek to raise the 570 million euros ($738.3 million) offered by Brussels to help pay for mothballing four of Kozloduy's six reactors to 1 billion, Energy Minister Rumen Ovcharov told Reuters in an interview. "There is a heavy power regime in Albania. There are serious power shortages in Macedonia and Kosovo ... The Commission cannot turn a blind eye to that," he said. "I will bring the issue up at the meeting of energy ministers next month ... and only after that will we think about compensation." Bulgaria, until now the leading power exporter in southeastern Europe, has warned of a potential energy crisis in the region, where it covers 80 percent of the power deficit. It exported a record 7.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006 but plans almost no exports this year because of the shutdowns. Analysts say its chances of re-opening the units are slim, as Brussels has taken a hard line on shutting down Soviet-designed reactors in ex-communist Slovakia and Lithuania, which joined the EU in 2004. But Ovcharov said more compensation was possible. The Socialist-led government estimates total losses to Bulgaria from the shutdowns -- including two older reactors taken off line in 2003 -- could top billions of euros. "One billion (in compensation) is an experts' estimate. It is based on what other countries have managed to arrange, and is in line with the lost capacity and the effect on the economy," he said. Bulgaria is also building a second, 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant at the Danube river town of Belene to compensate for the shutdown. It has contracted Russia's Atomstroyexport to build it and make it operational in 2013. Ovcharov said he expected the state, which would keep a majority stake in the new 4.0 billion euro plant, to choose a strategic investor for the plant in the second half of the year. ------------------- Africa claims right to nuclear energy A coalition of 45 African states has signed a declaration pledging to "promote the safe and accountable use of nuclear energy", reports SciDev.Net. The statement came at a two-day conference on nuclear energy in Algeria on 9-10 January. "Africa is entitled to reap the benefits of atomic energy without any constraints or obstacles being put in its way," said Ramtane Lamamra, secretary-general of the Algerian foreign affairs ministry, prior to the meeting. Industrialised nations have been pushing developing countries to do a better job than they did at controlling greenhouse gas emissions early in their economic development. This rules out conventional fossil fuel sources, and puts the emphasis on cleaner sources of energy, ways of capturing emissions from fossil fuel burning - or nuclear energy. As you can imagine, the world's nuclear powers aren't so keen on a new wave of developing countries joining the atomic club. Some recent events go some way to explain this reticence: in 2004, Brazil, a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, was accused of barring access to IAEA inspectors, fuelling speculation that they might be producing somewhat more that energy. And then of course, there's the concern over Iran's pursuit of a nuclear agenda. But should industrialised nations expect countries with a smaller pot of money for research to develop new sources of "clean" energy? The US has repeatedly said it would help with this, but the offer has been criticised as an excuse to increase US trade. What's more, over the past year, Africa has underlined its desire to drive its own development ------------------ California coastal commission sued over nuclear power plant LOS ANGELES - An environmental group has sued state coastal regulators, alleging they violated state laws by authorizing a project at a nuclear power plant without requiring its operator to follow measures to ease the facility's damaging impacts on the central coast. The Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network is challenging the Coastal Commission's decision to approve the replacement of two steam generators at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant north of San Luis Obispo. The project is intended to extend the life of the plant. Without the new generators, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company would have to shut down the facility by 2014, according to the civil suit filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit said the commission held hearings and considered a staff review of the plant's environmental impact on the coastline. But the commission also approved the project without following a staff recommendation to impose mitigation measures, according to the suit. The lawsuit claimed violations of the California Coastal Act and other environmental and land use laws. The environmental group, based in Playa Del Rey, is asking the court to invalidate the commission's decision. "For the Commission to ignore the staff's recommendations related to mitigation was unconscionable, and is a clear violation of the law," said plaintiff's attorney David Weinsoff. An after hours call Thursday to the Coastal Commission was not immediately returned. ---------------- No leaks at Nuclear One plant at Russellville RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. Jan 12 - A spokesman for the Entergy-owned nuclear power plant at Russellville says there is no indication that radioactive tritium has leaked from the plant. The tests were a precautions. A nuclear industry group has agreed to regular checks of groundwater at all U-S plants. Seven of the 103 U-S nuclear plants have had tritium leaks, and the broad testing was begun in response. Arkansas Nuclear One spokesman Phil Fisher says groundwater pathways under the plant were mapped and test wells were drilled in November. Tests on samples taken in December showed no tritium. Fisher says the tests will be done quarterly. ----------------- Keng Yaik: No nuclear, hydro preferred PUTRAJAYA (Jan 12, 2007): Malaysia has shelved the nuclear option to produce electricity for the time being but will generate more hydro-electric power and reduce gas-powered energy over the next 10 years. Energy, Water and Communications Minister Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik said today the country's dependence on hydro-electric power will be increased from five per cent to 30% over that period. Bernama quoted Lim as saying that the government hopes to reduce its dependence on gas-powered energy from the present 70% to 45%, adding that the option for hydro-electric power was prompted by the fact that it is a renewable, cheap and environment-friendly source of energy. "Malaysia has enough hydro power to generate its electricity until 2030," he told reporters after attending the ministry's monthly assembly here. Lim said the Bakun hydro-electric power project in Sarawak alone would produce between 4,000MW and 5,000MW of electricity, with the bulk of it for use in Peninsular Malaysia. The country's energy source ratio now is gas 70%, coal 21% and hydro five per cent, with the rest made up of power derived from fuel and biomass. In the next 10 years, the government hopes to achieve a ratio of gas 45%, hydropower 30% and coal 25%, he said. "At the moment, we put the possibility of using nuclear as our source of energy at the back of our mind. Not during my time. Probably after 2030, when we would have exhausted our renewable energy," he said. In reducing the country's dependence on gas, the ministry recently rejected applications for the setting up two gas-powered plants. Lim said the country's heavy dependence on gas currently was the result of poor planning in the past and the "Kajang satay mentality" where everybody jumps onto the bandwagon when power producers began producing electricity using gas. On the current negotiation between independent power producers (IPPs) and Tenaga Nasional Berhad on the capacity charges, the minister said he would suggest that IPPs help reduce their charges to TNB on a voluntarily basis and, in return, the ministry would extend their concession period. Lim said the Water Services Industry Act and the National Water Services Commission (Span) Act, which were passed by Parliament last Julyr, would be gazetted by the end of this month. Enforcement and implementation of the two acts would help the federal government to restructure the country's water services industry towards better management of water distribution and assets as well as reducing water loss, he said. In the communications sector, the ministry would focus on promoting domestic roaming by encouraging telecommunications service providers to share their facilities to improve service, especially coverage. He said the registration of pre-paid mobile phone users last year recorded almost 90% success, with 17.8 million out of the 18.5 million users responding to the exercise. The ministry would also encourage the expansion of wireless broadband and fibre optic installation for its Internet protocol services to allow the public more access to the Internet this year, he added. ------------------- Duke CEO joins Nuclear Energy Institute board Charlotte Jan 11 - The Nuclear Energy Institute has added Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Jim Rogers to its executive committee and board of directors. Rogers fills the term that was held by Ruth Shaw, group executive for public policy and president of Duke Nuclear. Shaw is retiring from Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK - News) in the spring. Before the merger of Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp. of Cincinnati in April, Rogers was Cinergy chairman, president and CEO for more than 11 years. All U.S. nuclear power plant licensees and selected representatives of other companies involved in nuclear technologies are members of the NEI board of directors. The NEI, based in Washington, D.C., establishes policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies, and the executive committee sets broad policy for the industry. --------------- Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy Angus Reid Global Monitor - Adults who reside in countries that have joined the European Union (EU) hold differing views on nuclear power, according to the Eurobarometer conducted by TNS Opinion & Social. 37 per cent of respondents are opposed to the use of nuclear energy in their countries, while 20 per cent are in favour. In Sweden, Slovakia, Lithuania, Hungary and the Czech Republic, more than a third of respondents express support for nuclear energy. Conversely, more than half of respondents in Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and Austria are opposed. There are 153 active reactors in the EU. Nuclear energy accounts for about a third of the EU?s energy supply. France gets almost 80 per cent of its energy from nuclear reactors. In the EU, safety regulations regarding nuclear energy are outlined on the EURATOM Treaty, which is based on the need to protect "the public and the workforce from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation." British prime minister Tony Blair has said he wants to build more nuclear rectors to produce energy in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Six years ago, Germany committed to shutting down all of its 17 nuclear power plants by 2021. This year, German chancellor Angela Merkel implied that she might be in favour of keeping them open, declaring, "It remains a fact that the phase-out has consequences and that we must not have a ban on thinking, especially those who say ?We don?t want nuclear energy? must take part in finding answers." Governments in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have also taken action in favour of keeping their reactors open?at least for now. Polling Data Are you in favour or opposed to the use of nuclear energy in your country? - Please use a scale from 1 to 7, ?1? would mean that you are "strongly opposed" to this energy source and ?7? would mean that you are "strongly in favour" of it. Codes 1-2 correspond to "opposed", 3-5 "balanced views" and 6-7 "in favour". In favour 20% Balanced views 36% Opposed 37% Not sure 6% Source: TNS Opinion & Social / Eurobarometer Methodology: Interviews with 24,815 people ages 15 and over in the 25 European Union (EU) member nations, two acceding countries, and two candidate countries, conducted from May 5 to Jul. 11, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. ------------------ Namibia to develop nuclear power plant Namibia has decided to convert its large uranium resources into electricity in a nuclear power plant because of the unreliable power supply from South Africa. It now depends on SA's Eskom for more than 50% of its power but this supply has often been interrupted because of power cuts in SA. Namibia is the fourth largest uranium producer in the world and Namibia's mines and energy permanent secretary Joseph Iita is reported as saying his government has taken a policy decision to tap into the uranium resources for electricity generation. ----------------- Germany reconsidering nuclear power? BERLIN, Jan. 11 A second senior German official in as many days expressed interest in keeping nuclear power to diversify energy options and curb dependence on Russia. The BBC reports German Economics Minister Michael Glos said the country should rethink its decision to phase out the country's 17 nuclear plants by the early 2020s. He said without nuclear power Germany wouldn't be able to meet goals in reducing greenhouse gas pollution. This comes the day after Chancellor Angela Merkel also endorsed another look at the end of German nuclear energy. Merkel's fragile coalition, however, is deeply entrenched with members of the Greens and Social Democrats who agreed to the policy in 2000; anything beyond words on the issue could spell the end of Merkel's government. Concerns about Germany's dependence on Russia for fuel were first raised last year when Moscow decided to cut off the gas supply to Ukraine, which in turn halted the flow to Germany. More recently, the ongoing Russia and Belarus energy row over how much Belarus had to pay for Russian gas also poses a threat to Germany and other European nation's fuel supply. ------------------ Mikisew Cree uneasy about nuclear power Fort McMurray Today - Jan 12 - An aboriginal group in Fort Chipewyan is leery about the prospect of building nuclear reactors to help power the oilsands. Concerns over the quality of moose meat and other wild game and water quality are big enough concerns to worry about without nuclear talks to add further environmental concerns, said Dale Monaghan, acting chief executive of the Mikisew Cree First Nation. ?Based on a number of industry hearings in the last six months that talked about dangerously high arsenic levels, plus the water quality concerns,? Monaghan said, Chief Roxanne Marcel is uncomfortable going to the next level of talks about nuclear power in the region, he said. ?Nuclear power is so much more potentially dangerous than these other things we?re talking about. She can?t imagine going to something as lethal as nuclear,? Monaghan said. Talks about the use of nuclear power to generate steam and electricity in the oilsands were resurrected after a consortium including a research arm of the Alberta government said this week that a proposal is expected by the end of this month. Four unnamed companies have expressed interest in using energy from nuclear reactors in three Alberta locations -- including two in the oilsands. Husky Energy CEO John Lau said early this week his company is exploring nuclear as an option. Talks about the use of nuclear power sparked in September 2005 after French company Total E&P Canada Ltd. was reported to be willing to explore all alternative power sources, including nuclear, for its Joslyn project. But spokeswoman Christianne Wile said today Total is not interested and has never actively considered nuclear power for oilsands development. The French company is aware of the oilsands? dependence on natural gas and it is actively looking at ways to reduce energy consumption, she said. The Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, disputes the nuclear industry?s claim that nuclear energy is economically and environmentally viable for the oilsands. ?Mining and transporting uranium (from northern Saskatchewan) do not only have significant environmental impact but also a significant amount of greenhouse gas pollution,? Dan Woynillowicz, a policy analyst said. There?s risk associated with nuclear power and radioactive wastes, he noted. The nuclear industry hasn?t been able to address them adequately, the analyst said. Nuclear power has never been an economically viable option in Canada, Woynillowicz stressed, because it requires significant government subsidy. He said when the long term liabilities and insurance rates associated with addressing the radioactive waste are added up, the price tag of building, operating and maintaining a nuclear reactor could be more expensive than natural gas. Instead of going nuclear, the government and energy industry should spend their research dollars on renewable energy, he said. Monaghan said the Mikisew chief and her council want to be directly consulted about the matter. Asking people to come to a meeting where nuclear energy use for the oilsands will be discussed is not a direct consultation, he said. Mikisew Cree members aren?t against progress for industry in the region, but the chief is very leery of the term nuclear, Monaghan said. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jan 12 11:24:11 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:24:11 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070112151629.33389.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> 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 -----Urspr?ngliche 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)." > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality > data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by > Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. & > Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death > Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the > population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > " - only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed." > Chen et al [Luan]comment, "Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia > and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years, > in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths." > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with > that dose of radiation. Chang's table III shows: Observed 39, Expected > 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of > mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable > disease, perhaps made so by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear > results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, > and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do > not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message > any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only > > used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give > > the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the > > papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my > > suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or > > more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were > > questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs > > > meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry > +++++++++++++++++++ "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." -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.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 hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 12 11:39:32 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:39:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070112151629.33389.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <272596.27084.qm@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line reference to Radsafe readers, John? My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to hear from. As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most significant part of the Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by official records) when 126 would be expected in those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 rem, 40 rad) over 20 years . This confirms amazing evidence for safety and effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds of new nuclear power plants in the USA then. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: 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).? > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > of mortality data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis > Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same > population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 > Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org > Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the > Health and Vital Statistics for the population of > Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer > deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, > ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and > solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected > after 20 years, in addition to a number of > spontaneous cancer deaths.? > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences > do seem higher with that dose of radiation. Chang?s > table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The > absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 > years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less > severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so > by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate > these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental > establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a > reliable study, and the recently published study of > the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your > beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to > confuse you message any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > > your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > > establishment not only used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > > critical review of the data in the papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > > some of my suggestions to make his language > > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > > of > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.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 frantaj at aecl.ca Fri Jan 12 12:03:18 2007 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:03:18 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F70B4F59F7@sps13.aecl.ca> Sandy Perle wrote: ------------------ Namibia to develop nuclear power plant Namibia has decided to convert its large uranium resources into electricity in a nuclear power plant because of the unreliable power supply from South Africa. It now depends on SA's Eskom for more than 50% of its power but this supply has often been interrupted because of power cuts in SA. Namibia is the fourth largest uranium producer in the world and Namibia's mines and energy permanent secretary Joseph Iita is reported as saying his government has taken a policy decision to tap into the uranium resources for electricity generation. ----------------- .........this seems like an unlikely scenario! ....Sandy, would you mind please indicating where this story originated ? (preferably with a link?) Thanks Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 12 12:08:45 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:08:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Range - "Exposed had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <748319.6977.qm@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Good point. Since the dose varied greatly over time and place, I assume that a few did have an excessive dose ("range <1 to 2,363 mSv"). I would consider the high dose reasonably associated with increased risk of lymphoma and leukemia, even though, as Rainer points out, the numbers are not decisive. Perhaps this helps define a therapeutic optimum range of 5 to 500 mSv (0.5 to 50 c Sv, rem, rad) over 10 years for hormesis benefits. Howard Long 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 -----Urspr?ngliche 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)." > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality > data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by > Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. & > Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death > Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the > population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > " - only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed." > Chen et al [Luan]comment, "Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia > and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years, > in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths." > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with > that dose of radiation. Chang's table III shows: Observed 39, Expected > 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of > mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable > disease, perhaps made so by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear > results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, > and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do > not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message > any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only > > used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give > > the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the > > papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my > > suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or > > more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were > > questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs > > > meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 12 13:03:14 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:03:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links Message-ID: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> Jaro, Here are some links for the news story: http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm 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/ From hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 12 13:21:13 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Over-regulation: Does OSHA still reject use of Effective Dose Equivalent? In-Reply-To: <45A69C80.29943.3125AB3@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <138856.85297.qm@web81808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Coumadin (warfarin sodium, anti-clotting rat poison) is taken by millions of Americans in such precise and individualized dose that half again as much would cause dangerous bleeding. On the other hand, half the dose would cause significant risk of clot and stroke, the reason a doctor prescribes and monitors with clotting time the rat poison dose more carefully than perhaps any other medicine. Diabetics monitor their own, ever-changing insulin dose Government regulators rarely hassle doctors or patients about these. What contrast to the minimal risks but mighty radiation regulation of governments ! Is it time that HPs confront the self-serving bullies? Howard Long Sandy Perle wrote: The following is a letter from a 1999 OSHA determination that rejected the use of Effective Dose Equivalent dose calculation and reporting. I am inquiring whether or not this position has ever been revised. I find no evidence that it has. If it has not, it appears to be an interesting position for OSHA to continue to pursue, considering that the various methodologies have been routinely accepted by state and other federal agencies (even the NRC now accepts the methodology when a individual who works with RAM also is exposed from radiologic procedures where a protective apron is worn). NCRP 122 provides significant details on all of the methodologies. Any information will be appreciated. Thanks, Sandy -------------------- REFERENCE POSITION August 4, 1999 Charles H. Rose (MA,MSPH,D(ABSNM)) Executive Director American Association for Nuclear Cardiology, Inc. 5660 Airport Boulevard Suite 101 Boulder Colorado 80301 Dear Mr. Rose: This is in response to your January 19, 1999 letter regarding the measurement of employee exposures to ionizing radiation. We apologize for the delay in our reply. You report that some organizations have proposed and implemented a new method of monitoring the occupational radiation exposure of individuals who wear a protective apron. You state that these individuals may be monitored, for example, as follows: One monitoring device is worn under the protective apron and a second one is worn outside the protective apron at the neck. An effective dose equivalent for external radiation is determined by multiplying the reading of the device located at the waist under the protective apron by 1.5 and adding this value to 0.04 of the reading of the device located at the neck. You state that, "The American Association for Nuclear Cardiology (AANC) strongly opposes this "new" method of calculating occupational exposure." The AANC requests that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state its position on this issue. The "new" method of determining occupational exposure to external radiation does not conform with OSHA's standard for ionizing radiation, 29 CFR 1910.1096. As indicated by Table G-18 within 29 CFR 1910.1096(b)(1), OSHA considers the components of the whole body to be the head and trunk, the active blood-forming organs, the lenses of the eyes, and the gonads. The head and trunk includes the neck, thus the neck is part of the whole body. According to 29 CFR 1910.1096(a)(5), a dose to the whole body is the quantity of ionizing radiation absorbed, per unit mass, by any portion of the whole body. Therefore, the actual reading of the monitoring device that is positioned at the individual's neck indicates the whole body dose received by the individual. In point of fact, the whole body dose must be reported as the highest dose received by any region of the whole body. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that OSHA's enforcement guidance is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. Subsequent rulemaking could also affect such guidance. In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact OSHA's Office of Health Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-2190. Sincerely, Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 12 16:21:03 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:21:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Looking for Harshaw 8807 Environmental TLD Holders Message-ID: <7727272.1168640463892.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> I am looking for any Harshaw 8807 Environmental TLD Holders. If you have any that you would like to sell, please contact me. Thanks, 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/ From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 12:22:02 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:22:02 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> References: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> Message-ID: The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" and not Nambia. If you cannot even take care enough to name a country by its correct name I wonder what your company is reliable and worth. Remember the case where we had definitely decided to meet in Vienna after many previous attempts in the framework of a conference which I could not attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt to meet you, but you did not even bother to call me during your week-long stay in Vienna to tell me that you had "more important" committments like going to Bratislava by boat. You could have told me long beforehand that your potential customers were of much more importance to meet than meeting me. I would have gone to Egypt and you would have met your (potential) customers. I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according to a previous mail exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian "radiation news group". After my bad experience with your reliability I just wonder - and maybe other RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can be relied on - especially since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How about UKS, USK, UVW.... for the United States of America?????? Franz 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > Jaro, > > Here are some links for the news story: > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Sun Jan 14 12:35:58 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:35:58 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: References: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net>, Message-ID: <45AA078E.11880.D3DA786@sandyfl.cox.net> On 14 Jan 2007 at 19:22, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" and not Nambia. If you cannot even take care enough to name a country by its correct name I wonder what your company is reliable and worth.? > ? > Remember the case where we had definitely decided?to meet in Vienna after many previous attempts in the framework of a conference which I?could not attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt to meet you, but you did not even bother to call me during your week-long stay in Vienna to tell me that you had "more important" committments like going to Bratislava by boat. You could have told me long beforehand that your potential customers were of much more importance to meet than meeting me. I would have gone to Egypt and you would have met your?(potential) customers. ? > ? > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according to a previous mail exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian "radiation news group".?After my bad experience with your reliability I just wonder - and maybe other RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can be relied on - especially since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How about UKS, USK, UVW.... for the United States of America?????? Franz, I question your ability to recognize when I personally am writing an article, or simply copying the ACTUAL news posted directly from the wire service. I provide what is in the news. I don't correct how the news is written, or what the news article dstates. That is for the reader to decide. I suggest that you take a class to understand there is a difference. Since I take the time to search out the news, for the benefit of others, and you simply take time to berate others, I think that I'll continue to do what is i the best interest of those who subscribe to Radsdafe. I suggest that you find a different venue for your hatred. Respectfully. From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 14 12:38:59 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:38:59 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links Message-ID: <45AA0843.32682.D4069B3@sandyfl.cox.net> I also suggest that when there is a typo, such as a missing letter in the name of the all important country known as Namibia, that you find better use of your time. Perhaps others will scrutinize every posting that you make, and God forbid, they find a typo. The world would truly come to an end! From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 14 13:01:19 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:01:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception Message-ID: <45AA0D7F.31735.D54DBE5@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply New nuclear plant hinges on fuel disposal Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction Bristol region readies for nuclear waste BAE and Carlyle plan nuclear dockyard bid - source IDBI mulls nuclear power projects funding ============================== Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception Governments are turning to a power source that was once mostly shunned as too dangerous and too expensive. Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune Jan 13 - Sixty miles outside Buenos Aires, construction crews soon will be swarming over a partially built concrete dome abandoned 12 years ago and will resume work on Argentina's long-delayed Atucha II nuclear power plant. They will be in the vanguard of surging interest in nuclear power worldwide. Faced with evidence that coal- and oil-fired electric plants are overheating the planet, and alarmed by soaring demand for electricity, governments from South America to Asia are turning once again to a power source mostly shunned for two decades as too dangerous and too costly. Globally, 29 nuclear power plants are being built. Well more than 100 others have been written into the development plans of governments for the next three decades. India and China each are rushing to build dozens of reactors. The United States and the countries of Western Europe, led by new nuclear champions, are reconsidering their cooled romance with atomic power. International agencies have come on board; even Persian Gulf oil states have plans for nuclear generators. "Energy and climate changes can't remain tied to carbon or hydrocarbon," the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in October. "They are polluting, and we'll have to find substitute energies, including nuclear energy." Creating heat through nuclear reactions rather than combustion gives off no carbon dioxide, the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Dusting off plans Utilities are dusting off plans for nuclear plants even though most of the problems that shelved those projects remain. Critics say governments have forgotten the crises of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The costs and time to build the concrete-encased plants far exceed those of conventional plants. There still is no safe permanent storage for the used fuel that will remain radioactive for a million years. Not to mention the newly realistic worry of a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant. 10 to 30 new U.S. plants In the United States, the Bush administration has strongly pushed nuclear power and backed a 2005 energy bill offering subsidies to utilities to go ahead with projects in a shortened, streamlined regulatory process. The industry talks enthusiastically of 10 to 30 new nuclear plants being started in the next two decades. Critics say those predictions will stall without long-term subsidies, and they scoff at the administration's explanations that nuclear plants will help battle global warming. "The Bush administration doesn't believe climate change is a threat unless it is arguing for nuclear power," said Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. Just talk? Skeptics say the nuclear resurgence is still just talk. In the United States, they note, not a single reactor has been ordered. High costs and long delays that vexed nuclear construction soon will diminish the atomic ardor in other countries, they say. According to Lyman, "We need to move faster to really take a bite out of greenhouse emissions, and there aren't any scenarios in which nuclear power can do that." At present, 442 nuclear plants operate in more than 31 countries, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The United States has the most -- 103, which provide about 19.3 percent of the country's electric power. Worldwide, atomic energy accounts for 16 percent of electrical production. But carbon emissions from conventional plants bring "higher global temperatures, rising sea levels that would threaten to submerge coastal regions, prolonged droughts and more frequent violent storms," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned last month. World energy needs will rise 51 percent by 2030, the International Energy Agency in Paris predicts. Add up the carbon-dioxide emissions from all the oil and coal plants that would be built to meet that need, and scientists see an environmental nightmare in the making. Moving up the list Natural gas is a cleaner fuel for making electricity, but the price has soared. Hydropower from dams has largely topped out at less than 20 percent of the world's electric supply. Solar, thermal and wind power remain a tiny contributor in most countries and would require dramatic economic changes to become substantial sources. To many, that leaves nuclear. In 2003, a British government white paper called nuclear power an unattractive option; in May, Prime Minister Tony Blair said nuclear power is "on the agenda with a vengeance." Some nuclear construction will merely keep the status quo. The first big wave of nuclear plants, built in the 1970s and 1980s, are near their planned obsolescence; six have been shut down. Regulators in the United States have extended licenses to 60 years, but other countries are replacing aging plants to make sure the nuclear component of their base supply does not disappear. 'Head in the sand' Proliferation of nuclear material remains a worry. "The industry is sticking its head in the sand," said Jim Riccio, a policy analyst at anti-nuclear Greenpeace in Washington. "They haven't gotten close to addressing safety or security." Because nuclear fission emits no greenhouse gases, some environmental groups have grudgingly concluded that nuclear power is preferable to global warming. Others still argue that aggressive conservation and a dramatic increase in solar, wind, thermal and biofueled production can meet future needs. "The voices of opposition have drastically decreased," said Tadao Yanase, director of nuclear energy policy at Japan's Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. "They obviously won't say they totally support" nuclear power, "but they are giving a tacit consent." ------------- Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply LONDON Gulf Times - Nuclear Power?s share of global power supply is likely to shrink over the next few decades as political indecision and public opposition stunt its growth. Even optimists do not see a big expansion in nuclear power?s share of electricity production over the next few decades, despite governments warming to it as fears over climate change and security of energy supply intensify. "In relative shares, in most projections out to 2030 nuclear power is going to decline," Hans-Holger Rogner, head of nuclear energy planning at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters. The IAEA expects nuclear power to produce 12%-13% of global electricity by 2030, down from the current 16%, while the International Energy Agency forecasts 10%-14%. But Rogner said that long construction times, planning obstacles, a lack of trained nuclear engineers and lingering public fear all hindered the progress of nuclear energy. "Even if there is a momentum of rising expectations for nuclear power, it will take time to propagate to the system," he said. "Many countries, even nuclear countries, have lost the capability. They don?t have the licensing authorities in place any more, and they have to re-educate their people." The IAEA forecasts an increase in nuclear generation capacity of 20%-30% by 2030, but as overall electricity generation capacity is going to double in that period - with most of that met by coal, renewables and gas-fired plants - nuclear looks like being left behind. Beyond 2030 is very hard to predict because it mostly depends on whether fears over climate change override the fear of nuclear power that still lingers 20 years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. "One accident could set everything back," Rogner said. "If we have a little bit more climate catastrophe it may just go the other direction." If there is a big shift towards nuclear over the next few decades, amid accelerating climate change and diminishing fossil fuel reserves, the technology might grow its share of generation, but not until the middle of the century and beyond. "Our 2050 projections, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios and so on... you get into the 20 to 25% range of nuclear generated electricity," Rogner said. The global response to climate change, together with soaring oil and gas prices, has helped bring nuclear power out from the shadow cast by Chernobyl. But growing political discussion in the developed world about the benefits of the technology has yet to result in large scale nuclear build, while Europe?s ageing, state-built reactors hobble towards retirement. "Is it just lip service that our politicians pay or do they really mean it?" Rogner said. "That will make a difference over the next 20 to 30 years." Because of the huge costs involved in building new nuclear plants and disposing of the waste, private companies demand investment security from governments, particularly a long-term, global cost on carbon emissions. There is no sign of that yet. Even where there is a cost for carbon, potential investors in new European reactors are reluctant to commit to new build because Europe?s CO2 trading scheme currently ends in 2012. "It?s hard to see private industry investing in nuclear power stations without guarantees from government, not only for carbon but also for... waste disposal and decommissioning," Andrew Nind of Poyry Energy Consulting said. Nind said that increasingly liberalised markets of Europe discourage new nuclear build, but that growing environmental concerns might force governments to assume enough of the risks involved to encourage private industry to build it. "A lot will depend on the weather and the political will to do something about global warming," he said. As it stands, Asia will probably see the biggest nuclear energy growth over the next few decades, observers say. The IAEA says 16 of the 29 reactors being built are in developing countries. Most of those are in Asia, with India leading the pack with seven new reactors and China just behind. Meanwhile, 20 years after Chernobyl, public distrust of nuclear power lingers in Europe and its role in generation there is likely to shrivel as political indecision and public opposition persist. ------------- New nuclear plant hinges on fuel disposal Exelon executive wants U.S. to build depository for spent fuel rods Bloomberg News Jan 13 - Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. owner of nuclear power plants, wants government assurance of a disposal site for spent fuel before it will proceed with the reactor it has proposed in Texas, Chief Executive John Rowe said Friday. "The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I'm the one who's being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they're going to do with the spent fuel," Rowe said in an interview in Chicago. Rowe, 61, said his preference would be for the federal government to step up and establish a permanent fuel depository, something it's been unable to do. However, he would not rule out the state of Texas creating its own site. Proposals to build new nuclear plants, including in the Carolinas, are gaining momentum as prices rise for coal-fired and natural-gas plants along with global-warming concerns. About 32 announcements have been made for new nuclear power plant licenses. No company has sought to build a new reactor in about 30 years. Exelon in September said it would seek regulatory approval for a nuclear-fueled plant in Texas, the largest power-consuming state. Lack of a permanent repository has forced Exelon and other nuclear- plant operators to store spent fuel at their plants, a strategy that's been criticized by environmental groups, partly on concern the sites may be terrorist targets. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who became Senate Majority Leader this week, opposes the government's chosen site in that state's Yucca Mountain. The next new U.S. nuclear plant probably will be built in the U.S. South or Southeast, where economic growth is driving demand for so- called baseload plants, usually coal-fueled or nuclear plants designed to run at all hours and all seasons to provide basic power supply, Rowe said. Most of the pending nuclear-plant licenses are for sites in southeastern states and Texas. A few proposals have also been made in the state of New York and Maryland. Atlanta-based utility owner Southern Co. has won regulatory approval in Georgia to charge customers for the cost of licensing new nuclear plants, and Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. is seeking the same in North Carolina. That's a source of funding not available in Texas, where power-generation, power delivery and retail-power sales are separate businesses, Rowe said. No new reactor has been ordered in the U.S. since the 1979 accident at Three-Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa. -------------- Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction CALGARY Calgary Herald Jan 13 -- Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion threw cold water Friday on using nuclear energy to extract bitumen from the Alberta oilsands. Speaking Friday to the Calgary Herald editorial board, Dion acknowledged nuclear is part of the "energy mix" in Canada, but doesn't believe it's a viable option for use in Alberta's oilsands due to lingering concerns about whether its waste can be safely disposed. "I have no power to stop a province to do that. It's provincial jurisdiction," Dion said. "I am concerned about the waste and I don't hide my concerns." The debate over nuclear power in Alberta has heated up in recent months as industry and government look for ways to reduce the use of natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions from the Athabasca oilsands -- a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. Enormous amounts of gas are used in the heating and extraction of tar- like bitumen, and oilsands output generates significantly more carbon dioxide than conventional crude production. A nuclear plant would be used to produce electricity and generate steam that would be pumped underground to help melt the bitumen for easier extraction. However, exact construction costs are unknown -- some estimates peg it at $4 billion -- and significant technical and political hurdles must be cleared before a nuclear plant in the oilsands could proceed. Earlier this week, Husky Energy CEO John Lau said his company is studying nuclear energy for its future oilsands developments in northern Alberta. But new provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner said he's skeptical about nuclear energy in the oilsands, including concerns over how to dispose of its waste. "We obviously have no experience with it in Alberta," Renner told the Herald this week. "It's worth looking at, but I think it's a very long-term solution." Environmental groups also are opposed. "It's the farthest thing from clean energy. It's pretty much a toxic energy," said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute. Raynolds doubts the economic viability of a nuclear facility and said it could make the oilsands potentially a larger terrorist target. --------------- Bristol region readies for nuclear waste Material bound for N.M. will be shipped through area on I-81 BRISTOL Richmond Times Jan 14 -- Local emergency responders are preparing for trucks carrying nuclear waste that will pass through western Virginia next year. About 147 shipments of waste left over from Cold War-era nuclear weapons tests will travel through Virginia via Interstate 81, headed to New Mexico for disposal. Virginia's Department of Emergency Management will spend $100,000 training local firefighters and hospital personnel on how to handle possible spills. "There is going to be specific training on incidents for biological and nuclear waste," Bristol Virginia Fire Chief Walt Ford said. Hazardous materials spills are always a danger along I-81, a major shipping route. Ford, also the city's hazardous materials coordinator, said he doesn't know when state officials will conduct the firefighters' segment of the training. But the sessions will be held in different localities across the state, he said. "We have a lot of monitors and tools already [at the station]," Ford said. "We've had a lot of radiation classes, so it wouldn't be new to us. But that's not to say we can handle this." The waste -- called transuranic -- comes from New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The material can include anything from protective clothing and tools to sludge. Transuranic waste often is covered in plutonium, which is a toxic, radioactive metal. The waste is headed for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M. State and local officials hope the waste is transported safely out of Virginia. However, if an accident happens, the material could be dumped along the highway. Furthermore, an accident followed by a fiery explosion could scatter the waste for miles. Ford said that if local residents are exposed, they would be transported to Bristol Regional Medical Center. "If you get that type of stuff on you, we've got to get it off soon," said David Rasnick, director for safety and security at Wellmont Health Systems, which operates the hospital. "That's like getting exposed to nuclear fallout -- it's radioactive material." Sixty-eight Southwest Virginia hospital employees will be trained in radiation and decontamination on March 15 and 16 at the hospital. "In order to stay ready for disaster, we must undergo training," Rasnick said. ------------- BAE and Carlyle plan nuclear dockyard bid - source LONDON (Reuters) - Defence firm BAE Systems could join with U.S. private equity group Carlyle as one option for bidding for the nuclear submarine dockyard Devonport, a source close to the situation said on Sunday. The source told Reuters the joint bid was "one of BAE (LSE: BA.L - news) 's options" after reports in the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph said the two groups were teaming up for an offer that could be worth around 200 million pounds. Devonport, the only UK site equipped to refit and refuel nuclear submarines, is currently owned by KBR , Balfour Beatty (LSE: BBY.L - news) and Weir Group (LSE: WEIR.L - news) . BAE already owns the submarine yard at Barrow, the country's only submarine-building facility, which built the current UK fleet. A BAE spokesman said, "Combining front-end design and build capabilities with through-life support is fully in line with the government's aspirations." --------------- IDBI mulls nuclear power projects funding India Daily Jan 14 - The IDBI Bank may consider funding civilian nuclear power projects once players firm up their plans in this segment, a top bank official has said. Several major players like NTPC Limited, the Tata group and Reliance have evinced interest in nuclear power and are awaiting operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. "As of now we don''t have any proposal but we are not averse to funding nuclear power projects," IDBI Bank deputy managing director Jitender Balakrishnan said. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 14:28:44 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:28:44 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <45AA0843.32682.D4069B3@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45AA0843.32682.D4069B3@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: 2007/1/14, Sandy Perle : > > I also suggest that when there is a typo, such as a missing letter in the > name of the all > important country known as Namibia, that you find better use of your time. > Perhaps others > will scrutinize every posting that you make, and God forbid, they find a > typo. The world would > truly come to an end! Thanks, I use my time for whatever I want to and not according to your "recommendations" and your queer preferences. To find, what you call a "typo" is less than a 100th of a second, so it is worth a mentioning, because you obviously were not able to detect it. I encourage everybody reading my messages RADSAFE to point out not only my typos, but also other grammatically wrong expressions, because I am of that rare kind of persons who are interested to learn. Especially I am not waiting again for a message from you when you are in Vienna, several weeks after that meeting had taken place and after having months before the meeting announced your desire to meet me. Instead of apologizing you try to blame me. ?nstead of admitting that you have actually lied to me when you contacted me for meeting me and you have not even admitted this, but you seemed and seem to blame me for it. Shame on you. Franz From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 14 14:44:13 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:44:13 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] OSHA and EDE Message-ID: <45AA259D.1458.DB3125D@sandyfl.cox.net> Thanks to those who responded to my request for the current status of OSHA regulations with respect to EDE calculations. Apparently OSHA still does not permit the use of EDE. Perhaps it's time for ACR, AAPM and other organizations with a vested interest in this ruling will once again approach OSHA to revise its regulations to be consistent with other state and federal agencies, and allow the use of NCRP 122 approved methodologies. It is a shame that physicians and technologists can not take advantage of dose weighting methodologies. Unfortunately, this ruling forces many individuals to simply not wear personnel monitoring devices when their cumulative dose approaches regulatory limit (told to me my several individuals). Reasonable regulatory decisions would actually lead to better radiation practices my those who are exposed to higher doses from these applications. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jk5554 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 15:44:11 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sun Jan 14 16:25:17 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> Dear Ruth, Interesting to read your characterizisation of my contributions to RADSAFE, which is a little surprising. Most comments supporting my opinions during the last few years I have received to my private e-mail address and not to RADSAFE. Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? What is your problem in "demanding high standards"? Shouldn't this be the most basic demand in any analytical business? What is your comment on watches about? Sorry I do not understand it. I do not visit restaurants with high quality and high prices, I rather prefer to make my own food and I do not wear "finely crafted European Watch Brands". How do you dare to pretend a characterization of mine, without ever having met me and known me? Best regards, Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ruth Sponsler Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. J?nner 2007 22:44 An: Sandy Perle Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Sun Jan 14 16:42:17 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:42:17 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well said Ruth! 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 Ruth Sponsler Sent: January 14, 2007 1:44 PM To: Sandy Perle Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 _______________________________________________ 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 nssihou at aol.com Sun Jan 14 18:14:34 2007 From: nssihou at aol.com (nssihou at aol.com) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:14:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <8C9065144F9DAF3-168C-6C39@WEBMAIL-DC16.sysops.aol.com> One determines the nature of a book by it's cover. On learns the nature of the author by reading the words inside. Your constant bitter words posted to RADSAFE characterize you very effectively without the need to ever meet you. Bob Gallagher NSSI Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at To: jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 2:25 PM Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links Dear Ruth, Interesting to read your characterizisation of my contributions to RADSAFE, which is a little surprising. Most comments supporting my opinions during the last few years I have received to my private e-mail address and not to RADSAFE. Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? What is your problem in "demanding high standards"? Shouldn't this be the most basic demand in any analytical business? What is your comment on watches about? Sorry I do not understand it. I do not visit restaurants with high quality and high prices, I rather prefer to make my own food and I do not wear "finely crafted European Watch Brands". How do you dare to pretend a characterization of mine, without ever having met me and known me? Best regards, Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ruth Sponsler Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. J?nner 2007 22:44 An: Sandy Perle Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 _______________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. From m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Mon Jan 15 07:06:06 2007 From: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:06:06 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shielding for bedsides Message-ID: <45AB7C3E.2050005@tudelft.nl> Dear Radsafers, I need your help in the specification of bedside shields for I-131 radiotherapy patient rooms. The maximum activity per patient is 200 mCi per room. Thank you. Sincerely, Abdalla N. Al-Haj, PhD Head, Health Physics Section Biomedical Physics Department P.O. Box 3354, Riyadh 11211 Saudi Arabia Email: abdal at kfshrc.edu.sa From Lawson.Bailey at ttnus.com Mon Jan 15 09:24:29 2007 From: Lawson.Bailey at ttnus.com (Bailey, Lawson -- NUS) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:24:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Excess Equipment Message-ID: <061154FBB42E5F49B063ABE17ACA1FF4203553@EMI-EVS2.ttemi.com> We are in the final stages of a remediation project and have some excess equipment looking for new homes. If you have any interest in this equipment, please contact me via e-mail or phone. Model MB-LEAD-SHIELD. Lead Shield for NaI detector (sized for 1-L marinnelli) Model 905-4. NaI Scintillation Detector, 3x3-in. crystal, 3-in. tube Model DIGIBASE-PKG-1. 14-Pin Base for NaI Applications. Complete with Digital MCA, Preamplifier, High Voltage Supply, MAESTRO-32, and ScintiVision Qualitative and Quantitative Software. USB Connection Bartlett Model AP-1000-P, 1000 CFM HEPA Ventilation Unit (Never used) F&J LV-14M Standard Lo Vol Air Sampler (2) Lawson Bailey | Senior Health Physicist Direct: 803.641.6326 | Cell: 706.830.7530 | Fax: 803.642.8454 lawson.bailey at ttnus.com Tetra Tech NUS | Aiken Office 900 Trail Ridge Road | Aiken, SC 29803 PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. From DAHatfield at archchemicals.com Mon Jan 15 09:25:24 2007 From: DAHatfield at archchemicals.com (Hatfield, David A **BRAN) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:25:24 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Level Instruments w/sources Available Message-ID: <631F12903A93094E8914BA20EF7A734F3DF43E@dcil-exc-56.arj.archchemicals.com> I have the following instruments available at no cost for anyone with or willing to get a valid license for them. The items are excess and all are in good condition. If interested reply to dahatfield at archchemicals.com. I would also like information on disposal companies that handle radioactive sealed sources. Iso. Activ (mCi) Service Vendor Vendor Serial# Gen. Cond. cs-137 500 Level 67074 good CO-60 77 level Berthold 2150-11- 97 good CO-60 1 Berthold 2151-11-97 good CO-60 4.5 Berthold 2152-11-97 good CS-137 6 Berthold 2153-11-97 good David Hatfield, RSO PO Box 547 2450 Olin Rd Brandenburg, KY 40108 From DAHatfield at archchemicals.com Mon Jan 15 10:51:52 2007 From: DAHatfield at archchemicals.com (Hatfield, David A **BRAN) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:51:52 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Free Level Instruments w/sources Available II Message-ID: <631F12903A93094E8914BA20EF7A734F3DF4A5@dcil-exc-56.arj.archchemicals.com> Sorry for the format problems of initial send as it was my first. This post should read easier. I have the following instruments available at no cost for anyone with or willing to get a valid license for them. The items are excess and all are in good condition. If interested reply to dahatfield at archchemicals.com. I would also like information on disposal companies that handle radioactive sealed sources. Iso. Activ (mCi) Vendor Vendor Serial# Gen. Cond. cs-137 500 67074 good CO-60 77 Berthold 2150-11-97 good CO-60 1 Berthold 2151-11-97 good CO-60 4.5 Berthold 2152-11-97 good CS-137 6 Berthold 2153-11-97 good David Hatfield, RSO PO Box 547 2450 Olin Rd Brandenburg, KY 40108 Direct 270-422-6233 Cell 270-945-4246 From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 15 10:54:16 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 8:54:16 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Message-ID: <17468739.1168880056548.JavaMail.root@fed1wml07.mgt.cox.net> Index: Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Nuclear safety guidance published RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike =============================== Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance James Finch submits: Depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting, the nuclear renaissance is either in full blossom or an arid landscape. The new uranium miners ? Paladin Resources (TSX: PDN.TO - News), UrAsia (AMEX: UUU - News) and SXR Uranium One (TSX: SXR.TO - News) ? celebrate the record spot and long-term uranium price. Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC - News) Chief Executive John Rowe is less sanguine, based upon comments he made this past Friday: ?The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I?m the one who?s being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they?re going to do with the spent fuel.? Exelon is the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the United States. In a September 19 article, we interviewed Steven Kraft, Nuclear Energy Institute Director for Used Fuel Management. Mr. Kraft hinted the stalls around the nuclear renaissance in the United States would revolve around the spent fuel depository issue. What happens with the 40,000 metric tons of used nuclear reactor fuel? Right now, they are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds scattered around the country. For the past quarter century, the nuclear industry expected the reactor fuel would end up in a centralized depository, as has been proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Thanks to U.S. Senator Reid, and his efforts to squash this site, the Department of Energy has been paralyzed in moving forward. Alternatives are now being proposed, and the U.S. part of the nuclear renaissance remains stalled. Then the other shoe drops. Because of the vociferous environmental lobbyists, pre-construction costs dissuade nuclear utilities from accelerating their plans to build new nuclear reactors in the United States. Utilities do what is convenient ? they pass on these licensing costs to their utility consumers. Because of the environmental lobby, Georgia electricity consumers are paying the freight to license the new nuclear reactors proposed by Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO - News). Charlotte-based Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK - News) hopes to get the same deal in North Carolina. How much does it cost to license a nuclear power plant? Standard & Poors analyst Dimitri Nikas estimated the permits to construct a nuclear plant would cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. This means roughly one-half the cost of constructing a nuclear plant in the United States goes to pay for a permit to build and operate the reactor. Because of this expensive proposition, nuclear energy costs more to produce electricity in the United States than it would in places like China, Korea, Japan or just about anywhere else. For a nuclear plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build, the power plant?s electricity would cost $55 per megawatt hour. By comparison, a coal-fired power plant costs consumers $53 per megawatt hour for their electricity. A combined cycle integrated gasification plant fueled by coal produces electricity for $50 per megawatt hour. On the bright side, the S&P analyst believes that after the first wave of nuclear power plant construction, overall costs could plunge to $1.5 million per megawatt hour for electricity, or roughly $44 per megawatt hour. Because of this drop Mr. Niklas concluded nuclear energy ?is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectricity generation.? This is more good news for uranium miners now supplying the nuclear industry and those who hope to do so over the next decade. The question facing most Americans ? and we would guess 99 percent haven?t the slightest clue about this problem ? is whether or not they would prefer losing the nuclear option as part of their electricity generation. The environmental lobby would cheer the loss but the utility consumer would lose up to 20 percent of their baseload electricity generation. And on a darker note, the alternative would be more coal-fired power plants ? not wind or solar power, which are still more than one decade away from offering any sort of hope for baseload electricity generation. To put this into perspective, coal now generates 54 percent of America?s electricity. One pound of coal produces 1.25 kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours. The average internet user consumes more than his body weight in coal just to surf the net: 12 hours weekly over the course of one year consumes 300 pounds of coal. Total demand for electricity by personal computers now amounts to 8 percent of the U.S. electrical supply. In the future, over one billion people will be accessing the Internet. This amount of computer time would be equal to the total ?current? capacity of U.S. electrical production. If the U.S. nuclear renaissance doesn?t get launched, we will either be accessing the Internet by polluting our environment with several hundred additional millions of tons of CO2 emissions, or the Internet users will suffer. Wind and solar won?t power the Internet, but coal, gas and especially nuclear will. And at this stage of the uranium renaissance, U.S. utilities have contracted with three non-U.S. uranium mining companies ? Paladin, SXR Uranium One and UrAsia ? to purchase uranium mined in Namibia, South Africa and Kazakhstan. Where is the energy independence in that observation? Next we?ll be buying our electricity from the Russians, Chinese, and quite possibly the Iranians, if this nonsense continues. Please bring this to the attention of your local environmental lobbying office. It's something that might move Exelon Corp into action. ------------------ Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Four employees at a nuclear plant in Japan were splashed by radioactive water during a routine inspection. The workers' health and the area had been unaffected by the incident, the plant's operators, Kansai Electric Power Co, were quoted as saying. The water, with traces of radiation, leaked at the Takahama No 1 reactor in Fukui, in western Japan. Japan's nuclear industry has been hit by a string of mishaps and accidents but most have not involved people. The country is reliant on nuclear power to meet its energy needs, but its shaky safety record has fuelled popular opposition to the plants. Japan's worst nuclear accident also occurred in Fukui prefecture, at the Mihama plant in 2004 when a pipe burst killing five workers. The latest incident took place as the Takahama unit was closed for regular inspection on Sunday, Kansai said in a statement. A reported 370 litres (96 gallons) of the water leaked from a coolant pump, spraying the four staff members but not injuring them. --------------- Nuclear safety guidance published Industry Channel: Energy & Utilities, Source: The Engineer Online -The UK?s principal nuclear regulators have published guidance for an integrated approach to assessing the safety of nuclear power station designs for the protection of people and the environment. ?The Generic Assessment of Candidate Nuclear Power Plant Design? has been jointly published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Department of Trade and Industry's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). According to the regulators, early scrutiny of designs will help ensure regulatory resources are applied at a stage when greater influence can be brought to bear. The Government?s report on the Energy Review, ?The Energy Challenge?, released on 11 July 2006, stated Government?s belief that nuclear power should have a role in the future UK generating mix, alongside other low-carbon options. Since then, the Department for Trade and Industry has carried out further consultation on the policy framework for new nuclear build, and will be publishing its findings in a White Paper later this year. The Environment Agency (England and Wales) regulates radioactive waste disposal, air quality, cooling water discharges and operation of conventional plant, such as emergency stand-by power supplies and radioactive waste incinerators. It is also involved in flood risk management, contaminated land remediation and construction waste disposal. ?Although, ultimately, the Government will decide whether or not nuclear power stations are needed to meet the UK?s energy demands, the Environment Agency insists all nuclear installations meet high standards of safety, security, environmental performance and waste management,? said Environment Agency Head of Radioactive Substances Regulation Joe McHugh. ?Assessing designs at an early stage is good for the environment and safety because we can influence the design so as to ensure people and the environment are properly protected. It is good for the public and other stakeholders because they can be well informed and engaged as part of our decision making, and it is good for the companies involved as they can make better informed investment decisions.? The new guidance outlines the information reactor vendors, potential operators and other interested parties will be expected to provide so their proposals can be assessed. It also lists he processes that will be followed to ensure the assessment of generic designs is rigorous and robust, conducted in an open and transparent manner, subject to nuclear security and commercially-confidential restrictions, and involves stakeholders, including the public, at an early stage. At the end of the generic assessment, the regulators will each provide their views about the acceptability of a new nuclear power station design. ?If an application is made to build a new nuclear power station on a specific site, the regulators will follow their existing regulatory processes before deciding whether or not to issue a nuclear site licence, environmental authorisations and permits, and security plan approval,? said McHugh. ?Where these site-specific applications are based on a generic design that has undergone assessment, the regulators will take full account of the work they have already carried out and would continue to work together at all stages. ? ------------------ RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Manila Times Jan 15 - The Philippines will start studying modern nuclear technology to understand its importance to economic development, but the government has no intention of activating the mothballed Bataan nuclear power plant. ?Nuclear activities for peaceful uses by our neighbors affect us economically and environmentally,? Energy Secretary Rafael Lotilla told reporters after members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and their East Asian partners signed an energy cooperation agreement. Lotilla said other Asean countries are also currently exploring the possible use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes and Indonesia and Vietnam have likewise expressed interest. Sixteen leaders of Asean and their dialogue partners signed on Monday the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security. ?The declaration recognizes that while fossil fuels will continue to be used for a considerable period of time, we can attain greater energy security by among others, promoting energy efficiency, conservation and cleaner technologies, increasing capacity and reducing costs of alternative energy resources,? Lotilla said. He added the agreement encourages the use of biofuels and developing freer trade in this alternative form of energy by 2010. President Arroyo said the Asean leaders expressed serious concern over the negative impact of high oil prices on economic growth and development. ?The Asean agreed to adopt a strategic approach, to strengthen and promote Asean energy cooperation, especially in key infrastructure projects, including the Asean power grid and Trans-Asean Gas Pipeline,? she said. The ultimate goal of the Asean leaders is to create an open energy market, the President added. Malaysia said the plan also includes stockpiling fuel to ensure enough long-term supply for the region, besides the development of renewable energy sources. Lotilla said that the declaration would bring down the cost of putting up renewable energy sources. ?Cooperation in this area through the declaration will make having those facilities much easier for us,? he pointed out. But Lotilla said Malaysia?s proposal of stockpiling petroleum is not a good option at time because it might add to the volatility of fuel prices. ?We should consider other alternatives,? he said. Meanwhile, New Zealand and the Philippines have agreed to work on tapping renewable energy sources and putting up air linkages. President Arroyo and New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark will discuss the issues when the Philippine leader visits New Zealand after the May election this year. The two leaders agreed to explore energy cooperation at their bilateral meeting on Sunday in Shangri-La Hotel in Lapu-Lapu City. Clark said New Zealand is willing to share technology with the Philippines, particularly in tapping geothermal energy, which could help the country secure its power needs. ------------------- Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike Press Release: District Health Boards - A pay deal?s been struck with Radiation Therapists who have called off all industrial action. Strikes threatened in Auckland and Wellington on Monday will not go ahead and DHBs will be trying to get back to normal treatment schedules as quickly as possible. Murray Georgel, CEO of MidCentral District Health Board and Spokesperson for the DHBs, says DHBs were able to increase their pay offer when radiation therapists agreed to extend the time the agreement covers. ?We?re delighted that the RTS have extended the length of the agreement and reduced their claims so DHBs can stay within our budgets. ?The sad thing is there have been more than 270 separate notices of industrial action, hundreds of people have had their treatment disrupted, but the framework for this deal was on the table in the middle of last year. ?The lesson from this is that meaningful negotiation is the way to achieve fair and reasonable settlements ? not industrial action.? Mr Georgel says the package includes 1.0% backdated to April last year, another 1.5% backdated to October and another 2.5% from July this year ? on top of the step increases. ?The deal means DHBs can start reducing the waiting lists caused by the action over the last four months. Just how long it will take will vary from hospital to hospital.? ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 15 11:28:35 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 9:28:35 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Message-ID: <5448991.1168882115991.JavaMail.root@fed1wml08.mgt.cox.net> Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Nuclear safety guidance published RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike =============================== Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance James Finch submits: Depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting, the nuclear renaissance is either in full blossom or an arid landscape. The new uranium miners - Paladin Resources (TSX: PDN.TO - News), UrAsia (AMEX: UUU - News) and SXR Uranium One (TSX: SXR.TO - News) - celebrate the record spot and long-term uranium price. Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC - News) Chief Executive John Rowe is less sanguine, based upon comments he made this past Friday: "The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I?m the one who?s being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they?re going to do with the spent fuel." Exelon is the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the United States. In a September 19 article, we interviewed Steven Kraft, Nuclear Energy Institute Director for Used Fuel Management. Mr. Kraft hinted the stalls around the nuclear renaissance in the United States would revolve around the spent fuel depository issue. What happens with the 40,000 metric tons of used nuclear reactor fuel? Right now, they are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds scattered around the country. For the past quarter century, the nuclear industry expected the reactor fuel would end up in a centralized depository, as has been proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Thanks to U.S. Senator Reid, and his efforts to squash this site, the Department of Energy has been paralyzed in moving forward. Alternatives are now being proposed, and the U.S. part of the nuclear renaissance remains stalled. Then the other shoe drops. Because of the vociferous environmental lobbyists, pre-construction costs dissuade nuclear utilities from accelerating their plans to build new nuclear reactors in the United States. Utilities do what is convenient - they pass on these licensing costs to their utility consumers. Because of the environmental lobby, Georgia electricity consumers are paying the freight to license the new nuclear reactors proposed by Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO - News). Charlotte-based Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK - News) hopes to get the same deal in North Carolina. How much does it cost to license a nuclear power plant? Standard & Poors analyst Dimitri Nikas estimated the permits to construct a nuclear plant would cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. This means roughly one-half the cost of constructing a nuclear plant in the United States goes to pay for a permit to build and operate the reactor. Because of this expensive proposition, nuclear energy costs more to produce electricity in the United States than it would in places like China, Korea, Japan or just about anywhere else. For a nuclear plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build, the power plant?s electricity would cost $55 per megawatt hour. By comparison, a coal- fired power plant costs consumers $53 per megawatt hour for their electricity. A combined cycle integrated gasification plant fueled by coal produces electricity for $50 per megawatt hour. On the bright side, the S&P analyst believes that after the first wave of nuclear power plant construction, overall costs could plunge to $1.5 million per megawatt hour for electricity, or roughly $44 per megawatt hour. Because of this drop Mr. Niklas concluded nuclear energy "is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectricity generation." This is more good news for uranium miners now supplying the nuclear industry and those who hope to do so over the next decade. The question facing most Americans - and we would guess 99 percent haven?t the slightest clue about this problem - is whether or not they would prefer losing the nuclear option as part of their electricity generation. The environmental lobby would cheer the loss but the utility consumer would lose up to 20 percent of their baseload electricity generation. And on a darker note, the alternative would be more coal-fired power plants - not wind or solar power, which are still more than one decade away from offering any sort of hope for baseload electricity generation. To put this into perspective, coal now generates 54 percent of America?s electricity. One pound of coal produces 1.25 kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours. The average internet user consumes more than his body weight in coal just to surf the net: 12 hours weekly over the course of one year consumes 300 pounds of coal. Total demand for electricity by personal computers now amounts to 8 percent of the U.S. electrical supply. In the future, over one billion people will be accessing the Internet. This amount of computer time would be equal to the total `current? capacity of U.S. electrical production. If the U.S. nuclear renaissance doesn?t get launched, we will either be accessing the Internet by polluting our environment with several hundred additional millions of tons of CO2 emissions, or the Internet users will suffer. Wind and solar won?t power the Internet, but coal, gas and especially nuclear will. And at this stage of the uranium renaissance, U.S. utilities have contracted with three non-U.S. uranium mining companies - Paladin, SXR Uranium One and UrAsia - to purchase uranium mined in Namibia, South Africa and Kazakhstan. Where is the energy independence in that observation? Next we?ll be buying our electricity from the Russians, Chinese, and quite possibly the Iranians, if this nonsense continues. Please bring this to the attention of your local environmental lobbying office. It's something that might move Exelon Corp into action. ------------------ Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Four employees at a nuclear plant in Japan were splashed by radioactive water during a routine inspection. The workers' health and the area had been unaffected by the incident, the plant's operators, Kansai Electric Power Co, were quoted as saying. The water, with traces of radiation, leaked at the Takahama No 1 reactor in Fukui, in western Japan. Japan's nuclear industry has been hit by a string of mishaps and accidents but most have not involved people. The country is reliant on nuclear power to meet its energy needs, but its shaky safety record has fuelled popular opposition to the plants. Japan's worst nuclear accident also occurred in Fukui prefecture, at the Mihama plant in 2004 when a pipe burst killing five workers. The latest incident took place as the Takahama unit was closed for regular inspection on Sunday, Kansai said in a statement. A reported 370 litres (96 gallons) of the water leaked from a coolant pump, spraying the four staff members but not injuring them. --------------- Nuclear safety guidance published Industry Channel: Energy & Utilities, Source: The Engineer Online - The UK?s principal nuclear regulators have published guidance for an integrated approach to assessing the safety of nuclear power station designs for the protection of people and the environment. `The Generic Assessment of Candidate Nuclear Power Plant Design? has been jointly published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Department of Trade and Industry's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). According to the regulators, early scrutiny of designs will help ensure regulatory resources are applied at a stage when greater influence can be brought to bear. The Government?s report on the Energy Review, `The Energy Challenge?, released on 11 July 2006, stated Government?s belief that nuclear power should have a role in the future UK generating mix, alongside other low-carbon options. Since then, the Department for Trade and Industry has carried out further consultation on the policy framework for new nuclear build, and will be publishing its findings in a White Paper later this year. The Environment Agency (England and Wales) regulates radioactive waste disposal, air quality, cooling water discharges and operation of conventional plant, such as emergency stand-by power supplies and radioactive waste incinerators. It is also involved in flood risk management, contaminated land remediation and construction waste disposal. `Although, ultimately, the Government will decide whether or not nuclear power stations are needed to meet the UK?s energy demands, the Environment Agency insists all nuclear installations meet high standards of safety, security, environmental performance and waste management,? said Environment Agency Head of Radioactive Substances Regulation Joe McHugh. `Assessing designs at an early stage is good for the environment and safety because we can influence the design so as to ensure people and the environment are properly protected. It is good for the public and other stakeholders because they can be well informed and engaged as part of our decision making, and it is good for the companies involved as they can make better informed investment decisions.? The new guidance outlines the information reactor vendors, potential operators and other interested parties will be expected to provide so their proposals can be assessed. It also lists he processes that will be followed to ensure the assessment of generic designs is rigorous and robust, conducted in an open and transparent manner, subject to nuclear security and commercially-confidential restrictions, and involves stakeholders, including the public, at an early stage. At the end of the generic assessment, the regulators will each provide their views about the acceptability of a new nuclear power station design. `If an application is made to build a new nuclear power station on a specific site, the regulators will follow their existing regulatory processes before deciding whether or not to issue a nuclear site licence, environmental authorisations and permits, and security plan approval,? said McHugh. `Where these site-specific applications are based on a generic design that has undergone assessment, the regulators will take full account of the work they have already carried out and would continue to work together at all stages. ` ------------------ RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Manila Times Jan 15 - The Philippines will start studying modern nuclear technology to understand its importance to economic development, but the government has no intention of activating the mothballed Bataan nuclear power plant. "Nuclear activities for peaceful uses by our neighbors affect us economically and environmentally," Energy Secretary Rafael Lotilla told reporters after members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and their East Asian partners signed an energy cooperation agreement. Lotilla said other Asean countries are also currently exploring the possible use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes and Indonesia and Vietnam have likewise expressed interest. Sixteen leaders of Asean and their dialogue partners signed on Monday the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security. "The declaration recognizes that while fossil fuels will continue to be used for a considerable period of time, we can attain greater energy security by among others, promoting energy efficiency, conservation and cleaner technologies, increasing capacity and reducing costs of alternative energy resources," Lotilla said. He added the agreement encourages the use of biofuels and developing freer trade in this alternative form of energy by 2010. President Arroyo said the Asean leaders expressed serious concern over the negative impact of high oil prices on economic growth and development. "The Asean agreed to adopt a strategic approach, to strengthen and promote Asean energy cooperation, especially in key infrastructure projects, including the Asean power grid and Trans-Asean Gas Pipeline," she said. The ultimate goal of the Asean leaders is to create an open energy market, the President added. Malaysia said the plan also includes stockpiling fuel to ensure enough long-term supply for the region, besides the development of renewable energy sources. Lotilla said that the declaration would bring down the cost of putting up renewable energy sources. "Cooperation in this area through the declaration will make having those facilities much easier for us," he pointed out. But Lotilla said Malaysia?s proposal of stockpiling petroleum is not a good option at time because it might add to the volatility of fuel prices. "We should consider other alternatives," he said. Meanwhile, New Zealand and the Philippines have agreed to work on tapping renewable energy sources and putting up air linkages. President Arroyo and New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark will discuss the issues when the Philippine leader visits New Zealand after the May election this year. The two leaders agreed to explore energy cooperation at their bilateral meeting on Sunday in Shangri-La Hotel in Lapu-Lapu City. Clark said New Zealand is willing to share technology with the Philippines, particularly in tapping geothermal energy, which could help the country secure its power needs. ------------------- Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike Press Release: District Health Boards - A pay deal?s been struck with Radiation Therapists who have called off all industrial action. Strikes threatened in Auckland and Wellington on Monday will not go ahead and DHBs will be trying to get back to normal treatment schedules as quickly as possible. Murray Georgel, CEO of MidCentral District Health Board and Spokesperson for the DHBs, says DHBs were able to increase their pay offer when radiation therapists agreed to extend the time the agreement covers. "We?re delighted that the RTS have extended the length of the agreement and reduced their claims so DHBs can stay within our budgets. "The sad thing is there have been more than 270 separate notices of industrial action, hundreds of people have had their treatment disrupted, but the framework for this deal was on the table in the middle of last year. "The lesson from this is that meaningful negotiation is the way to achieve fair and reasonable settlements - not industrial action." Mr Georgel says the package includes 1.0% backdated to April last year, another 1.5% backdated to October and another 2.5% from July this year - on top of the step increases. "The deal means DHBs can start reducing the waiting lists caused by the action over the last four months. Just how long it will take will vary from hospital to hospital." 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jan 15 12:13:23 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:13:23 -0600 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> References: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070115120935.046b0470@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 04:25 PM 1/14/2007, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? Hey, Franz: You misspelled "revealed"...... But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it........ ;~) Doug (looking forward to some postings with a relevant content on Radsafe...) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From radproject at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 15 12:39:21 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:39:21 -0500 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners References: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> <6.2.0.14.2.20070115120935.046b0470@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> Message-ID: <000e01c738d4$78f71770$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hi everyone, Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: >......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >written. Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as "reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. BTW, "How many radsafers does it take to change a lightbulb??" :-) Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linacs, Medical Imaging, and Radiation Instrumentation 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Aitken" To: "Franz Sch?nhofer" ; "'Ruth Sponsler'" ; "'Sandy Perle'" Cc: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:13 PM Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links At 04:25 PM 1/14/2007, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? ============ "Doug Aitken" Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:13 PM wrote: Hey, Franz: You misspelled "revealed"...... But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it........ ;~) Doug (looking forward to some postings with a relevant content on Radsafe...) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/628 - Release Date: 1/15/2007 From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jan 15 14:07:41 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:07:41 -0600 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <000e01c738d4$78f71770$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> References: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> <6.2.0.14.2.20070115120935.046b0470@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> <000e01c738d4$78f71770$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070115140539.0492ea98@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 14:24:25 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:24:25 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Colonel Eric Daxon wrote that the U.S. Veterans' Administration "found that Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than non-Gulf War Veterans. When they actually did the study and examined the medical records, the birth defect rates were equal to the normal population rates," and, "the paper that found that the birth defect rates were equivalent did not receive much press," citing some unpublished research of Dr. Han Kang. Dr. Kang, the Director of the Veterans Administration's Environmental Epidemiology Service, does not agree, stating that the total number of "moderate to severe" birth defects in children of male Gulf War veterans increased from an odds ratio of 1.8 from survey data to 2.2 after the pediatric medical records were examined. Colonel Daxon should have known better than to try to misrepresent Dr. Kang's unpublished results, because a summary of them was published in 2003: "Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans." -- Department of Veterans Affairs (2003) "Q's & A's - New Information Regarding Birth Defects," Gulf War Review, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 10: http://www1.va.gov/gulfwar/docs/GulfWarNov03.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/11/07, Eric D wrote: > Mr. Salsman, > > Your accusation (I am a liar) is unfounded. I provided the information I > based my statements upon and this is an old discussion. A recently released > National Academy of Sciences report (2006) is in line with my original > statement as are the many other independent, published studies cited in this > work. Unpublished results are just that. I would suggest you read earlier > posts that discuss the topic of lying. > > I disagree with your connecting Dr. Kang's results as an endorsement of your > position that DU is a causal factor. There are no data that support your > inference. > > I would like to see the references for "... people to propose using urine > testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage > from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring > exposure to uranium trioxide gas." If anyone on the list has information to > corroborate or to disprove the statement, I would appreciate it. I believe > it to be incorrect. > > Once again you are discussing the vapor issue, the uranium trioxide and DoD > testing which has already been laid to rest multiple times. I skimmed the > 1970 article you provided and saw no mention of uranium trioxide and very > little discussion of uranium. The paper focused on Pu. If you read the > discussion with an understanding of vapors and the experiment itself, the > results are in line with the many articles published since this work was > done. > > Dr. Johnson's statement that you provided in your link was accurate. He > agreed with my statement, I am assuming, because of his study and the rest > of the scientific community's research into the health effects of DU. > > Your argument appears to be that if someone disagrees with you they are > either a "liar" or "...are betraying the interests of truth, science..." > Your post illustrates a previous discussion thread on this web site. > > Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of James Salsman > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 6:07 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor > > When I see posts like this... > > http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-November/004495.html > > I wonder why Dr. Johnson is agreeing with someone who has been proven to > have lied about epidemiological birth defect research results. To make a > long > story short, Dr. Kang, a Veterans Administration epidemiologist, has been > tracking an increasing trend of birth defects in the children of 1991 Gulf > War > veterans, and Colonel Daxon claimed that Dr. Kang's unpublished research > indicated the trend had decreased. In fact, in is increasing more sharply > than > ever. (Roger H, did you ever call Dr. Kang to confirm after I gave > you his phone > number?) > > The only reason I can think that Dr. Johnson would want to agree with a > proven > liar is because he was responsible, in the 1990s for proving the "safety" of > depleted uranium munitions. In doing so, he never considered the amount of > uranium which becomes gas vapor instead of particulates, which settle much > more quickly, when it burns. Neither has anyone else in the military > or industrial > production of DU munitions. > > Sadly, this state of affairs has caused otherwise-intelligent people to > propose > using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring > chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate > method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas. > > I note that fully half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor, see page 836 of > Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the > combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38: > http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf > > I suspect that the people who lie about depleted uranium think that they are > doing our military a favor. In fact, they are betraying the interests > of truth, > science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to > recruit, > upon which they rely. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Mon Jan 15 16:48:23 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:48:23 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20070115140539.0492ea98@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> Message-ID: <000001c738f7$4a4a4f50$49197254@pc1> Dear Dough and all those engaged or interested in this exchange of opinions, Thank you so much for your signature "Doug (just having fun)" and your previous post. I appreciate it and it shows that people on RADSAFE still are open for some humour and putting things into perspective. Thanks to everybody who gave me a lecture in English. I wrote that I am always eager to learn. Of course I intended to write "reveal". Everybody on RADSAFE should have a high enough IQ to find out that English is not my mother tongue or probably understand that the ".at" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Austria which should not be confused with Australia. T-shirts are sold in Vienna to tourists with the slogan "Austria, No Cangaroos". I do not understand how somebody can find out about "nature of the authors of books" by reading them (Bob Gallagher), but if you would refer to books for which I have been a co-editor you could easily find out that I am an expert in LSC. Quite interesting (and "revealing") that according to my stored RADSAFE mails Bob Gallagher hardly participates in RADSAFE technical discussions, except one a few years ago where he stated that the introduction of SI-Units in the USA is not necessary, because people in the USA are used to the pCi, mCi, MCi etc. What a point of view! Syd Levine: The group might be interested into the reliability of a person who has weeks or even months before his travel made appointments with me and has not even bothered to cancel them, but only wrote an e-mail weeks after that event. I think that reliability of a company is a big factor in deciding which services to order. Regarding my English - see my above comments. I am well aware that I am not a native English speaker as you should know, but I would wish you that you spoke half as well German as I speak German, English, Swedish and French. Finally I refer to the comment of Sandy Perle on my message, which reads "the all important country of Namibia". I think that it does not need a native speaker to understand that this is a very humiliating comment on a developing country. Please send any flames to my private address, unless you feel your flaming will gain you extra values at your job. Best wishes Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] Gesendet: Montag, 15. J?nner 2007 21:08 An: stewart farber; Franz Sch?nhofer; 'Ruth Sponsler'; 'Sandy Perle' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 15 17:09:14 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:09:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: Google Alert - Leuren Moret Message-ID: <018901c738fa$30780560$fc435142@roger1> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/AstuciaReport/Astucia_Report_01_14_2007.mp3 For those of you who worked at Lawrence Livermore or who have friends who worked at Lawrence Livermore, Sandia or Los Alamos, you might want to listen to this to see whether or not the story is being distorted. Moret already is Youtube with video claiming that atomic testing has resulted in lowering of SAT scores and rise of autism. She has also claimed that depleted uranium is responsible for worldwide increase in diabetes. She probably is not the one who should be on a two-part series on the Livermore lab. Google Groups Alert for: Leuren Moret The Astucia Report, with guest, Leuren Moret The Astucia Report, with guest, Leuren Moret (PART 1 of 2-PART SERIES) 60 minutes INTERNET RADIO PROGRAM Hosted by writer, Salvador Astucia Sun, January 14, 2007 (first broadcast) Topic of Show: Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and its advocate, the late Edward Teller CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS AND TO ACCESS MP3 FILE. ... alt.politics.bush - Jan 15, 11:22am by Salvador Astucia - 1 message - 1 author From: Salvador Astucia - view profile Date: Mon, Jan 15 2007 12:22 pm Email: "Salvador Astucia" Groups: alt.politics.bush, hawaii.military, soc.culture.iraq, alt.gathering.rainbow Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author The Astucia Report, with guest, Leuren Moret (PART 1 of 2-PART SERIES) 60 minutes INTERNET RADIO PROGRAM Hosted by writer, Salvador Astucia Sun, January 14, 2007 (first broadcast) Topic of Show: Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and its advocate, the late Edward Teller CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS AND TO ACCESS MP3 FILE. j_f_k_m_o_n_t_r_e_a_l.c_o_m (Remove Underlines.) Go to the upper left area of the home page and click "Astucia Report". [NOTE: Google has blocked my USENET messages where I include URLs. BTW, a lot of people think Google is propped up by NSA, and I tend to agree.] Synopsis of Show: This is the first broadcast of the Astucia Report. Our guest is Leuren Moret, geo-scientist, formerly employed at Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab near San Francisco, California. This show is PART 1 of a 2-PART series from a telephone interview conducted on Dec. 11, 2006. Ms. Moret is a critic of US nuclear policy and has lots of interesting thoughts on that and other related topics. The show begins with host, Salvador Astucia, explaining how he was introduced to Ms. Moret by journalist Christopher Bollyn, formerly a writer with American Free Press. Mr. Astucia states that he is interested in Ms. Moret because she has first-hand knowledge of Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, having worked there as a scientist for two years. Mr. Astucia states that he has linked individuals associated with Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab to the assassinations of both President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and ex-Beatle John Lennon. Leuren Moret makes the following observations that are consistent with many aspects of Astucia's research: * Never met or worked with Edward Teller, but saw him from a distance as an old man. He was very grandiose. Ms. Moret discussed Teller with other scientists, some of whom worked with Teller at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project. * The general consensus of Teller, among scientists, was he was a "total failure...gross, uncouth, absolutely disgusting person...nobody liked him," according to Ms. Moret. * Indicated that Teller was not a true intellectual. He essentially stole other people's intellectual properties and took credit for them. * Said Teller was not truly the creator of the Hydrogen Bomb. The mathematics behind the theory for the H-Bomb was done by Stansilaw Ulam who is considered by most scientists to be the true father of the H-Bomb. * Says the nuclear weapons industry often murders people who cause problems. She cites Karen Silkwood as a prime example. She claims Silkwood was murdered by Wackenhut, the security contractor at most nuclear weapons labs and facilities in the USA. * Says she was harassed a great deal by police and military types across the country because she up and left Livermore in disgust; however, she was less of a threat because she did not work on classified projects. * Claims there was a lot of cancer at Livermore Labs. * Stated that Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and Los Alamos are run by the University of California, and employees of both labs are employees of the University. * Indicated that security at Livermore was extremely shoddy. * Stated that there was a strong military presence at Livermore, but she never saw any officers in uniforms. She assumed a lot of the support came from the Navy. (Note: Astucia challenged her on this point, citing historical documents showing the Air Force was Livermore's main supporter.) Comming Soon: http://www.jfkmontreal.com/ - is the home page of Astucia's website Bollyn, Salvador Astucia - My name is Salvador Astucia (pseudonym) and I have written two books, (a) Opium Lords ... I was recently a guest on Piper's radio show, The Piper Report, ... www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-SalvadorAstucia.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages From nssihou at aol.com Mon Jan 15 17:09:01 2007 From: nssihou at aol.com (nssihou at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:09:01 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <000001c738f7$4a4a4f50$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <8C90711474B6A9D-11F0-1222@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com> Its pretty apparent that you have little to do but criticize others. I have litte to say on RadSafe except when one person or topic seems to hog all of the space. It would be appreciated by most on Radsafe if you did the same. Most of us have better things to do than to be an expert in all subjects of radiation. And yes, I continue to feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value. We use SI units when required by the regulatons but internally within our organization, continue to utilize non SI units. Bob Gallagher NSSI -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at To: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com; radproject at sbcglobal.net; jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 2:48 PM Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners Dear Dough and all those engaged or interested in this exchange of opinions, Thank you so much for your signature "Doug (just having fun)" and your previous post. I appreciate it and it shows that people on RADSAFE still are open for some humour and putting things into perspective. Thanks to everybody who gave me a lecture in English. I wrote that I am always eager to learn. Of course I intended to write "reveal". Everybody on RADSAFE should have a high enough IQ to find out that English is not my mother tongue or probably understand that the ".at" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Austria which should not be confused with Australia. T-shirts are sold in Vienna to tourists with the slogan "Austria, No Cangaroos". I do not understand how somebody can find out about "nature of the authors of books" by reading them (Bob Gallagher), but if you would refer to books for which I have been a co-editor you could easily find out that I am an expert in LSC. Quite interesting (and "revealing") that according to my stored RADSAFE mails Bob Gallagher hardly participates in RADSAFE technical discussions, except one a few years ago where he stated that the introduction of SI-Units in the USA is not necessary, because people in the USA are used to the pCi, mCi, MCi etc. What a point of view! Syd Levine: The group might be interested into the reliability of a person who has weeks or even months before his travel made appointments with me and has not even bothered to cancel them, but only wrote an e-mail weeks after that event. I think that reliability of a company is a big factor in deciding which services to order. Regarding my English - see my above comments. I am well aware that I am not a native English speaker as you should know, but I would wish you that you spoke half as well German as I speak German, English, Swedish and French. Finally I refer to the comment of Sandy Perle on my message, which reads "the all important country of Namibia". I think that it does not need a native speaker to understand that this is a very humiliating comment on a developing country. Please send any flames to my private address, unless you feel your flaming will gain you extra values at your job. Best wishes Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] Gesendet: Montag, 15. J?nner 2007 21:08 An: stewart farber; Franz Sch?nhofer; 'Ruth Sponsler'; 'Sandy Perle' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation _______________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Mon Jan 15 17:47:58 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:47:58 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <8C90711474B6A9D-11F0-1222@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Bob Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that having two "systems" is the problem. FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? 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 nssihou at aol.com Sent: January 15, 2007 3:09 PM To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com; radproject at sbcglobal.net; jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners Its pretty apparent that you have little to do but criticize others. I have litte to say on RadSafe except when one person or topic seems to hog all of the space. It would be appreciated by most on Radsafe if you did the same. Most of us have better things to do than to be an expert in all subjects of radiation. And yes, I continue to feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value. We use SI units when required by the regulatons but internally within our organization, continue to utilize non SI units. Bob Gallagher NSSI -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at To: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com; radproject at sbcglobal.net; jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 2:48 PM Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners Dear Dough and all those engaged or interested in this exchange of opinions, Thank you so much for your signature "Doug (just having fun)" and your previous post. I appreciate it and it shows that people on RADSAFE still are open for some humour and putting things into perspective. Thanks to everybody who gave me a lecture in English. I wrote that I am always eager to learn. Of course I intended to write "reveal". Everybody on RADSAFE should have a high enough IQ to find out that English is not my mother tongue or probably understand that the ".at" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Austria which should not be confused with Australia. T-shirts are sold in Vienna to tourists with the slogan "Austria, No Cangaroos". I do not understand how somebody can find out about "nature of the authors of books" by reading them (Bob Gallagher), but if you would refer to books for which I have been a co-editor you could easily find out that I am an expert in LSC. Quite interesting (and "revealing") that according to my stored RADSAFE mails Bob Gallagher hardly participates in RADSAFE technical discussions, except one a few years ago where he stated that the introduction of SI-Units in the USA is not necessary, because people in the USA are used to the pCi, mCi, MCi etc. What a point of view! Syd Levine: The group might be interested into the reliability of a person who has weeks or even months before his travel made appointments with me and has not even bothered to cancel them, but only wrote an e-mail weeks after that event. I think that reliability of a company is a big factor in deciding which services to order. Regarding my English - see my above comments. I am well aware that I am not a native English speaker as you should know, but I would wish you that you spoke half as well German as I speak German, English, Swedish and French. Finally I refer to the comment of Sandy Perle on my message, which reads "the all important country of Namibia". I think that it does not need a native speaker to understand that this is a very humiliating comment on a developing country. Please send any flames to my private address, unless you feel your flaming will gain you extra values at your job. Best wishes Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] Gesendet: Montag, 15. J?nner 2007 21:08 An: stewart farber; Franz Sch?nhofer; 'Ruth Sponsler'; 'Sandy Perle' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation _______________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Mon Jan 15 18:05:58 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:05:58 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: References: <8C90711474B6A9D-11F0-1222@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com>, Message-ID: <45ABA666.28570.13922579@sandyfl.cox.net> Hi John, I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and scientific community is getting smaller all the time. There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing instrumentation and read-out devices. I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. Regards, Sandy On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: > Bob > > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that having two "systems" is the problem. > > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. > > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jan 15 20:16:45 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:16:45 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> If anyone remains interested in your (Salsman's) claims, one must grind through 7 pages of the pdf reference in order to approach the Kang tentative report on page 10. A couple pages of discussion of this whole topic illustrates how evanescent the topic is. In my opinion, you (Salsman) are not promoting clarification of these issues. Moreover, perusal of the Dec 2006 meeting report of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses might convince one how tentative are solutions due in part to the breadth and vague nature of these interests. That report can be seen at: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/AnnualReport_Dec2006.pdf It really is unfortunate that so many problems remain beyond definitive scientific settlement, notwithstanding sincere desires. Sigh .... Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) ======================= James Salsman wrote: > Colonel Eric Daxon wrote that the U.S. Veterans' Administration > "found that Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than > non-Gulf War Veterans. When they actually did the study and examined > the medical records, the birth defect rates were equal to the normal > .... ' -------------------snipped------------ From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 20:44:08 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:08 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: This review of over 74 studies on the subject is not evanescent at all: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." -- Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 This has been discussed at length before, but Colonel Daxon tries to imply that it is incorrect: > I disagree with your connecting Dr. Kang's results as an endorsement of your > position that DU is a causal factor. There are no data that support your inference. > > I would like to see the references for "... people to propose using urine > testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage > from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring > exposure to uranium trioxide gas." If anyone on the list has information to > corroborate or to disprove the statement, I would appreciate it. I believe > it to be incorrect. Schr?der H, Heimers A, Frentzel-Beyme R, Schott A, Hoffman W (2003) "Chromosome Aberration Analysis in Peripheral Lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War Veterans" Radiation Protection Dosimetry 103: 211-219: http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf "It is concluded that ... urine assay could be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake.... The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days.... However, if urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable." -- Ansoborlo E (1998). "Exposure implications for uranium aerosols formed at a new laser enrichment facility: application of the ICRP respiratory tract and systemic model" Radiation Protection Dosimetry 79: 23-27: http://www.bovik.org/du/Ansoborlo98.pdf Colonel Daxon's lies continue: > Once again you are discussing the vapor issue, the uranium trioxide and > DoD testing which has already been laid to rest multiple times. Fact: Neither the DoD, nor any of its contractors, have ever measured the gas vapor products of uranium combustion. They have only measured the aerosol particulates, which settle from the air much faster. This includes those who have been responsible for the safety of those using pyrophoric uranium munitions, including Dr. Johnson, Colonels Daxon and Cherry, all of whom read RADSAFE, and Drs. Mishima, Parkhurst, etc., and all of the regulators at the NRC. It has required me, an amateur, to bring the fact that there even are gaseous combustion products of uranium to all of them in the first place. I challenge anyone to produce any document showing that any U.S. military organization or contractor ever considered any gaseous combustion product of uranium prior to 2005. What level of professional competence should we demand from those entrusted with the safety of soldiers and their children? Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/15/07, Maury Siskel wrote: > > If anyone remains interested in your (Salsman's) claims, one must grind > through 7 pages of the pdf reference in order to approach the Kang > tentative report on page 10. A couple pages of discussion of this whole > topic illustrates how evanescent the topic is. In my opinion, you (Salsman) > are not promoting clarification of these issues. Moreover, perusal of the > Dec 2006 meeting report of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War > Veterans Illnesses might convince one how tentative are solutions due in > part to the breadth and vague nature of these interests. That report can be > seen at: > http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/AnnualReport_Dec2006.pdf > It really is unfortunate that so many problems remain beyond definitive > scientific settlement, notwithstanding sincere desires. Sigh .... > Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) > ======================= > James Salsman wrote: > Colonel Eric Daxon wrote that the U.S. Veterans' Administration "found that > Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than non-Gulf War Veterans. > When they actually did the study and examined the medical records, the birth > defect rates were equal to the normal .... ' > -------------------snipped------------ > From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 15 21:50:35 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:50:35 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871><45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: <00ba01c73922$91aaa720$70425142@roger1> Hindin is the lead off .. all Hindin did was review studies recommended by the Traprock Peace Center .. their article was not peer reviewed and you will also note that Hindin quickly dropped off the radar screen - had thus really been serious academic research, Hindin would be the one touring instead of Douglas Lind Rokke or Leuren Moret. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor This review of over 74 studies on the subject is not evanescent at all: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." -- Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 23:17:37 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:17:37 -0800 Subject: Hindin (was Re: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor) Message-ID: On 1/15/07, Roger Helbig wrote: > all Hindin did was review studies recommended by the Traprock Peace Center Are you suggesting that the 74 studies Hindin and her coauthors cite are not comprehensive? What would you add to them? > their article was not peer reviewed That's completely false. Environmental Health is a peer-reviewed journal recognized as such by MEDLINE, CAS, CABI, Scopus, and Embase, with a professional and qualified editorial board: http://www.ehjournal.net/edboard/ > you will also note that Hindin quickly dropped off the radar screen Nonsense, she's a PhD MPH epidemiologist and faculty at the University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences at Amherst, and she has been publishing since the 1970s. You can reach her via rhindin at gmail dot com if you have questions. Sincerely, James Salmsan From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 15 23:32:37 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:32:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health Message-ID: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> From: "David Ozonoff" To: "Roger Helbig" Cc: "Grandjean Philippe" Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:23 AM Subject: Re: Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health Dear Mr. Helbig Our peer review process is described on the web page. It is essentially identical to those of other peer review journals except that it is "open," that is, not anonymous. You can see the reviews by clicking on "Pre-publication history" on the website. We require any disclosure of conflicts of interest. If you have technical comments, we would consider publishing them in the form of a Letter. Sincerely yours dave ozonoff On Sep 10, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > Professor Ozonoff, > > I would like to know how your publication performs peer review of > manuscripts to assure the public that research articles represent > sound science and are not politically biased. In particular, I am > concerned with the research article "Teratogenicity of depleted > uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective" > which appears at http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/ > 1476-069X-4-17.pdf . > > The principal researcher Rita Hindin openly admits to being > politically motivated to enter into this literature survey research > on page 47 of the article > > "Sunny Miller, executive director of Traprock Peace Center of > Deerfield, MA hosted a presentation by Damacio Lopez (director of > IDUST, International Depleted Uranium Study Team) > http://www.idust.net/#HISTORY > which Rita Hindin attended and that eventually led to the writing > of this paper. Our appreciation. Thanks to Dan Bishop (of IDUST) > and Tom Fasy (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, NYC) for their assistance > early on explicating DU toxicology, and to the > Uranium Weapons Study Team (of Traprock Peace Center) for > thoughtful conversations and support to explore leads and deepen > understanding of DU. Thanks to the conveners and attendees of the > World Uranium Weapons Conference Hamburg Germany, October 16 - 19, > 2003. Of greatest importance, Rita's attendance afforded her the > opportunity to > share thoughtful conversation with and learn from Iraqi > researchers, Drs. Jennan Hassan, Jawad Al-Ali and Souad Al-Azzawi. > We offer deep thanks, appreciation and respect for the information > they shared, and for work that they and their colleagues are > doing. We deeply appreciate the reporters and activists who have > managed, against great odds, to report bits of information out of > Iraq and who, as responsible, thoughtful citizens of many > countries, assert their dignity and demand appropriate response to > the challenges posed by DU aerosols. Rita also had the opportunity > to speak with and learn from Drs. Chris Busby and Michel Fernex at > the Hamburg conference. Their contributions to this paper stem from > their long-term, on-going, related research as well as, more > particularly, to the helpful and thoughtful comments they gave as > peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript. Thanks to Tova Neugut > for insightful conversations and for reading many early drafts of > the manuscript. Jaime DeLemos helped us figure out the chemistry of > depleted uranium." > > and the materials researched clearly show a bias against the use of > depleted uranium munitions and do not show an objective approach to > science. > > I look forward to your detailed description of the peer review > process as it applied to this specific research article. When you > determine that the entire research was biased and not objective, > please, remove this publication from your website and indicate why > it has been removed for failing to meet objective scientific > standards. > > Thank you. > > Roger Helbig > From rhelbig at california.com Tue Jan 16 04:19:41 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:19:41 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tate Britain Current Exhibitions Mark Wallinger Message-ID: <004201c73957$e001c9a0$29435142@roger1> This exhibit contains photos reputed to be of birth defects resulting from the use of depleted uranium ... this peace protester began when all he knew was what the Saddam government wanted him to know about depleted uranium. The anti-DU crusaders including Mohammed Daud Miraki who is listed in the copyright credits (and who is suspected of being a con artist in addition to faking the photos for which he has the copyright) are ecstatic about this exhibition, which gets even more worldwide exposure to their false claims. http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/wallinger/ Head of Press Helen Beeckmans Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7887 4940 Email: helen.beeckmans at tate.org.uk From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jan 16 09:09:53 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:09:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Greg Clary The Westchester Journal News (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of strontium-90. The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with detectible amounts. The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area and the rest from around Indian Point. "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied immediately." The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without locating the source. Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last week. Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 picocuries per kilogram. Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. GCLARY at lohud.com 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 From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jan 16 09:11:17 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:11:17 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Recall: Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3F@mail.nymc.edu> The sender would like to recall the message, "Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90". From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jan 16 09:13:10 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:13:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C40@mail.nymc.edu> Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Greg Clary The Westchester Journal News (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of strontium-90. The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with detectible amounts. The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area and the rest from around Indian Point. "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied immediately." The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without locating the source. Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last week. Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 picocuries per kilogram. Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. GCLARY at lohud.com 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 From pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us Tue Jan 16 09:59:42 2007 From: pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:59:42 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] OSHA and EDE In-Reply-To: <45AA259D.1458.DB3125D@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45AA259D.1458.DB3125D@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <45AC93FE020000360000DCDA@dphe.state.co.us> Not just OSHA, but also MSHA, who follows OSHA, and not just for EDE. We are looking at renewed interest in uranium mining, and the way MSHA calculates dose for the uranium miners should be updated to be consistent with the rest of the world. Phil Egidi >>> "Sandy Perle" 01/14/07 1:44 PM >>> Thanks to those who responded to my request for the current status of OSHA regulations with respect to EDE calculations. Apparently OSHA still does not permit the use of EDE. Perhaps it's time for ACR, AAPM and other organizations with a vested interest in this ruling will once again approach OSHA to revise its regulations to be consistent with other state and federal agencies, and allow the use of NCRP 122 approved methodologies. It is a shame that physicians and technologists can not take advantage of dose weighting methodologies. Unfortunately, this ruling forces many individuals to simply not wear personnel monitoring devices when their cumulative dose approaches regulatory limit (told to me my several individuals). Reasonable regulatory decisions would actually lead to better radiation practices my those who are exposed to higher doses from these applications. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 bobcherry at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 16 10:16:30 2007 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (bobcherry at satx.rr.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:16:30 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 In-Reply-To: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> References: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: Those Sr-90 concentrations are probably about the same as in my old bones. Turned 60 last October, Bob C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:18 am Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 To: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve , radsafe at radlab.nl > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago > at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four > withdetectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late > summer- six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon > Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 > percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If > indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so > far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 16 11:05:39 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Birth Defects from Saddammizing - not DU (Tate Britain Current Exhibitions Mark Wallinger) In-Reply-To: <004201c73957$e001c9a0$29435142@roger1> Message-ID: <700724.17097.qm@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Read "Hell Is Over", interviews with dozens of Kurds to see the malnutrition, cold, sarin and organic cynaide gassing and detruction of 4,500 villages (of 5,000) to see causes of birth defects. DU was minimal there, in that genocide of Saddamizing. Kurds now show great gratitude to Americans, especially Bush. Howard Long Roger Helbig wrote: This exhibit contains photos reputed to be of birth defects resulting from the use of depleted uranium ... this peace protester began when all he knew was what the Saddam government wanted him to know about depleted uranium. The anti-DU crusaders including Mohammed Daud Miraki who is listed in the copyright credits (and who is suspected of being a con artist in addition to faking the photos for which he has the copyright) are ecstatic about this exhibition, which gets even more worldwide exposure to their false claims. http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/wallinger/ Head of Press Helen Beeckmans Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7887 4940 Email: helen.beeckmans at tate.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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 molex77 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 11:22:47 2007 From: molex77 at yahoo.com (michael olex) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:22:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] non-lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology Message-ID: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello all, Does anyone have any strong feelings regarding the use of non-lead based apparel in a diagnostic radiology department. We're mainly looking at Xenolite-NL due to the weight, lack of disposal issues, and performance. However, I'm a little hesitant due the transmission through the Xenolite at energies above 100 kVp. Does anyone use this regularly and have any words of wisdom to offer? Mike Olex, MS Medical Physicst molex77 at yahoo.com "There is nothing permanent except CHANGE" -Heraclitus From Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Tue Jan 16 12:59:34 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:59:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Message-ID: ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? From spencer.fisher at opg.com Tue Jan 16 13:05:16 2007 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:05:16 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units Message-ID: Last November I attended three Categorical Courses in Diagnostic Radiology Physics at the RSNA/AAPM meeting in Chicago. The courses were on X-Ray Imaging and Radiation Dose Optimization. All the units given in the course were in SI units. All of the speakers were Americans, and all of the examples shown were US exampled. In addition, almost all of the machines that display the Dose Area Product do so in cGy and rad, since 1 cGy = 1 rad. This includes many of the machines that are manufactured in the USA. The x-ray companies are multinational and want a product that can be used anywhere. Spencer M. Fisher Health Physicist- Field Support Radiation Protection Department 1549 Victoria St. E. Whitby, Ont L1N 9E3 905-430-2215 ext 3290 Fax: 905-430-8583 Pager: 416-372-9353 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From syd.levine at mindspring.com Tue Jan 16 13:10:07 2007 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:10:07 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 References: Message-ID: <011001c739a1$f48a2300$0100a8c0@House> I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the below comment. But on serious reflection, this is the obvious explanation for this problem. The quality of analytical thinking on this list is remarkable! ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:59 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 > > ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Tue Jan 16 13:39:17 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:39:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF79@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, so it had to be introduced into the food matrix artificially. That is obvious. But with a half-life of 29+ years, and the distance some fish cover in their respective lifetimes, the Sr-90 could have come from just about anywhere. Just because the fish was caught one place doesn't mean that's anywhere near where it came into contact with the radio-isotope. Floyd W. FlaniganB.S.Nuc.h.p. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:00 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? _______________________________________________ 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 Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Tue Jan 16 14:03:21 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:03:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes Message-ID: > Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish . . . Owwww, I know that ! After having been through the grind with the tooth fairy folks, that was my 1st thought . . .OINC. Radioactive material is everywhere, all ya got's to do is look hard enough. From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Tue Jan 16 14:20:02 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:20:02 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plantcontain strontium-90 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF7B@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Okay ... I re-read this. "Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week." "upriver" ... I have always been under the impression that if the fish came from upriver of the plant, the whatever is in them came from someplace else. Is this just a typo or are they saying the Sr-90 from the plant has found its way upstream? I'm having issues with that part. Floyd -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of bobcherry at satx.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:17 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plantcontain strontium-90 Those Sr-90 concentrations are probably about the same as in my old bones. Turned 60 last October, Bob C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:18 am Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 To: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve , radsafe at radlab.nl > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago > at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four > withdetectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late > summer- six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon > Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 > percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If > indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so > far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 radproject at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 16 14:31:46 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:31:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain [reduced] strontium-90 -"A red-herring??" Message-ID: <003001c739ad$57900450$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> I noted the following post was being held for review by the list moderator, since I sent it from another email address: ======================================================= Hello all, As is well established, one does not have Sr-90 released from a nuclear plant without much higher total activity of Cs-137 [i.e.: for unit release of Sr-90, the Cs-137 release >>> 1]. Lots of reasons related to waste control systems and behavior of Sr-90 vs. Cs-137 regarding fractionation in any leakage path, but not necessary to go into details. Cs-137 once released into the environment will be concentrated in fish much more than Sr-90 for any concentration in water [especially in fresh water]. So any release of activity from Indian Point [or any nuclear plant], if significant vs. background levels of these isotopes residual from bomb testing, would result in elevated Cs-137 in fish before anything significant showed up with measured Sr-90 activity. The low levels of Sr-90 reported in this news article are almost certainly an analytical artifact. Since half of the fish sampled 10 miles upriver [what would be considered a "background" area had Sr-90, one-third higher than fish taken near the plant, it is unlikely the plant and its recent releases of Sr-90 [or Cs-137] are connected in any way. Without much elevated levels of Cs-137 in all of these fish, especially those sampled near the plant, this whole issue of supposed slightly elevated Sr-90 in fish sampled near and upriver is likely just a "red herring" being promoted by those with an anti-nuclear agenda to scare the public. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ====================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" To: "Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:09 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with > detectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer > - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 From SAFarber at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 16 13:54:38 2007 From: SAFarber at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:54:38 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain [reduced] strontium-90 -"A red-herring??" References: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c739a8$278d5050$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello all, As is well established, one does not have Sr-90 released from a nuclear plant without much higher total activity of Cs-137 [i.e.: for unit release of Sr-90, the Cs-137 release >>> 1]. Lots of reasons related to waste control systems and behavior of Sr-90 vs. Cs-137 regarding fractionation in any leakage path, but not necessary to go into details. Cs-137 once released into the environment will be concentrated in fish much more than Sr-90 for any concentration in water [especially in fresh water]. So any release of activity from Indian Point [or any nuclear plant], if significant vs. background levels of these isotopes residual from bomb testing, would result in elevated Cs-137 in fish before anything significant showed up with measured Sr-90 activity. The low levels of Sr-90 reported in this news article are almost certainly an analytical artifact. Since half of the fish sampled 10 miles upriver [what would be considered a "background" area had Sr-90, one-third higher than fish taken near the plant, it is unlikely the plant and its recent releases of Sr-90 [or Cs-137] are connected in any way. Without much elevated levels of Cs-137 in all of these fish, especially those sampled near the plant, this whole issue of supposed slightly elevated Sr-90 in fish sampled near and upriver is likely just a "red herring" being promoted by those with an anti-nuclear agenda to scare the public. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ====================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" To: "Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:09 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with > detectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer > - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Tue Jan 16 14:37:06 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:37:06 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dosimetry Message-ID: I am going to be needing a dosimetry system for measuring the dose to stowaways from 3 thru 9 MeV pulsed LINAC non-intrusive Inspection systems. The roughly measured dose is in the range of 300-700 microrem per scan. The second issue is the photo neutrons generated. Here we expect a very minimal dose until we get into the very high end of the range. I am not looking forward to having to run dosimeters through the system hunderds of times to get meaningful results. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Regards, Luke McCormick From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Tue Jan 16 15:05:52 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:05:52 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Message-ID: In 1965 that part of the country had Sr-90 deposits in the range of 80 millicuries per square kilometer from fallout. In 1982 the average New York City diet was around 5 picocuries per day. Add a half life and expect it to be about 2.5 pCi/day now. these numbers are from Environmental Radioactivity by Eisenbud (my prized signed edition) Luke ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Author: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl Date: 1/16/2007 2:39 PM Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, so it had to be introduced into the food matrix artificially. That is obvious. But with a half-life of 29+ years, and the distance some fish cover in their respective lifetimes, the Sr-90 could have come from just about anywhere. Just because the fish was caught one place doesn't mean that's anywhere near where it came into contact with the radio-isotope. Floyd W. FlaniganB.S.Nuc.h.p. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:00 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? _______________________________________________ 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Tue Jan 16 15:13:51 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:13:51 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070116131158.02c53fb8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 12:03 PM 1/16/2007, Pete_Bailey at fpl.com wrote: >Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish . . . ***************************** January 17, 2007 Almost all the strontium-90 is in the skeleton. Who eats fish bones? 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 sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 16 15:25:07 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:25:07 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case Message-ID: <11427103.1168982707523.JavaMail.root@fed1wml07.mgt.cox.net> Index: Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case Nuclear plants getting warmer reactions AZ nuclear plant operator asks regulators not to lower safety rating Protection Against Lethal, Whole-Body Radiation Firm gets OK to test radiation drug Radiation: more than 100 test positive Iran to build 10 nuclear plants ================================ Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to decide whether a potential terrorist attack must be considered as part of a U.S. government agency's environmental review of a nuclear power plant's expansion plans. Without comment, the justices declined to hear an appeal by PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit arguing a lower court should not have required the environmental impact review of potential sabotage from a terrorist attack. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group supported the company's appeal and said Congress never intended for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to address issues of national security or threat assessments. As part of its expansion plans at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo, California, Pacific Gas & Electric seeks to construct and operate spent-fuel storage capacity. A U.S. appeals court ruled last year that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission violated federal environmental law by failing to undertake the review. The NRC had said the possibility of a terrorist attack was so remote and speculative that no environmental review was needed. The Bush administration told the Supreme Court the appeals court ruling was wrong, but said the justices did not have to decide the case. The administration said it is unclear at this time how burdensome the ruling will turn out to be. The lawsuit challenging the NRC's decision to authorize the license for the facility was brought by the Sierra Club and a group called the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. --------------- Nuclear plants getting warmer reactions WASHINGTON The Dallas Morning News ? The U.S. nuclear power industry is planning for a renaissance, drawing up its first applications to build nuclear plants since the 1970s. Just a decade ago, many energy executives didn't think nuclear power had much of a future. Strict regulations had led to costly downtime for reactors. The public showed little interest in betting billions on new plants. DEAN HOLLINGSWORTH/DMN Instead of fading away, the industry launched a revival, using a friendlier political climate to spur a regulatory overhaul. Rules that had led to lengthy investigations and plant shutdowns became less restrictive. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission started embracing industry efforts to create alternative, less costly regulations. Today, the turnaround is nearly complete. The electricity output of the nation's remaining 103 reactors is at or near record highs. Power providers banking on getting a hand from Uncle Sam Republicans and Democrats ? and a growing number of environmentalists ? are embracing nuclear power as a critical response to global warming and reliance on unstable oil suppliers. And Wall Street is slowly warming up to the idea of new construction. The change in direction came in large part by reshaping a regulatory environment that often meant the difference between a profit and loss ? and whether a plant could afford to operate. Some industry critics say the regulatory changes have lowered safety standards, increasing the risk to the public. Lessons from past accidents and near-misses, they say, are being written off. "It's a must for this industry to lower its costs in an increasingly competitive electricity market," said Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group that opposes nuclear power. "That comes at a cost to public safety, health and security." The industry slowly won over key lawmakers and regulators in the 1990s by making the case that many of the prescriptive rules created earlier for a nascent industry imposed heavy burdens without much of a safety benefit. Central to the effort was reassessing the risk of accidents and breakdowns based on a plant's history and industry experience, rather than trying to protect against an unlikely "perfect storm" scenario. "You can focus on what really matters and get some cost reductions at the same time," said Tony Pietrangelo, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. The effort helped to improve the industry's overall operational performance dramatically. Unplanned reactor shutdowns for six months or more dropped from more than 120 reactor months in 1997 to 10 months or less for most of this decade, according to NRC figures. Better performance Sharp drops in refueling times and offline maintenance sent capacity factors ? a measure of a plant's efficiency ? from 71 percent in 1997 to more than 90 percent today, government data show. And the average cost of producing a kilowatt-hour of nuclear power fell 28 percent to 1.72 cents in 2005 from 2.38 cents in 1997. The performance won nuclear plants credibility as a reliable source of power, setting the stage for new construction. More than 30 new reactors are under consideration nationwide. Dallas-based TXU Corp. has said it's interested in building as many as six new reactors, likely to include an expansion of its Comanche Peak plant southwest of Dallas. Nuclear developers are betting on a new generation of technology to avoid past licensing and construction delays. They're also counting on a more accommodating regulatory environment. Critics of nuclear power warn that the bullish environment could end with a single accident. An accident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., led to a public backlash and widespread cancellations of new projects. A scare They cite one of the most recent close calls, in 2002, when workers at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio found a football-size hole in the nuclear reactor vessel head caused by a boric acid leak. If the hole had opened up, it could've caused a meltdown. The NRC's inspector general later found that the agency's staff had accepted a request from the plant operator, FirstEnergy Corp., to continue operating to avoid financial losses from a shutdown. Watchdog groups say that's part of the risk that comes from relaxing requirements. "The NRC is trusting the plant owners more and more to get it right," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and safety expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Davis-Besse and some of the others show what happens when that trust is misplaced." Industry officials criticized FirstEnergy and maintained that it wasn't representative of conditions at other reactors. They say that safety has only improved under the newer approach of allocating resources based on risk. Lawmakers and other government officials who support nuclear power have pushed to ease the regulatory burden since the early 1990s. The first Bush administration and the Clinton administration supported plans to cut regulations across the government. The industry regained congressional support as environmental concerns grew; by the end of the decade, leading lawmakers were threatening to slash the NRC's budget if it didn't ease its grip on the industry. By the late 1990s, the industry was proposing regulatory changes and in many cases attaching figures of cost savings, part of the "risk-informed" approach of focusing on what's probable rather than simply possible. For instance, revamping the regulations for emergency core cooling systems in a reactor could save $3 million per unit, according to one Nuclear Energy Institute estimate. Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace, which opposes nuclear power, calls the overhaul over the last decade a "regulatory retreat" in the face of industry pressure. 'Stop signs' Mr. Riccio said the industry's efforts to deregulate technical specifications ? rules for equipment operations and testing at a plant ? led the NRC to remove 40 percent of the "stop signs" that would force a plant to shut down. "The public is going to be exposed to more risk, while the industry is exposed to less regulation," he said. The NRC and industry faced a barrage of criticism throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Nuclear plant owners accused the agency of using vague guidelines, imposing unreasonable requirements or meddling beyond their scope. The NRC took heat from lawmakers and the public for not always enforcing the rules it created. Some of the decades-long battles, such as how to protect against fires inside a plant, are still being resolved today. A 1975 incident at Alabama's Browns Ferry nuclear facility exposed how nuclear plants are vulnerable to fire. A worker using a candle set cables ablaze, with a fire that burned for seven hours and shorted out the plant's backup safety systems. Regulations In the years that followed, the NRC created regulations requiring protection of at least one set of equipment needed to shut down a plant safely. Dozens of plants failed to comply with the requirements. Some utilities used fire barriers that turned out to be faulty. Many sought exemptions from the NRC to use manual actions ? a worker physically pulling breakers during a fire, for instance. The industry argued that the rules were applied regardless of the chance of a fire in a particular location, and sought a new standard ? being implemented today ? based on the likely risk of ignition of a piece of equipment at a particular plant. The new standard, which 41 plants say they plan to adopt, is "the best thing that's happened to fire protection," said Alex Marion, the Nuclear Energy Institute's executive director for nuclear operations and engineering. Nuclear reactors that accept the new system would be given a pass for not being compliant with the original rules. NRC and industry officials say it's a common-sense approach to solving a longstanding problem. Changing focus "You try to shift the focus ... to what's really important to safety as opposed to your compliance requirements," said Sunil Weerakkody, chief of the NRC's fire-protection branch. Mr. Gunter, of the nuclear watchdog group NIRS, said the reliance on probabilities should not be a primary protection "particularly in a post-9/11 world." "These are all backdoor approaches ... rather than state-of-the-art fire-protection features," he said. TXU was among the companies cited for fire-safety violations, receiving notice of noncompliance in 1998. A TXU spokesman says the company is now in compliance ? without signing on to the new rule ? and had no fire-safety violations in the NRC's last inspection there in 2005. Reactivating activists Even as many companies are looking toward the next round of plants, the regulatory overhaul is starting to draw attention from activists from the last era. Among the NRC's new rules is one that allows nuclear operators to reclassify safety-related parts. The move would allow existing plants to purchase less-expensive commercial-grade parts instead of the nuclear-grade materials that were previously required. Three senior engineers inside the NRC protested the rule, saying it could not provide adequate assurances of protecting public safety. But the changes were ultimately passed over their objections. For Steve Comley, a nuclear activist now living in Florida, the new standards ? that plants could voluntarily adopt ? draw parallels to the problem of substandard and counterfeit parts in nuclear power plants in the 1980s. At the time, 72 out of the nation's 113 licensed reactors were found to have parts such as fasteners, valves and circuit breakers that did not conform to their safety specifications. Some were provided by counterfeit suppliers that later faced criminal charges. The industry says the parts were replaced. But Mr. Comley says the issue lost attention in the late 1990s and never received the full inspection that was promised. "They haven't proved the plants are safe," said Mr. Comley, whose group, We the People, drew attention to the counterfeit parts issue. "They don't want to know. If that isn't putting safety second to the profits of the industry, I don't know what is." Mr. Comley has spent the last year gathering dozens of letters of support from activists around the country in a bid for a congressional investigation of nuclear plants' parts and the NRC's new regulatory stance. ---------------------- Arizona nuclear plant operator asks regulators not to lower safety rating PHOENIX Mohave Daily News AP - The operator of the nation's largest nuclear power plant complex will plead with federal regulators Tuesday to reconsider a negative safety finding that if upheld would move the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station into the worst performance category. Arizona Public Service will appear before regulators in Texas and try to show that an emergency backup generator that was inoperative for 18 days and unreliable for 40 days last year was only a minor risk. Emergency generators at nuclear reactors are critically important because they provide electricity to pumps, valves and control rooms if the main electrical supply fails. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines that is anything greater than a minor safety issue, the triple-reactor plant would be bumped into the commission's most stringent reactor performance category. That would trigger even more stringent oversight by regulators, who already have stepped up inspections following two years of failures and problems at the plant west of Phoenix. The failed generator was partnered with a second that remained operational. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, requires two sources of backup power for each reactor, a common approach with virtually all safety systems at nuclear plants. Arizona Public Service, or APS, said it will present technical arguments at the hearing that it hopes will show that the failure wasn't a serious safety issue. Jim McDonald, a spokesman for APS, downplayed the significance of any safety downgrade on how the plant is operated, or on costs for APS or the consortium of companies in four states that own the plant. ??We know that we have issues at Palo Verde that need to be resolved. We know that there are a lot of human issues that need to be improved upon,'' McDonald said. ??Obviously we would prefer to stay out of category 4 - but that work's going to get done either way.'' Last month, the NRC backed away from a similar safety downgrade after a hearing with APS officials. That review was prompted by inspectors' discovery in September that heat exchangers that cool emergency equipment and spent fuel storage areas had been fouled by years of plant technicians using an improper chemical mix. The chemical residue on the heat exchangers lowered their efficiency, but had a very low risk of triggering a serious failure in a crisis, regulators determined. Nonetheless, they called the problem ??particularly egregious'' because it went undetected for years, and another example of repeated problems at Palo Verde since 2004. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer for the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, said regulators should step in and increase oversight at Palo Verde. ??This latest event, coupled with the event from the year before, shows that the company isn't finding problems. They're waiting on the NRC or for them to self-reveal, which isn't the way it is supposed to work,'' Lochbaum said. ??The company is not finding hardly anything - they're relying on outside forces to find them.'' Palo Verde has been on the regulatory hot seat since 2004, when NRC inspectors found that APS had drained a large pipe designed to flood the reactors with water in an emergency years earlier without informing them. Since then, a series of problems has occurred, and APS fired or transferred a dozen supervisors and line workers earlier this year in response to NRC concerns. The company hired a new chief nuclear engineer earlier this month. Randy Edington, 53, will become a senior vice president and chief nuclear officer of the state's largest utility on Jan. 25. The hearing wasn't expected to generate an immediate ruling. Federal regulators were expected to make a final decision on the safety downgrade in several weeks. If Palo Verde is downgraded, it will become the third plant in the nation on the list, out of 103 plants. ---------------- Novel Compound Affords Protection Against Lethal, Whole-Body Radiation Even When Administered Hours After Exposure! Radiology / Nuclear Medicine News - 16 Jan RxBio, Inc., announces that its lead product, RX100, protects against lethal, whole-body radiation when administered before, during, or up to several hours after exposure. Animal studies convincingly demonstrate that RX100 can prevent death if given before or during lethal radiation exposure or rescue life if administered within six hours of lethal, whole-body radiation exposure. According to Gabor Tigyi M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Physiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center: "RX100 is unique among radioprotectants. It is an analog of an endogenous, prosurvival molecule that is metabolically stabilized which boosts natural mechanisms that promote and sustain cell survival while inhibiting the cascade leading to programmed cell death. While other agents shut down essential cellular-signaling mechanisms involved in radiation-induced cellular injury, tend to lack specificity, and may deliver unacceptable toxicities, RX100 is a specific activator of natural, nontoxic, protective mechanisms of cell survival." RX100 is a small molecule (molecular weight <500) that is stable at room temperature, has an excellent shelf life and can be formulated for a wide range of patient types-from infants to the elderly. "This product appears unique as a radioprotectant in that it can be administered orally or by subcutaneous injection before, during, or up to six hours after exposure to lethal, whole-body radiation," stated RxBio Chairman and CEO Dr. W. Shannon McCool. In addition, Rx100 is a potent protector of the gut -- from radiation, chemotherapy, and other toxic substances. Among other things, it prevents the disintegration of the mucosal barrier -- thus, preventing diarrhea and overwhelming bacterial infections, potentially severe side effects from such exposures. Several agencies of the Federal Government have expressed interest in this promising new compound and its unique approach and mechanism. -------------------- Firm gets OK to test radiation drug Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal - Jan 12 - Federal regulators approved Humanetics Corp.'s plans to start clinical trials for its drug used to combat acute radiation sickness. The Eden Prairie-based company's drug, BIO 300, would be used to treat people who have been exposed to radiation as a result of a nuclear blast or "dirty bomb" terrorist attack. ----------------- Radiation: more than 100 test positive Almost one in five of those tested for the radioactive substance which killed a former Russian spy have shown signs of contamination. Urine samples were taken from nearly 600 people who feared they may have been caught up in the scare and of those 120 tested positive with only 13 deemed to have any type of risk to health. Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, said: "There are just over 100 people who had evidence that they were in contact with this radiation polonium-210." She said tests were still being carried out on a number of foreign nationals who may also have been contaminated. The HPA is working with 48 different countries and has identified 450 people who may have been affected worldwide. Former spy Alexander Litvinenko visited a number of venues in central London on the day that he fell ill including the Millennium Hotel, the Itsu sushi bar in Piccadilly and an Italian restaurant in Mayfair. The 43-year-old died in London's University College Hospital in November. Prof Troop said the amount of contamination in his body was "many thousands of times greater" than anyone else who had tested positive for polonium-210. --------------- Iran to build 10 nuclear plants TEHRAN, Jan. 16 Iran says it needs 10 nuclear power plants to keep up with electricity demand, marking a new step in an international row over its uranium enrichment program. Gholam Hossein Elham, a spokesman for the Iranian government, said Monday the country will need more than the 3,000 centrifuges used to produce the nuclear fuel. Iran needs an electricity supply of 10,000 megawatts by nuclear energy, and in order to supply that, we need 10 nuclear plants, Elham said. Elham said all of Tehran's nuclear work will be done with International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, the state-run Fars News Agency reports. Iran faces sanctions by the U.N. Security Council over its decision to continue enriching uranium -- a process to make both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons, depending on the extent of the enrichment. Tehran says it only wants to make nuclear energy and claims the sovereign right to do so as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. A Russian company is building a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, Iran, which would be Iran's first. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Tue Jan 16 15:30:18 2007 From: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:30:18 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] As a refresher: RadSafe Rules Message-ID: <1168983019.8198.3.camel@157-75-dsl.ipact.nl> RadSafe Rules (both general as technical) ________________________________________________________________________ [RadSafe Home] [Version January 2007] Subject to change when applicable (without prior notice). General rules * The list is open to all points of view on radiation protection issues. * The language used on the list is English. * Include a clear and specific subject line. * Edit any quoted text down to the minimum. * Read your own message three times before you post it to RadSafe. * When posting to the list include at least your full name and preferrably, if applicable, address, professional details, etc. * Do not curse, flame, spam, USE ALL CAPS or use only lower case. * (At least) Try to ponder how recipients might react to your message. * Check spelling and grammar. However, since RadSafe is an international list, please understand that a large group of members are non-native English speakers (like the moderator), so don't be to harsh on this. * 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". * When in doubt, save your message overnight and reread it in the light of dawn. * Do not forward any chain letter. * Do not use the list for any illegal or unethical purpose. * That which you find hateful to receive, do not send out to the list. * Commercial postings and advertisements are not allowed. * Job postings will be accepted (both seeking and advertising). * "Not for profit" groups are allowed to advertise, i.e. training courses, etc. that are paid for. Technical rules and aspects * RadSafe is a closed list. Posting is only possible by members. Posting by non-members will be moderated by the moderator (Marcel Schouwenburg) and, when rejected, send back to the poster accompanied by a reason for the rejection. * Only plain text messages will be accepted by the list. Any code (HTML, etc) will be filtered out. * Attachments are not allowed because of security reasons, except PDF-files. To send images with a message, please convert them to a PDF-file. Other image formats will be filtered out. * The maximum message size is 40 kB. Larger messages should be split up in multiple parts. Include a number in the subjectline of every part (e.g. 2/3). * If you want to reply to the list you should use the option Reply All in your mail program. When using Reply the mail will only be sent to the original sender of the message. * Do not use BCC to sent a message to RadSafe (this is an implicit address). Only To and CC are allowed (explicit addresses) when sending a message to RadSafe. * If a message from RadSafe is bounced from your email address for more than 5 times, your subscription will be temporary suspended. * Once a month a password reminder is sent to every listmember. Using this password, you can change settings of your subscription on your personal memberpage. For example: you can choose to hold your subscription for a while in case of a holiday or change to receive digest versions in stead of separate messages. * Digest versions can be received in either MIME or plain text format (that is all messages in one big text file). Default for new members is plain text. * Out of the office messages will be filtered out. * When referring to a document, program, etc. include the link to this file whenever possible. * If necessary, the RadSafe moderator (Marcel Schouwenburg) will provide storage space on the radlab.nl server for large files, documents, etc. that might be of interest to listmembers. Copyrighted material is excluded. The moderator will take into consideration all requests for storage on the server. However, only material related to RadSafe matters will be allowed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg RadSafe moderator & listowner From garyi at trinityphysics.com Tue Jan 16 16:08:10 2007 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:08:10 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] non-lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology In-Reply-To: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ACF86A.21684.2CAFCBE@garyi.trinityphysics.com> I think they are great. For fluoroscopy, where you really want aprons, the typical beam energy is <100 kVp, and that's going to be scatter radiation too. So you're almost never really trying to protect the technologists from >100 kVp photons. -Gary Isenhower On 16 Jan 2007 at 9:22, michael olex wrote: Hello all, Does anyone have any strong feelings regarding the use of non-lead based apparel in a diagnostic radiology department. We're mainly looking at Xenolite-NL due to the weight, lack of disposal issues, and performance. However, I'm a little hesitant due the transmission through the Xenolite at energies above 100 kVp. Does anyone use this regularly and have any words of wisdom to offer? Mike Olex, MS Medical Physicst molex77 at yahoo.com From james at readsay.com Tue Jan 16 16:21:16 2007 From: james at readsay.com (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:21:16 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Birth Defects from Saddammizing - not DU (Tate Britain Current Exhibitions Mark Wallinger) Message-ID: Dr. Howard Long wrote: > Read "Hell Is Over", interviews with dozens of Kurds to see the > malnutrition, cold, sarin and organic cynaide gassing and > detruction of 4,500 villages (of 5,000) to see causes of birth > defects. DU was minimal there.... Firstly, malnutrition defects are unlike those from uranyl poisoning. Secondly, there is no alternative explanation of the U.S. and U.K. servicemembers' (and Basrah civilians') increase from a risk ratio of less than 0.5 six years after exposure to 1.8 in 2000 and 2.2 in 2003, without a corresponding steep increase in cancers -- that is another signature of uranyl's teratogenicity. (Of course the Basrah civilians have lots of extra cancers, unlike the troops who were not exposed to nerve gas in 1991.) Sincerely, James Salsman From GRMarshall at philotechnics.com Tue Jan 16 16:23:42 2007 From: GRMarshall at philotechnics.com (Glenn R. Marshall) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:42 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes Message-ID: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F5A1A8D@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Bigger fish......:) Glenn Marshall, CHP Almost all the strontium-90 is in the skeleton. Who eats fish bones? Otto From edaxon at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 16 17:24:19 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:24:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gulf War and Birth Defects In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVkxCQA References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVkxCQA Message-ID: <000701c739c5$72759ec0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> The most recent review of birth defects and Gulf War has just been published by the Institute of Medicine, 2006. The conclusion was "This the committee concludes that there is no consistent pattern of higher prevalence of birth defects among the off spring of male or female Gulf War veterans and no single defect, except urinary tract abnormalities, has been found in more than one well-designed study." Note this is not just DU but all exposures during the Gulf War. The book can be read or purchased from the NAS web site. It is instructive to read the list of other exposures considered by the group. Eric Daxon, Ph.D., CHP From garyi at trinityphysics.com Tue Jan 16 17:28:49 2007 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:28:49 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plantcontain strontium-90 In-Reply-To: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF7B@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> References: , <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF7B@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <45AD0B51.22003.314D1ED@garyi.trinityphysics.com> You are all misinterpreting this!! This is clear and conclusive proof that nuclear power plants are sucking essential trace elements right out of the environment, probably right out of our bodies!! Those poor, poor fish. Somebody call PETA, or BETA or whatever it is! We'll get a lawsuite out of this somehow...I'm talk'n class action. -Gary On 16 Jan 2007 at 14:20, Flanigan, Floyd wrote: "upriver" ... I have always been under the impression that if the fish came from upriver of the plant, the whatever is in them came from someplace else. Is this just a typo or are they saying the Sr-90 from the plant has found its way upstream? I'm having issues with that part. Floyd From jjcohen at prodigy.net Tue Jan 16 19:18:39 2007 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen at prodigy.net) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:18:39 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 References: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF79@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <000e01c739d5$6c9e9d20$2235e345@domainnotset.invalid> Atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives happened less than two Sr-90 half-lives ago. Can anyone identify any location in the northern hemisphere known to be free of Sr-90?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Flanigan, Floyd" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, so it had to be introduced into the food matrix artificially. That is obvious. But with a half-life of 29+ years, and the distance some fish cover in their respective lifetimes, the Sr-90 could have come from just about anywhere. Just because the fish was caught one place doesn't mean that's anywhere near where it came into contact with the radio-isotope. Floyd W. FlaniganB.S.Nuc.h.p. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:00 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? _______________________________________________ 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 james at readsay.com Tue Jan 16 20:09:19 2007 From: james at readsay.com (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:09:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gulf War and Birth Defects Message-ID: Colonel Daxon wrote: > The most recent review of birth defects and Gulf War has just been published > by the Institute of Medicine, 2006. The conclusion was "This the committee > concludes that there is no consistent pattern of higher prevalence of birth > defects among the off spring of male or female Gulf War veterans and no > single defect, except urinary tract abnormalities, has been found in more > than one well-designed study." If it isn't already obvious from "This the committee" and "off spring," that is a fabricated and misleading quote. In "Gulf War and Health: Volume 4. Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf War" (2006), the Institute of Medicine wrote: "Evidence regarding rates of testicular cancer, brain cancer, and certain birth defects among Gulf War veterans is inconsistent and the committee recommended further surveillance for those health outcomes." -- http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/24597/36955.aspx I wonder what quotes Colonel Daxon will feel he has to come up with when the odds ratio breaks into double digits and/or persists to grandchildren. We need to face the facts. People sometimes accuse me of being a peace activist. I am in favor of diplomacy, but I have never picketed a recruiting station. When military types resort to blatant lies and distortion, the public eventually finds out, and when they do, the effect is greater than a hundred picketers at each of a thousand recruiting stations could ever hope to achieve. What must other nations think of the U.S., with all the money we spend on our military and such a serious recruiting crisis? We have such a crisis because those entrusted with the safety of our soldiers can not face the truth about the Gulf War vets' kids birth defects, or even the fact that uranium has gas vapor combustion products. Astounding! Sincerely, James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jan 16 21:02:18 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:02:18 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman, and Hindin's 74 studies Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070116194308.009f2870@mail.swcp.com> January 16, 2007 RADSAFers: On 1/15/07, Roger Helbig (RH) wrote: "all Hindin did was review studies recommended by the Traprock Peace Center" James Salsman (JS) wrote: "Are you suggesting that the 74 studies Hindin and her coauthors cite are not comprehensive? What would you add to them?" My Comments: RH did not say the 74 studies are not comprehensive. He said all Hindin did was review studies recommended by Traprock (an anti-DU organization). (And define the word comprehensive.) JS made a mistake when he dragged out the "74" studies. I looked at the list of references and found the following: Articles in the popular press: fns. 6, 58, and 59. Anti-DU articles: fns. 1, 5, 8, 39, 60, 61, 62, and 71. Symposiums and conferences: fns 25, 44, 45, and 47. Reference book, not about DU or U: fn 36 Letters about events in New Mexico: fn 38. Another letter: fn 63. That's 18 "studies" that are not studies at all. There are some additional citations to material that is probably not studies (such as reports by the Iraqi government), but you get the point. That lowers the 74 studies to around 50. Sure, 50 studies is a lot of studies, but it's not 74. Furthermore, one would have to read all the studies and ascertain how well they conform to what Hindin and her co-authors claim for them. RH: "their article was not peer reviewed" JS: "That's completely false. Environmental Health is a peer-reviewed journal recognized as such by MEDLINE, CAS, CABI, Scopus, and Embase, with a professional and qualified editorial board" (URL edited) My Comments: I will let RH address this. RH: you will also note that Hindin quickly dropped off the radar screen JS: "Nonsense, she's a PhD MPH epidemiologist and faculty at the University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences at Amherst, and she has been publishing since the 1970s. (Hindin's e-mail address edited) My Comments: Hindin's being a PhD MPH, etc., etc., has nothing to do with whether or not she dropped off the radar screen. Has she published anything on DU since her co-authored expose in Environmental Health? That would be one good way of determining whether or not she's still on the radar screen. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jan 16 21:04:17 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:04:17 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070116194919.009eda80@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 16, 2007 On Jan. 16, James Salsman (JS) wrote: "Firstly, malnutrition defects are unlike those from uranyl poisoning. Secondly, there is no alternative explanation of the U.S. and U.K. servicemembers' (and Basrah civilians') increase from a risk ratio of less than 0.5 six years after exposure to 1.8 in 2000 and 2.2 in 2003, without a corresponding steep increase in cancers -- that is another signature of uranyl's teratogenicity. (Of course the Basrah civilians have lots of extra cancers, unlike the troops who were not exposed to nerve gas in 1991.)" My Comments: How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"? You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years. The typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years. What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with teratogenicity? Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not cause cancers. Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged excess Basrah cancers? Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From terryj at iit.edu Tue Jan 16 23:35:00 2007 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:35:00 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health In-Reply-To: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> Message-ID: <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. I must have gone into the wrong field of study. On Jan 15, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > > Dear Mr. Helbig > > Our peer review process is described on the web page. It is > essentially identical to those of other peer review journals except > that it is "open," that is, not anonymous. You can see the reviews by > clicking on "Pre-publication history" on the website. > > We require any disclosure of conflicts of interest. If you have > technical comments, we would consider publishing them in the form of > a Letter. > > Sincerely yours > > dave ozonoff > From spencer.fisher at opg.com Wed Jan 17 06:00:21 2007 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:00:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Non lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology Message-ID: I have two issues with non lead based RPE in Diagnostic Radiology. 1)While it is good for scattered radiation, it is not good for direct radiation. What is to stop a pregnant Nuclear Medicine tech from using one of these aprons to protect from 140 keV Tc-99m? What happens when a tech uses an apron to shield a patient from part of the beam? What happens when a caregiver assists a patient by holding them while wearing this apron, but may be partially in the direct beam? 2)I did some test on Xenolite, 20 or so years ago before Dupont purchased the rights to it. At that time I found that if you looked at a radiograph of Xenolite, you found a salt and pepper immage. That is, there are a lot of holes in the apron, and a lot of dense areas. Overall, there is a dose reduction, but some spots have no protection. This contrasted greatly with a radiograph of lead. The product may have improved over the years. Spencer M. Fisher Health Physicist- Field Support Radiation Protection Department 1549 Victoria St. E. Whitby, Ont L1N 9E3 905-430-2215 ext 3290 Fax: 905-430-8583 Pager: 416-372-9353 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Wed Jan 17 06:54:53 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:54:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes Message-ID: Other fish eat fish bones.... - the other fish swallow the whole fish, may regurg some bones may partially digest, if not totally digest, on way through.... We need to caputre baby fish and send their teeth to . . . At 12:03 PM 1/16/2007, Pete_Bailey at fpl.com wrote: Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish . . . ***************************** January 17, 2007 Almost all the strontium-90 is in the skeleton. Who eats fish bones? Otto From Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Wed Jan 17 06:58:29 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:58:29 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Message-ID: Probably Southern hemisphere too is not Sr free. Other than NZ or AU, probably not as much Rad Environ Monitoring (like northern hemi) occurs, so we may not know... Atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives happened less than two Sr-90 half-lives ago. Can anyone identify any location in the northern hemisphere known to be free of Sr-90?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Flanigan, Floyd" Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, . . . From mpatterson at canberra.com Wed Jan 17 08:00:17 2007 From: mpatterson at canberra.com (PATTERSON Melissa) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:00:17 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units Message-ID: Spencer, You have a good point. I work for Canberra and the units issue actually leads to increased product development and manufacturing costs for us. We are and must be a global products and services provider. The US economy and the nuclear/ radiation measurement market specifically is the largest single market in the world. But the sales opportunity in the rest of the world which uses SI units is bigger. This means that we either develop 2 versions of new instrument models or we develop instruments that allow the user to select the units they wish to display in. -Melissa -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:05 PM To: idias at interchange.ubc.ca; sandyfl at cox.net; nssihou at aol.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units Last November I attended three Categorical Courses in Diagnostic Radiology Physics at the RSNA/AAPM meeting in Chicago. The courses were on X-Ray Imaging and Radiation Dose Optimization. All the units given in the course were in SI units. All of the speakers were Americans, and all of the examples shown were US exampled. In addition, almost all of the machines that display the Dose Area Product do so in cGy and rad, since 1 cGy = 1 rad. This includes many of the machines that are manufactured in the USA. The x-ray companies are multinational and want a product that can be used anywhere. Spencer M. Fisher Health Physicist- Field Support Radiation Protection Department 1549 Victoria St. E. Whitby, Ont L1N 9E3 905-430-2215 ext 3290 Fax: 905-430-8583 Pager: 416-372-9353 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ 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.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Wed Jan 17 10:43:28 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:43:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BBA6@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Very many papers thank the "helpful comments by our anonymous peer-reviewers" among the acknowledgements. Regards, Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry >Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:35 AM >Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for >helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. > >I must have gone into the wrong field of study. > From jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 11:37:23 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:37:23 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio Message-ID: Steven Dapra wrote: > How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"? What teratogens have been suggested that anyone might have been exposed to in 1991 Iraq which do not cause an even more pronounced increase in rapid-onset cancers? According to the CDC, most of the sulfur mustards and sarin, which were involved, do. Uranyl does not. There have been no such alternative hypothesis -- PB, anthrax vaccine, pesticides, and oil smoke have all been ruled out. > You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in > cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years. > The typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years. No, cancers in the U.S. and U.K. soldiers remained very low in the first six years, but recently have began to pick up, especially for brain and testicular cancers. I suspect in 2011 the cancer rate for the troops will be substantially higher across the board. > What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with > teratogenicity? Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not > cause cancers. Not exactly. Uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide gas are teratogens which do not cause much immediate-onset cancer, unlike most teratogens including all of the nerve gases that I have looked at. > Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged > excess Basrah cancers? Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman From edaxon at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 17 14:55:53 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:55:53 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio - discussion of the citation provided In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXEziQA References: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXEziQA Message-ID: <001601c73a79$e1051910$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> In response to a comment from Steve Darpa James Salsman wrote: > Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged > excess Basrah cancers? >Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf < The citation is an undated presentation (not a published paper) that appears to have other presentations embedded in it. The data were taken when Saddam was still in power and there are several limitations the most important of which are a lack of exposure assessment (levels of uranium exposure were not measured in neither the parents nor the children), the lack of a control group (comparable measurements were not made in other cities, and census data were used for the denominator as opposed estimates of the populations in the cities at the time. The discussion of biological plausibility that DU was the cause does not include a discussion of dose. The logic used could be applied tom many other toxins - most notably mustard gas. I have heard of no studies since then that confirm these data for the city of Basra. Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jan 17 20:46:30 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:46:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] How are half-lives determined? Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070117194325.009ebea0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 17, 2007 How are half-lives determined? I am particularly interested in the determination of very long half-lives, such as the uraniums. What are the measurement techniques, or whatever is used? Citations to standard reference books explaining the techniques would be useful and appreciated. You are welcome to answer here, or by private e-mail. Thank you. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jan 17 20:42:33 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:42:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070117183046.00a02010@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 17, 2007 SD Steven Dapra JS James Salsman SD-1 How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"? JS-1 What teratogens have been suggested that anyone might have been exposed to in 1991 Iraq which do not cause an even more pronounced increase in rapid-onset cancers? According to the CDC, most of the sulfur mustards and sarin, which were involved, do. Uranyl does not. There have been no such alternative hypothesis -- PB, anthrax vaccine, pesticides, and oil smoke have all been ruled out. SD-2 I asked you to explain your claim. I did not ask you to ask me to explain it. Your pseudo-explanation has too many "no's" and "not's" in it to be coherent. SD-1 You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years. The typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years. JS-1 No, cancers in the U.S. and U.K. soldiers remained very low in the first six years, but recently have began to pick up, especially for brain and testicular cancers. I suspect in 2011 the cancer rate for the troops will be substantially higher across the board. SD-2 Where has this increase in incidence been reported? Please give the full citation(s). What you "suspect" will happen in 2011 has nothing to do with what has been happening in the six year period you initially invoked. SD-1 What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with teratogenicity? Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not cause cancers. JS-1 Not exactly. Uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide gas are teratogens which do not cause much immediate-onset cancer, unlike most teratogens including all of the nerve gases that I have looked at. SD-2 "Not exactly" what? Are you saying uranyl compounds do not cause "much" immediate-onset cancer, but that they cause more than "much" cancer later on? How much is "much"? Have you given us any studies showing that uranyl compounds cause cancer at any time? (Perhaps you have and I did not see the citations.) You say "unlike most teratogens". What does this mean? Do most teratogens, including the nerve gases you have looked at, cause cancer? Do you have citations to studies? SD-1 Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged excess Basrah cancers? JS-1 Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf SD-2 It appears that Eric Daxon has taken care of this. I have not read it yet. You say you have "plenty." What are some of the others? This time give studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that are anonymously reviewed. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jan 18 03:24:42 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:24:42 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Scientists to study risks from uranium weapons Message-ID: <009401c73ae2$85b1f240$c8435142@roger1> Scientists to study risks from uranium weapons This article is reasonably factual, but it caters to the activist community, who, for example call the DU penetrators "uranium weapons" - this then leads to activist claims that Israel, wise to the tests for DU did not use DU, but used Enriched Uranium in their non-existent Uranium weapons. I also question whether several tonnes of DU are in the soil around this plant near Albany, New York. Does anyone on this list know more about the actual DU contamination at that site? Roger Helbig The effects of a toxic metal used for armour-piercing weapons in both Gulf wars is to be studied by British scientists. Depleted uranium (DU) is nearly twice as dense as lead and highly valued for its ability to punch through armoured vehicles. But concerns have been raised about the lasting health risks it poses. When a weapon made with a DU tip hits armour it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour. The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive. Because of the difficulties of carrying out research in war zones, little is known about DU's effects, but veterans from the Gulf and Kosovan wars claim it has made them seriously ill. A team of geologists from the University of Leicester will travel to the US in the new year to examine a site heavily polluted by the substance. Several tonnes of fine DU oxide dust have settled near the plant in Albany, New York. The project will use various scientific techniques, including geochemical methods, isotope measurements and scanning electron microscopy, to evaluate the environmental effects. Leicester geologist Dr Tim Brewer said little was known regarding DU's degradation, mobility, and solubility within the environment ? largely due to the difficulty of studying it in conflict zones and the limited period of time that DU has been in use. The information will be critical to evaluating the potential risk to both humans and the environment in areas where DU has been extensively used. 01 January 2007 http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1951377 From DUTOIT at sabs.co.za Thu Jan 18 04:10:03 2007 From: DUTOIT at sabs.co.za (Du Toit Volschenk) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:10:03 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] How are half-lives determined? Summary of methods from Lederer et al References: <5.2.1.1.1.20070117194325.009ebea0@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <45AF6399.87C9.008B.0@sabs.co.za> A summary of methods used for Half-life determination is given in the introduction of "Tables of isotopes" edited by Lederer, CM and Shirley, VS a Wiley Interscience Publication John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York I looked at the 7th Edition (1978) Methods listed (not specifically listed for the length of the half life, although the U-235 half-life listed of 3.5 x 10^17 y was determined with methods 2+3 below): 1) Measurement of time-decay 2) Mass spectroscopy - Direct determination of the decay rate by measurement of the decrease in the number of atoms (or the increase of number of atoms of a daughter isotope) relative to another isotope of the same element 3) Disintegration rate of a sample containing a known mass of the active substance (mass spectrometric analysis of the sample to correct for other isotopes present) 4) Calorimetry - Heat rate production from a known mass of active substance 5) Measurement of decay rate of a parent substance by periodic removal and radioassay (or mass spectrometric assay) of a decay product 6) Specific activity determination by chemical and/or isotopic analysis of natural samples, involving assumptions about sample history 7) Measurement of radioactivity from a sample containing a number of atoms calculated from the expected yield of the reaction by which it was produced 8) Estimation based on decay energy, level structure and theoretical considerations (Usually used for alpha emitters) 9) Other methods (e.g. nuclear recoil, delay coincidence, doppler shift attenuation, etc) Du Toit Volschenk Radiation Protection Service South African Bureau of Standards dutoit at sabs.co.za >>> Steven Dapra 2007-01-18 04:46 >>> Jan. 17, 2007 How are half-lives determined? I am particularly interested in the determination of very long half-lives, such as the uraniums. What are the measurement techniques, or whatever is used? Citations to standard reference books explaining the techniques would be useful and appreciated. You are welcome to answer here, or by private e-mail. Thank you. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com DISCLAIMER ________________________________________________________________ This communication is sent from the SABS group of Companies and complies with the Communication requirements of the Companies ACT. Further particulars of the SABS Group of Companies from which this communication has been sent can be found at http://www.sabs.co.za/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail was checked by the e-Sweeper Service. ---------------------------------------------------------------- From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Thu Jan 18 06:09:24 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:09:24 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Scientists to study risks from uranium weapon Message-ID: I am assuming that they are probably referring to the Colonie FUSRAP site just outside Albany. Here is the link. http://www.fusrapcolonie.com/back/ 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". _______________________________________________ Scientists to study risks from uranium weapons This article is reasonably factual, but it caters to the activist community, who, for example call the DU penetrators "uranium weapons" - this then leads to activist claims that Israel, wise to the tests for DU did not use DU, but used Enriched Uranium in their non-existent Uranium weapons. I also question whether several tonnes of DU are in the soil around this plant near Albany, New York. Does anyone on this list know more about the actual DU contamination at that site? Roger Helbig From jal247 at cornell.edu Thu Jan 18 06:58:20 2007 From: jal247 at cornell.edu (Jeff Leavey) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:58:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 1978 BRH video Dr. Taylor Interviews Dr. Robley Evans Message-ID: <45AF6EEC.7000908@cornell.edu> I found this old video from the BRH made back in 1978 (I think). The BRH apparently did a series of interviews of early radiation safety pioneers called Vignettes of Early Radiation Workers. This one is Dr. Lauriston Taylor interviewing Dr. Robley Evans. It's about 55 min. long and 280MB in wmv format. Use this link to download it. I can burn a DVD if anyone wants it. Are there any other surviving interviews??? http://www.sendspace.com/file/zqkr74 Jeff -- Jeff Leavey Assistant Radiation Safety Officer Cornell University Environmental Health and Safety 125 Humphreys Service Building, Ithaca, NY 14853 jal247 at cornell.edu www.ehs.cornell.edu (607)255-7397 fax(607)255-8267 From osuleiman at comcast.net Thu Jan 18 08:52:11 2007 From: osuleiman at comcast.net (osuleiman at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:52:11 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units Message-ID: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> Et al- I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily, myself included, insist on using older units. It's not like the Roentgen has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced in the 70's. I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie. However, if we are to be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause, why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude? Fortunately the professional journals, and other organizations including the government are moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago. As a scientific professional I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I exercise it here. And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is. How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? We have more important things to discuss. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Sandy Perle" > Hi John, > > I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. > Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, > understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to > use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and > scientific community is getting smaller all the time. > > There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than > the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have > seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the > data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant > consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are > the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. > Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, > postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at > substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing > instrumentation and read-out devices. > > I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some > degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this > transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. > One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the > impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't > see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, > more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. > > Regards, > > Sandy > > On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: > > > Bob > > > > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard > than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that > having two "systems" is the problem. > > > > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost > completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would > be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. > > > > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > 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 sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 10:46:16 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:46:16 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] A Nuclear Power Renaissance Message-ID: <45AF33D8.18504.F350F69@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: A Nuclear Power Renaissance 4 Northeast nuclear power plants warned Radiation Degrades Nuclear Waste-Containing Materials Faster =========================== A Nuclear Power Renaissance With concerns about global warming and energy security on the rise, countries the world over are taking a new look at nuclear energy. Some are building new reactors as fast as they can. They are coming from everywhere in Australia; shirt-sleeved workers from every corner of the continent heading to a remote stretch of the South Australian desert. There is no water, and not much of anything else either. But the Olympic Dam mine is located here. And the mine is hiring. The company currently employs about 700 miners, who have already dug several kilometers of tunnels under the desert. The area is so bone dry that drinking water must be pumped through a system of pipes from a distant spring. Recently, there has even been talk of building a desalination plant. After all, uranium mining requires water -- lots of it -- and Australia wants to remain the world's second largest supplier after Canada. The explanation for the government's enthusiasm for nuclear power can be found in a report by nuclear physicist and former IT manger Ziggy Switkowski. As if on cue, he enthuses about the need for more nuclear power plants: Australia must start building reactors so that the first one can be completed in 2020. If a concerted effort is made, another 25 could be online by mid-century. On the one hand, this would help the country improve its poor record of carbon dioxide emissions. On the other, it would allow Australia to tap an almost inexhaustible source of energy; the country possesses more than 38 percent of the world's accessible uranium reserves. The international atomic energy lobby loves such talk. Almost 21 years after the Chernobyl disaster, and just a couple months after the most recent breakdown at Sweden's Forsmark reactor last July, the risks associated with nuclear power are largely fading into the background. So too are questions about the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and atomic weapons. The industry, in short, is preparing for a new boom. Plans for more nuclear plants Currently there are 435 atomic reactors generating electricity in 31 countries across the globe. They fill 6.5 percent of the world's total energy demand and use close to 70,000 tons of enriched uranium per year. Atomic plants produce one-sixth of the total electricity supply -- roughly on par with hydropower. That number may soon rocket upwards. At present, 29 nuclear power plants are under construction and there are concrete plans to build another 64. Another 158 are under consideration. On the other end of the equation, only six are slowly being shut down in preparation for decommissioning. In response to the growing demand, the price for uranium has increased seven-fold since 2002 and now sells for $72 per pound (454 grams). The fact that no final storage place exists for highly radioactive waste is considered to be but a secondary problem. Indeed, the only terminal repository apparently free from political opposition is that in Finland's Eurajoki where such a site is now under construction. There, nuclear waste will be stored at a maximum depth of 520 meters in shafts bored deep into the granite bedrock. The main obstacle to the construction of nuclear power plants is no longer the anti-nuclear power lobby, but the huge costs of building them. Whereas in 1970 a brand new reactor cost $400 million, a plant now runs as much as 10 times higher. In the last three decades the nuclear power industry has received subsidies of about $1 billion -- the electricity generated may be clean from a global warming point of view, but it's not cheap. Nonetheless, power plant construction companies are hoping for a renaissance. E.on has applied to build a new plant in Romania's Cernavoda and Siemens expects orders to triple in the next five years. General Electric too expects a number of new reactors to be built within the next decade, says Ferdinando Beccalli-Falco, a GE manager. Indeed, a lots of companies stand to benefit. The industry is celebrating the "strategic shift" and preparing for a boom with mergers en vogue. Japan's Toshiba has acquired US-based Westinghouse, General Electric is working together with Hitachi and Mitsubishi Heavy is flirting with the Franco-German global market leader Areva NP, in which Siemens holds a stake. Until now, France has been virtually alone in its reliance on nuclear technology: Eighty percent of its domestically produced power comes from nuclear plants. The 59 plants allow the country to be mostly self-sufficient, and now this strategy is once again being held up as an example. Lithuania, for example, urgently wants to replace its aging Ignalina nuclear reactor. Doing so would allow the country to decrease its dependence on Russia, but the price tag is some EUR3 billion. Ukraine also wants to build more nuclear power plants in order to increase its self-sufficiency, despite the trauma of Chernobyl. Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are both discussing building two new nuclear reactors each. Poland is considering building a nuclear plant after 2020 since its domestic coal-fired power plants could soon run afoul of EU regulations. Next year the EU wants to tighten the emissions requirements for such polluters. Sites under consideration include Gryfino and Klempicz near Posnan, both of which are close to the German border. Britain's Labour government wants to prepare the way for new atomic power plants by easing the approval process; many of its aging coal- fired power plants will have to close as a result of new EU standards. Gas-fired plants could help to close the gap, but Europe's two most important suppliers, Russia's Gazprom and Algeria's state- owned Sonatrach, in August signed an agreement that has aroused suspicions in London and Brussels that they will create a cartel similar to OPEC. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso adroitly side-stepped the issue last Wednesday when announcing the EU's new energy strategy. Germany is joined by a number of other EU countries in their skepticism toward nuclear power. But he did not conceal his committee's sympathy for atomic power, citing both environmental reasons and issues related to securing Europe's energy supply. Canada and Australia, the two most significant uranium suppliers, are reliable partners. Other suppliers include Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Namibia and Niger. Kazakhstan wants to surpass Canada as the world's leading uranium supplier by 2010, which explains why French, Chinese and Japanese companies are racing to invest there. India is considering building 19 new reactors, while China wants to construct at least 63 facilities that will be able to supply 50 giga- watts of power. In emerging market Indonesia a single, very modest, nuclear reactor will go online in 2011. In contrast the US is talking about building more than 20 new plants after a 20-year construction moratorium. Washington is providing tax incentives for power plant operators and it also wants to ease the process of obtaining the required permits. But who is going to pay? President George W. Bush already enthuses about a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" to foster the use of nuclear power while also monitoring to ensure that the technology is not misused by North Korea, Iran or al-Qaida. The US has budgeted $250 million to support the partnership, and the Hill & Knowlton public relations company, which worked for the government during the first Gulf war, has already launched a PR campaign to promote nuclear power. The need for advertising seems unavoidable, since even the most enthusiastic supporters of the new atomic era cannot deny that it brings with it the same old risks. No one can rule out a meltdown. And no one can guarantee that civilian nuclear research won't be misused. Furthermore, no one knows who is going to pay for all the new facilities. Moscow wants to build about 30 new reactors, in part because Gazprom doesn't want to sell natural gas on the domestic market at low prices. The Kremlin speculates that it will be able to obtain $30 billion from foreign investors to fund their construction, but this money is not likely to appear soon. President Putin has called for the former superpower to take a "giant leap" by expanding its nuclear energy sector, but at present it only has one factory capable of manufacturing turbines and reactors. Consequently, Russia can only build one new nuclear power plant every three years. On the other hand, Russia also wants to sell nuclear technology abroad at discount prices, charging roughly 30 percent less than France for its reactors. Despite the lofty ambitions and impressive figures, the fact remains that 1.6 billion people still do not have access to electricity, while 2.4 billion are forced to meet their energy needs with wood, straw or manure. In this respect, Steve Kidd, the director of strategy and research at London's World Nuclear Association, could be correct. In the nuclear industry, Kidd says, many such grandiose plans often turn out to be delusional. ------------------ 4 Northeast nuclear power plants warned MONTICELLO, Minn. - Four Northeast nuclear power plants have been alerted to check for potential safety problems following a failure at a sister plant here that caused a shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified managers of the four plants because they're similar in age and design to the Xcel Energy's Monticello plant, said Jan Strasma, a commission spokesman. The plants being told to be alert are Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Nine Mile Point in New York, and Pilgrim in Massachusetts. "Typically when there's a problem at one plant, we look to see if any aspects have the potential of applying to other plants," Strasma said. "It's a precautionary or prudent notification." The Monticello plant has been shut down since Jan. 10 when welds failed that held in place a 35,000-pound box containing valves that control steam pressure. No radiation was released, officials said. ------------------- Radiation Degrades Nuclear Waste-Containing Materials Faster Than Expected New method enlists NMR to test durability of mineral-based waste forms Richland, WA - Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from the University of Cambridge and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported in the Jan. 11 issue of Nature. The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. This could lead to swelling, loss of physical strength and possible cracking of the mineral as soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had decayed to safe levels, said lead author and Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. According to current thinking, highly radioactive substances could be rendered less mobile by combining them, before disposal, with glass or with a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to form a crystal. However, the crystal structure can only hold the radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks down. This may increase the likelihood for radioactive materials to leak, although co-author William J. Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples used in the study, cautioned that this work did not address leakage, and researchers detected no cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing zircon can remain intact for millions of years and is one of the most durable materials on earth. Some earth and materials scientists believe it is possible to create a structure that rebuilds itself after these "alpha events" so that it can contain the radioactive elements for much longer. The tests developed by the Cambridge and PNNL team would enable scientists to screen different mineral and synthetic forms for durability. As well as making the storage of the waste safer, new storage methods guided by the NMR technique could offer significant savings for nations facing disposal of large amounts of radioactive material. Countries including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan are all considering burying their nuclear waste stockpiles hundreds of meters beneath the earth's surface. Doing so necessitates selection of a site with sufficiently stringent geological features to withstand any potential leakage at a cost of billions of dollars. For example, there is an ongoing debate over the safety of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. A figure published in Science in 2005 put that project's cost at $57 billion. "By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions of dollars worth of savings and improve the overall safety," Farnan said. "At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how materials behave over the extremely long timescales we are talking about. Our new research is a step towards that. "We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and before anyone tried to engineer around it. This would have substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view." PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert Herman Cho, who co-wrote the report, said: "When the samples were made in the 1980s, NMR was not in the thinking. NMR has enabled us to quantify and look at changes in the crystal structure as the radiation damage progresses. "This method adds a valuable new perspective to research on radioactive waste forms. It has also raised the question: 'How adequate is our understanding of the long-term behavior of these materials?' Studies of other waste forms, such as glass, could benefit from this technique." The collaboration was funded by Britain's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the U.S. DOE, with support from the PNNL-based Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. SOURCE: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 12:00:33 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:00:33 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> References: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> Message-ID: <45AF4541.9895.F78E32E@sandyfl.cox.net> On 18 Jan 2007 at 14:52, osuleiman at comcast.net wrote: > And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is.? How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial?and?yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? Hello Orhan, Your comments are pertinent to the debate at hand. I do agree that this transition will happen at some point, but I don't think that it will happen any time soon. I recall this topic being discussed back in the 70's and as you pointed out, it is still being debated. You will recall that the NRC specifically required that occupational dose reports not be provided using SI units, it was directly prohibited in 10CFR20. I also agree that being one of the lone stand-outs does cause embarrassment to the US when attending international meetings. As Chair, Health Physics Society Standards Committee, we have made efforts to include the SI units along with the accepted non-SI units in all of our N13 and N43 Standards. I believe that N42 does as well. As others have pointed out by others, instrumentation for the most part does include all units, primarily due to the global market as it is. In time this will happen. For this to be expedited, there needs to be a major sponsoring entity pushing for it, that does not exist today. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 14:29:37 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:29:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U.S. Approves License for Palisades Nuclear Plan Message-ID: <45AF6831.10564.10016EFE@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: U.S. Approves License for Palisades Nuclear Plan GE Energy to oversee and update Monticello nuclear plant Plans for 2nd Hungarian nuclear plant Rats caused wildfire near Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant =================================== U.S. Approves License for Palisades Nuclear Plant WASHINGTON (AP) Jan 17 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday that it has renewed the operating license of the Palisades Nuclear plant in South Haven, Mich., for an additional 20 years. The environmental and safety reviews of the plant did not uncover any reasons to preclude the renewal of the license, the agency said. Public meetings to discuss the environmental review were held in July 2005 and April 2006. The plant is owned by Nuclear Management Company, a joint venture of three electric utilities, including We Energies, a Wisconsin company, XCel Energy Inc. and Consumers Energy, a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corp. Consumers Energy owns the Palisades plant. -------------------- GE Energy to oversee and update Monticello nuclear plant Bizjournal Jan 17 - GE Energy's nuclear business has been awarded the contract to oversee and implement an extended power update of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.The contract is valued at more than $100 million. The deal will boost the plant's output to 120 percent of its original licensed thermal power. The EPU contract was awarded by the plant's operator, Nuclear Management Company of Hudson, Wisc., and represents GE's (NYSE: GE - News) largest extended power upgrade order to date. The plant's owner is Northern States Power Company, a subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL - News) Monticello, a one-unit, boiling water reactor, began commercial operation in 1971 and generates enough electricity to meet the needs of more than 500,000 customers. On Wednesday, media reports indicated that the plant was shut down indefinitely, after a large metal component broke loose inside the plant. Investigation into the matter is underway. The incident was outside the reactor, and no radiation was released. ----------------- Plans for 2nd Hungarian nuclear plant Budapest Sun Jan 18 - The government has plans to build either a second nuclear power station or to expand the existing Paks plant "with the aim of cutting carbon emissions," national daily Magyar H?rlap reported on Tuesday, Jan 16. Experts are said to discussing whether the current use of the Paks nuclear power plant should be extended beyond its current lifecycle, or whether to build a new nuclear plant, the paper said, quoting unnamed sources. To build a new plant would cost the government an estimated e3 billion. Last year the existing Paks plant worked on expanding the capacity at the second of its four blocks by 8% from the current 467 megawatts (MW) - the target figures to be reached by February or March of this year. The plant is already under going a Ft5bn ($23.2m) capacity expansion, due to be completed by 2009. The Economy ministry is said to have drawn up a medium-term energy policy based on energy needs and investment potential. Green organization have already protested the plans for a second nuclear power plant, citing the dangers seen in 2003 when Paks? fuel rods were damaged. The rods over-heated in a cleaning tank located close to the plant?s second reactor. ----------------- Rats caused wildfire near Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant LOS ANGELES (AP) Jan 18 - Rats chewing on electrical wire inside a mobile home likely caused a wildfire near the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, authorities said. "The most probable cause of the fire is related to rodents and the electrical system," Andy Anderson of the California Department of Fire and Forestry said in a statement. The 332-acre blaze, which burned within two miles of the nuclear plant, was surrounded Wednesday, forestry spokeswoman Laura Brown said. It is expected to be fully extinguished Saturday. The blaze began Sunday on land owned by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. when a mobile home ignited and flames spread to brush, including parts of Montana de Oro State Park, she said. All trails in the park have been reopened. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 16:28:07 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors Message-ID: <45AF83F7.18200.106DC1C4@sandyfl.cox.net> Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors Post Gazette Jan 18 - David Harner pulled on a fitted Lycra outfit with thin tubes snaking around his body carrying cold water. He attached pencil-thin monitoring devices to his thighs, biceps, chest and back. Co-workers helped him into a red rubber suit and a helmet attached to an oxygen line. Mr. Harner then lowered himself into a pool of warm water that had the faint, distant blue glow of fuel rods. "Not everyone would want to jump in a nuclear reactor," Mr. Harner says. "It's a definite breed." Mr. Harner, 33 years old, belongs to a small corps of men and women who make their living in the underwater world of nuclear-power plants. Many first took up diving as a hobby, then attended commercial diving school. John Paul Johnston, executive director of Divers Institute of Technology in Seattle, says "the high-tech guys" are drawn to nuclear diving, rather than to other sorts of work, like offshore oil rigs. Mr. Harner, whose father worked at a Michigan nuclear plant, started diving in muddy rivers where he could see little. Then, he was sent into the crystal-clear water of a reactor. There, he says, he was struck by how much he could see, including the numbers on the fuel rods about eight feet beneath him. Mark White, 40, chose diving about 18 years ago rather than follow his father into the Ohio coal mines. He thought mining was a dying industry -- and too dangerous. "When you're 22 years old, and you can try something new and daring, it catches your imagination," says Mr. White, who dives and manages projects for Underwater Construction Corp., the largest nuclear diving company. Divers are in great demand these days. Power companies need them to maintain many of the world's 442 nuclear reactors. They're also called on to repair aging bridges and water tanks. And oil companies need them to fix offshore platforms damaged by Hurricane Katrina. That has done little to increase pay for nuclear divers, who start at salaries of about $30,000 a year. Experienced divers certified for specialized work can make close to $100,000. Offshore divers make still more but have to live on a ship for months at a time. Nuclear reactors range in size, from 35 feet to 70 feet tall, and 14 feet to 20 feet wide, depending on the type of technology. They are enclosed in steel-reinforced concrete structures. During operation, boiling water reactors are partially filled with about 60,000 gallons of water that circulates to cool the fuel and also turns into steam to power the turbine. Pressurized reactors hold 35,000 gallons of water during operations. When the reactor is shut down for refueling and maintenance, the vessel and secondary pools, also called the cavity, are filled with more than 500,000 gallons of water that further cools down the reactor and acts as a guard against radiation. The nuclear divers measure assignments not only by the minute, but by millirems, a measure of radiation exposure. Diver Michael Pickart received about 450 millirems during a project last fall inside an Arkansas nuclear reactor's cavity. That's more than the average person's annual exposure to natural radiation -- 300 millirems according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. An X-ray delivers about 40 millirems. At the Arkansas plant, Mr. Pickart, 30, replaced underwater stainless- steel tubes. In an underwater chair, the former construction worker cut and threaded new cylinders. He says he tries not to think about the risks. "If you ever slipped out of the chair, it could ruin your day," he says. He hastens to add that plant workers would swiftly pull him to the surface by the cords attached to his suit. Divers aim to keep exposure below 2,000 millirems a year, the limit set by most power companies. (The government allows individual divers to be exposed to 5,000 millirems a year.) When they near the maximum, divers are barred from nuclear plants, which typically pay better than other jobs do. After his work in Arkansas, Mr. Pickart got a mix of assignments. On a November job in Illinois, he worked primarily in a less-radioactive pool. A dive is aborted at the first sign of trouble. Last year, David Klassen was forced to surface after a few minutes when dosimeters showed he was receiving too much radiation. The 28-year-old former Southern California scuba instructor had been working on a reactor dryer in Morris, Ill., which removes excess water from the steam that powers turbines. Mr. Klassen says he later learned that his dosimeters had malfunctioned. The work "never lets you get too relaxed," he says. The divers' equipment is the product of improvisation and experimentation. Conventional wet suits, which keep divers warm in cold water, aren't practical. The water in a nuclear plant is too warm, sometimes exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Instead, nuclear divers wear a suit made of vulcanized rubber, which keeps them dry. To stay cool, they wear so-called cold suits, like the one Mr. Harner donned, developed for space walks in the 1960s. Including the special helmet, the gear can weigh about 100 pounds. That's more than twice as heavy as the gear commonly worn by recreational divers. Before a project begins, plant technicians measure radiation in the pool. Divers wear as many as a dozen dosimeters -- on their knees, arms, chest, back, feet and hands -- to track exposure. On the refuel floor, generally five stories up, workers monitor the dives and follow the real-time radiation readings on computers. Mr. Pickart's cold suit burst on a recent job, dousing the dosimeters with water and causing them to short out. His dive quickly ended. "There's no way to monitor you," he says, if the dosimeters fail. "They're not going to leave you down there to get cooked." The divers, mostly in their 20s and 30s, sometimes travel as a small team to plants as distant as Taiwan and Korea. They live on daily room-and-board allowances of as little as $55 and often share motel rooms to save money. In the fall, more than a dozen divers from Underwater Construction, in Essex, Conn., bunked for one to three weeks at the Wingate Inn, in Joliet, Ill. Underwater Construction has been working on nuclear plants since the 1970s. The divers were divided into groups of four to eight for projects at two nearby nuclear plants. Kyra Richter, 37, recently quit Underwater Construction after three years to work, in operations, at a nuclear plant. Diving is "what I love to do, but there's no future," she says, adding that the dives would get harder as she gets older. Ms. Richter also says she was paid less, and given less interesting assignments, than male divers. On one recent assignment, she remained "on deck" holding divers' safety cords for more than a week, rather than diving. Michael Pellini, Underwater Construction's vice president and co- owner, acknowledges the industry can be rough for women. The company has five women divers among its 250 employees. Mr. Pellini says he had not heard about Ms. Richter's experiences. "We want to make sure we are treating everyone equally," says Mr. Pellini, who himself started diving in 1981. Daniel Vollrath, who is 25, joined Underwater Construction last year after five years with the U.S. Coast Guard. He chose inland diving over offshore diving because it means less time away from home. More important, he likes the weightless feeling of hovering in a reactor pool, tethered by a "lifeline" of cords providing air, communications, and radiation readings. It is, he says, "the closest thing to being an astronaut." 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au Thu Jan 18 16:16:16 2007 From: brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au (ROGERS, Brent) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:16:16 +1100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units Message-ID: Perhaps all these new nuclear plants that are being planned for will have their techdoc's written in SI. I think the HP's would deal well enough with SI rad units. The questions will arise with the pumps rated in kw instead of horsepower (do you know the conversions off the top of your head?), piping systems measured in meters, coolant temperatures in Celsius, etc. Brent Rogers Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234 T 61 2 9717 3251 F 61 2 9717 9266 M 0417 231 879 E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au www.ansto.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: osuleiman at comcast.net [mailto:osuleiman at comcast.net] Sent: Friday, 19 January 2007 1:52 AM To: sandyfl at cox.net; John R Johnson; nssihou at aol.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] SI Units 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". _______________________________________________ Et al- I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily, myself included, insist on using older units. It's not like the Roentgen has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced in the 70's. I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie. However, if we are to be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause, why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude? Fortunately the professional journals, and other organizations including the government are moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago. As a scientific professional I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I exercise it here. And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is. How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? We have more important things to discuss. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Sandy Perle" > Hi John, > > I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. > Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, > understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to > use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and > scientific community is getting smaller all the time. > > There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than > the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have > seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the > data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant > consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are > the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. > Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, > postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at > substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing > instrumentation and read-out devices. > > I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some > degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this > transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. > One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the > impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't > see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, > more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. > > Regards, > > Sandy > > On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: > > > Bob > > > > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard > than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that > having two "systems" is the problem. > > > > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost > completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would > be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. > > > > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com Thu Jan 18 17:56:07 2007 From: DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com (Don Jordan) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:56:07 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units References: Message-ID: <001101c73b5c$38f615b0$4501a8c0@RAMSERVICE1> In the mid 1970's my research advisor & some colleagues wrote a Physical Chemistry text book, supposedly for college juniors but most 1st year grad students would have had difficulty with it (Actually, it started out as a freshman tex!). Since SI was all the rage the authors all made a determined effort to write the book entirely in SI. I was asked to work out the standard correct (?) answers to the problems for several chapters & discovered that my advisor didn't actually have a clue as to the relative magnitudes of the 2 systems. For example, I recall one mass spectrometry problem that posed a magnetic field of 10,000 tesla. Not on this planet! My advisor held a named professorship at a major research university and was a member of the National Academy. If he had trouble with conversions, then I do worry about the guys in the control room of an NPP & tend to agree with Sandy Perle's position: this would be a gradual change from driving on the right side to the left side of the road. Since we have to change eventually, maybe we should start with the next new plant to be built. Don Jordan DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com RAM Services, Inc. 510 County Highway V Two Rivers, WI 54241 U.S.A. Voice: +1-920-686-3889 Fax: +1-920-686-3899 From pnwnatives at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 18:08:57 2007 From: pnwnatives at gmail.com (The Wilsons) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:08:57 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Message Guide Message-ID: <45B00C19.70603@gmail.com> Does anyone else besides me feel like this statement showing up not once but three or four times in a message/message reply does as much to clutter the messages as it does to guide the participants? It should be "readable" not readible. 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". From LNMolino at aol.com Thu Jan 18 18:16:32 2007 From: LNMolino at aol.com (LNMolino at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:16:32 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Message Guide Message-ID: In a message dated 1/18/2007 6:10:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, pnwnatives at gmail.com writes: Does anyone else besides me feel like this statement showing up not once but three or four times in a message/message reply does as much to clutter the messages as it does to guide the participants? It should be "readable" not readible. YES Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jan 18 18:29:56 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:29:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000001c73b60$f94227b0$49197254@pc1> Dear "osuleiman" you obviously did not observe the directions given by the list owner- namely to give your full name and your affiliation. The name "osuleiman" suggests that you are not American of birth, but nobody can verify it, and you do not disclose your affiliation. Since you have discomfort to use SI-units you must have lived in the USA for probably all of your life. I do not expect that you have been trained in Japan or the former USSR, where the outdated units are officially, but not scientifically in use. If I would deliver a comment on the US attitude to SI-units some of the hard-liners at RADSAFE would without doubt start to flame me -which I am not afraid of, but would like to avoid. Never mind I will do it and launch soon a comprehensive comment on the question of SI-units from me and all flames will be welcomed!!!!! Oh, why flames? The world and the scientists have gone and are going to SI and even the US is doing it. Scientists who want to question this, like Sandy Perle, seem to try to delay this because - in the case of Sandy Perle - of obvious commercial interests. (Flame expected.) It is just a question of time, that we will have SI units everywhere on this globe, whether in radiation protection or in "meters". Europe did not really need a long time to convert all the "Klafter", "Ellen", "gallons", "shilling", "pence", "guinees", not to talks about "crowns", Kreutzer, Heller, Pfennig, ?re, Kronor (Swedish, (Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic), etc. etc. Not only me by billions of scientists welcome this. The "reluctance of the USA" is not favouring their perception in the field of scientists in the scientific world. Sandy Perle and similar persons have obviously not understood, that the US reputation in radiation protection science is close to zero. Come on, at least in the field of money exchange, the dramatic changes in the European Market, where most of the participants have adopted the EURO as the standard currency has been in my opinion and of most Europeans a real success. Hundreds of millions of people in Europe have been able to exchange their national currency to a common European one "Euro" about 5 years ago and on Jan 1st, 2007 approximately 6 million people in Slovenia have switched to it, abandoning the "Slovenian Tolar". (US-Americans should notice that the "Slovenian Tolar" was not named after the US-Dollar but after the Austrian "Taler", which was originally named after the place in nowadays Czech Republic (Joachimsthal, Jachimow), where the silver was mined - "Joachimsthal". Well educated radiation scientists could trace this "Joachimsthal" to the radium extraction industry at Joachimsthal,nowadays Jachymov. Many more countries are to follow. A hopefully soon occurring exchange of traditional radiation (protection) units to SI units should really be no mayor problem. I will in another mail describe my own experience going just during the Chernobyl accident from pCi to Bq. Countries using the "old" units within the European Union until the Chernobyl accident (for instance Austria) have adopted the SI units by law since then. Since the European Union Directive has prescribed these units there are no countries within the European Union adhering to the "old" ones! Of course I know, that the US is blocking a lot of international efforts to provide unification of justice and as well on the adoption of internationally agreed units. I do not expect or at least hope, that they will not be able to do this forever. At least I hope so and I know of many friends in the USA having the same hope. Best regards to all of you! Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von osuleiman at comcast.net Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. J?nner 2007 15:52 An: sandyfl at cox.net; John R Johnson; nssihou at aol.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] SI Units 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". _______________________________________________ Et al- I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily, myself included, insist on using older units. It's not like the Roentgen has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced in the 70's. I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie. However, if we are to be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause, why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude? Fortunately the professional journals, and other organizations including the government are moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago. As a scientific professional I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I exercise it here. And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is. How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? We have more important things to discuss. From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 18:47:55 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:47:55 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <001101c73b5c$38f615b0$4501a8c0@RAMSERVICE1> References: <001101c73b5c$38f615b0$4501a8c0@RAMSERVICE1> Message-ID: Sorry, to be that cruel, but in this case the person you describe was an idiot. Hopefully there were not many more at that time and in our time. Hopefully that after he quit or retired there was somebody more qualified. Did that happen in Austria - I would not be surprised, because we have more than enough similar cases here......... Franz 2007/1/19, Don Jordan : > > 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". > _______________________________________________ > In the mid 1970's my research advisor & some colleagues wrote a Physical > Chemistry text book, supposedly for college juniors but most 1st year grad > students would have had difficulty with it (Actually, it started out as a > freshman tex!). Since SI was all the rage the authors all made a > determined > effort to write the book entirely in SI. > > I was asked to work out the standard correct (?) answers to the problems > for > several chapters & discovered that my advisor didn't actually have a clue > as > to the relative magnitudes of the 2 systems. For example, I recall one > mass > spectrometry problem that posed a magnetic field of 10,000 tesla. Not on > this planet! > > My advisor held a named professorship at a major research university and > was > a member of the National Academy. If he had trouble with conversions, > then > I do worry about the guys in the control room of an NPP & tend to agree > with > Sandy Perle's position: this would be a gradual change from driving on > the > right side to the left side of the road. > > Since we have to change eventually, maybe we should start with the next > new > plant to be built. > > Don Jordan > > DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com > RAM Services, Inc. > 510 County Highway V > Two Rivers, WI 54241 U.S.A. > > Voice: +1-920-686-3889 > Fax: +1-920-686-3899 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Thu Jan 18 18:48:32 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (=?UTF-8?B?U2FuZHkgUGVybGU=?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:48:32 +0000 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units Message-ID: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 19:14:14 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:14:14 -0800 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <000001c73b60$f94227b0$49197254@pc1> References: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net>, <000001c73b60$f94227b0$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <45AFAAE6.22810.2343B959@sandyfl.cox.net> On 19 Jan 2007 at 1:29, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > Scientists who want to question this, like > Sandy Perle, seem to try to delay this because - in the case of Sandy Perle > - of obvious commercial interests. (Flame expected.) If Franz would have actually read my posts for content, instead of simply looking for any opportunity to twist and attack my comments, he would have noted that I specifically stated that the HPS Standards Committee, which I am Chair, has consistently pushed for all US Standards to either be published with SI Units, or, to also include the SI Units along with the non-SI Units. As also stated, this is not "Sandy Perle" addressing the SI Units, but many scientists in the US (all with apparent problems according to Franz). Let me also reiterate that Franz's comment tying my opinion to commercial endeavors is unfounded, since we do report in SI Units throughout the world where we provide dosimetry. Flame .. no flmaes from me Franz. I'll simply reply to your comments where there is a techncial reason to do so. Other than that, I'll let others reply to your comments. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 19:21:11 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:21:11 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Sandy, If you you had wanted me to read your message, you would have sent it in such a way that I would have been able to read it. No text received. I just cannot understand that some people at RADSAFE blame me, that I have trusted you in the case of finally meeting me after many attempts and even ridicule me for having trusted you. Is this really the US way to handle agreements? Please refrain from sending any mails to me, you are one of the most distainful persons on RADSAFE. Good look with your sales! Franz 2007/1/19, Sandy Perle : > > 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". > _______________________________________________ > FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. > Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Thu Jan 18 19:27:51 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:27:51 -0800 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: References: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, Message-ID: <45AFAE17.26302.2350316D@sandyfl.cox.net> Again Franz, you show your brilliance. You say there was no message, yet it is in the meesage you forwarded below. THIS was my message: FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless -------------------------------------------------- On 19 Jan 2007 at 2:21, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: Sandy, If you you had wanted me to read your message, you would have sent it in such a way that I would have been able to read it. No text received. I just cannot understand that some people at RADSAFE blame me, that I have trusted you in the case of finally meeting meafter many attemptsand even ridicule me for having trusted you. Is this really the US wayto handle agreements? Please refrainfrom sending any mails to me, you are one of the most distainful persons on RADSAFE. Good look with yoursales! Franz 2007/1/19, Sandy Perle : 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". _______________________________________________ FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Thu Jan 18 22:28:31 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:28:31 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] John W. Simpson, 92, Dies; Pioneer of Nuclear Power Message-ID: <45AFD86F.24953.23F59630@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: John W. Simpson, 92, Dies; Pioneer of Nuclear Power NRC Chairman pushes for safer plants Nuclear Regulatory Workforce Challenged Public input on nuclear power first: minister Germany reconsiders nuclear phase-out Federal enviro plan includes nuclear Irish protest Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant Radiation dose 60 per cent too high ====================================== John W. Simpson, 92, Dies; Pioneer of Nuclear Power New York Times Jan 17 - John W. Simpson, a former top executive and engineer for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation who played a major role in developing the nation?s first commercial nuclear power plant and its first nuclear-powered submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus, died Jan. 4 near his home on Hilton Head Island, S.C. He was 92. He died at a hospital of complications of pneumonia, his son Carter said. Mr. Simpson was a close associate of Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, known as the father of the nuclear Navy. The two first worked together during World War II to build switchboards that could withstand the hard impacts faced by naval vessels. Mr. Simpson, already a Westinghouse employee, and Admiral Rickover later joined in designing the Nautilus. Mr. Simpson was in charge of the design and construction of the submarine?s power plant. In 1951, when Westinghouse received a contract from the federal Atomic Energy Commission to build the first atomic electricity- generating plant, at Shippingport, Pa., Mr. Simpson was named manager. In the late 1950s, he organized the company?s astronuclear laboratory, which won the federal government?s first contract to develop a nuclear reactor for rocket propulsion. It was successfully tested, but money was later redirected to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?s Gemini program. Mr. Simpson was president of the Westinghouse Electric Power Systems Company, one of four major divisions of Westinghouse, from 1969 to 1977. In the late ?50s and early ?60s, Westinghouse held about 30 percent of the nation?s market for power-generating equipment. Industry analysts eventually credited Mr. Simpson with turning Westinghouse into a close competitor of General Electric in the production of nuclear plants, turbines and transformers and the distribution of electricity. When Mr. Simpson was awarded the Edison Medal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1971, the citation said he had made contributions to electricity generation and naval and space propulsion. It continued: "The extent to which he influenced the transition from scientific discovery to practical application in all three areas is to a substantial degree responsible for the eminence of the United States in the atomic energy field today." John Wistar Simpson was born in Glenn Springs, S.C., on Sept. 25, 1914, to Richard and Mary Berkeley Simpson. As a young man, he was torn between competing passions, his son Carter said - a fascination with science and an urge to serve in the military. Mr. Simpson joined the Marines in 1933. Just as he was completing basic training, his application to attend the United States Naval Academy was accepted. He graduated from Annapolis in 1937. But in his last year at the academy, Mr. Simpson developed near-sightedness and was denied a commission. Soon after, he went to work as a junior engineer at the Westinghouse switchboard division in East Pittsburgh, Pa. There he met Rickover, the Navy?s contract officer on the switchboard project. At the same time, Mr. Simpson was studying at the University of Pittsburgh for a master?s degree in electrical engineering, which he received in 1941. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Simpson tried to enlist in the Army. His son recounted that when Rickover found out, he called Mr. Simpson into his office and told him he would never let him leave his scientific work. He said, "We don?t need more heroes, we need to win this war." In 1946, Westinghouse granted Mr. Simpson a two-year leave to work at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. There, with Rickover and a group of engineers and scientists, he helped draft plans for the first attempt at applying nuclear energy to the generation of electricity. After returning to Westinghouse in 1949, he was named assistant manager of engineering at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, which the company operated for the Atomic Energy Commission. There, in addition to working on the Nautilus with Rickover, he helped design propulsion plants for the U.S.S. Long Beach and the U.S.S. Enterprise, the nation?s first nuclear surface ships, and for the U.S.S. George Washington, the first nuclear submarine that carried Polaris missiles. In addition to Carter, of Great Falls, Va., Mr. Simpson is survived by another son, John Jr., of Bridgeville, Pa.; two daughters, Patricia Deely of Indianapolis and Barbara Wilkinson of Truckee, Calif.; and seven grandchildren. His wife of 56 years, the former Esther Slattery, died in 2004. ----------------- NRC Chairman pushes for safer plants WASHINGTON (AP) Jan 16 - Future nuclear power plants should include design improvements to better protect against a terrorist attack by large aircraft, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday. The chairman, Dale Klein, said the commission soon will give guidance to reactor manufacturers on "what we believe the reactors should be designed to withstand," including the possibility of a terrorist crashing a plane into the reactor. "It is likely that we will ask the vendors to consider that in a different way than we did in the previous plants," said Klein in an Associated Press interview in his office at NRC headquarters in suburban Rockville, Md. Klein, who became the commission's chairman last June, said it was incorrect to suggest that the NRC will not require design improvements to guard against an airborne terrorist attack. The 103 reactors now in use were designed under regulations that did not require consideration of a direct hit by an aircraft. The nuclear industry maintains that protection against such an attack is a government matter and not one reactor operators should be responsible for as part of their security. While the industry says tests show current reactors can withstand such a direct hit, others have raised doubts. Klein said the NRC will likely want future reactor designs to take such a possibility into account. "These new plants have the opportunity to reduce the (deterrent) actions" that will be required as part of plant operations "by increased design requirements," Klein said. "The new reactors in all likelihood will be more robust than the existing fleet." The NRC is gearing up for a rush of applications for new power reactors, the first such applications since the 1970s before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Klein said four or five firm applications for new reactors are expected to be received this year with another eight likely in 2008. Most, if not all, of the new reactors are expected to be built on the sites of existing nuclear power plants. In the interview, Klein expressed concern that the NRC won't be able to handle the license requests promptly unless Congress increases funding. The NRC, like other agencies, has not received a new budget and will run $95 million, or 12 percent, short. "It will slow (the licensing) down," said Klein, because there won't be money to train licensing specialists. On other matters, Klein: _Said the NRC is ready and in "a watch-and-see mode" when it comes to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He noted there have been several "false starts" in the Energy Department's push to complete a license application. _Expressed confidence that reactor waste can continue to be stored at nuclear plant sites in water pools and dry-cask storage, which are both regulated by the NRC. _Said that the new, streamlined licensing process for new power reactors - now about 42 months - should be shortened even more, at least after the initial group of licenses. It can be done "with no compromise on safety," he said. _Expects that Congress will require NRC approval for licenses for proposed reprocessing facilities under the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Program. "In today's world, it's not likely the DOE will self-regulate like it has in the past," Klein said. He said the NRC is on the fence when it comes to reprocessing nuclear fuel, the centerpiece of the Bush administration's vision of an expanded nuclear industry. "As a regulator, we will evaluate whatever proposal comes at us, but we are not promoting recycling nor are we discouraging it," Klein said. -------------- Nuclear Regulatory Workforce Challenged WASHINGTON (AP) Jan 18 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to hire enough workers to manage the expected onslaught of new nuclear reactor applications will be crippled without increased funding, a report by the investigative arm of Congress says. NRC Chairman Dale Klein said he, too, was concerned about the agency's ability to handle the license requests unless it receives more money from Congress. Without a new budget, the agency will be $95 million, or 12 percent, short. "It will slow (the licensing) down," he said in an interview. A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday examined his agency's workforce challenges. "The funding and full-time equivalent restrictions ... would have a crippling impact on our ability to manage human capital," Klein wrote in a response included in the GAO report released Wednesday. Electric power companies, including Southern Co., Entergy Corp., Constellation Energy Group Inc., Exelon Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and Duke Energy Corp., intend to apply for 20 licenses to build and operate at least 29 new nuclear power reactors in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 with project costs between $1.5 billion and $4 billion, according to the GAO report. French state-owned nuclear power company Areva, through its UniStar Nuclear joint venture with Constellation, is competing with General Electric Co., Westinghouse -- now owned by Toshiba Corp. -- and others to develop the new reactors. To deal with the application demands and its other duties, NRC projects that its workforce will need to grow from about 3,100 employees in early fiscal 2006 to nearly 4,000 workers by 2010, which will require between 300 and 400 new hires annually during that time, according to the report. NRC exceeded its fiscal year 2006 hiring target by hiring 371 new employees, but sustaining that performance could be difficult because the agency has not completed its hiring and training enhancement plans, the GAO said. Reviewing the applications and conducting its other work could hinder NRC's ability to ensure a safe and secure nuclear power industry. Substantial delays in the application process also could hurt investor confidence, decrease the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy, and possibly reduce the amount of electricity available in the U.S., the report concluded. GAO recommended the NRC complete an overall workforce plan and provide appropriate resources to implement its knowledge management and training efforts. There are currently 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and the new applications will be the first since the 1970s before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979. ------------- Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up' Scientists claim committee's conclusions were manipulated for political gain, reports Colin Brown The Independent Jan 19 - Two scientists who sat on a nuclear waste committee have alleged that chaotic organistaion drove the committee to approve an option for deep storage of high-level nuclear waste. Labour MPs have responded to their allegations by saying there had been a " cover-up". The scientists, Professor David Ball and Dr Keith Baverstock, left the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in April and May. David Miliband, the Secretary of State for the Environment, subsequently informed Labour MPs that Professor Ball had left for "personal reasons", an assertion dismissed by the professor as "misleading". Professor Ball and Dr Baverstock accused Tony Blair of "manipulating" the committee's decision for "political ends". They believe its recommendation for deep storage of high-level waste was used to push through the Cabinet the decision to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations. But they warn that CoRWM's prolonged failure to identify which sites can safely take the waste will cause delays that could open Britain to a terrorist attack on its nuclear stockpiles, which are held on the surface at the Sellafield site in Cumbria. "Science has been manipulated for political ends," said Dr Baverstock. "The time wasted has resulted in continued and unnecessary exposure of the public to the ongoing risk of temporarily stored nuclear waste, surely a legitimate public concern in this age of terrorism," said the scientists. Dr Baverstock is a former senior radiation adviser with 12 years' experience at the World Health Organisation, but was sacked from the committee. He is now head of environmental science at the University of Kuopio, Finland. Mr Miliband, in a letter to the Labour MP Alan Simpson, rejected their criticism, saying the committee had taken the "best available existing scientific knowledge" into account. He added: "I believe it is possible to conclude that the scientific basis for CoRWM's work has been sound." Professor Ball said he had given Mr Miliband substantial reasons for his resignation from the committee, none of which could remotely be described as a "personal reason". He said: "I believed CoRWM to be treading dangerously close to the line and it was overall such an appalling experience that I concluded... that the only option was to resign." He added: "Defra's continuing strategy of total denial and what looks like the attempted rewriting of history is only compounding the problem." The two scientists added that they were unaware that four of the CoRWM's 12 members worked for the committee's largest suppliers until it was revealed by The Independent on Sunday on 8 May 2005. The committee included a paid consultant for NNC, which won the ?1m contract to project-manage CoRWM's work; an associate consultant for Enviros Consulting, which had a contract worth ?50,000 to ?100,000 from the committee; and an associate of the IDM consultancy, which conducted ?10,000 to ?50,000-worth of contract work for the committee. Mr Simpson, who organised a private Commons meeting with Labour MPs to hear the scientists' criticism, said: "This blows apart the recommendations for deep storage of nuclear waste. The taxpayer faces an ?85bn bill for disposing of the last generation of nuclear waste. We now know that no one has a clue how to do this safely. This is no time for a cover-up." He added: "Blair has been allowed to ride the country into another nuclear nightmare before he goes. Someone has to call a halt, and if Brown isn't up to it, he isn't up to the succession." The Prime Minister signalled his determination on Tuesday to take the next step towards the nuclear power programme before he steps down from office. He announced that new licensing conditions for nuclear power stations would be published next month. But a former Labour minister joined MPs in calling on Mr Blair to stop the development of nuclear power stations until he answers the concerns raised by the scientists. A former environment minister, Michael Meacher, said their views had to be considered by the Government rather than being " rubbished". "I think it's very dangerous when reputable scientists have their views not fully taken into account and answered," said Mr Meacher. "It is incredibly irresponsible to go for a further round of nuclear power-station building when we still have not got a safe way of storing the huge volume of nuclear waste already produced." Where the waste goes * Higher activity radioactive waste is stored at facilities around the UK * The amount is estimated at 80,000 cubic metres about the size of Albert Hall. It weighs about 100,000 tons * Even if the Government decides not to build any more reactors, waste will increase by nearly sixfold to 477,860 cubic metres over the next century * The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was asked to look at all the options for higher activity waste and find a long-term solution * It is expected to take 40 years to build a deep repository so, in the interim, it says the waste should be stored at surface sites as close as possible to nuclear facilities * The most likely candidate is Sellafield. ------------------ Public input on nuclear power first: minister CALGARY (CBC) Jan 18 - Albertans don't share federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn's "enthusiasm" for using nuclear energy in oilsands extraction, a provincial cabinet minister says. "I don't know that Albertans share his enthusiasm," Environment Minister Rob Renner said. "That's why I would suggest that before we go down that route, there would need to be some fairly broad-based public consultation." On Wednesday, Lunn told reporters he favours using nuclear energy to extract petroleum from the oilsands in Alberta. "There's great promise in the oilsands for nuclear energy," he said. "Nuclear energy is emission-free. There's no greenhouse gases. We burn a lot of natural gas to extract that oil from the sands right now. There's great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy, something that I'm very keen on." Nuclear would be considered: industry Two serious oilsands players - Husky Energy Inc. and Total SA of France - are publicly mulling over the nuclear option. But the Alberta government is not working on any proposals for nuclear power plants in the province, provincial Energy Minister Mel Knight said Wednesday. Renner said he is not opposed to nuclear power, but other sources of energy may be preferable. It's too early to say if nuclear power will ever come to the oilsands, said Pierre Alvarez, head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "If a proposal can be brought forward that meets the timelines associated with oilsands development and the cost requirements, it would be considered," he said. Alvarez said any nuclear project would have to make economic sense - in other words, it would have to be proven to be cheaper than using natural gas to extract the oil. --------------- Germany reconsiders nuclear phase-out Edie News Center Jan 19 - Germany is reconsidering its decision to abandon nuclear power after a temporary cut-off from Russian oil brought out its dependence on foreign fuel imports. The country decided to phase out nuclear power completely back in 2001, but the country's politicians are now having second thoughts as energy prices rise, dependence on oil and gas from unreliable Russia grows and climate change increasingly becomes an issue. Russia cut off oil supplies to a number of European countries when it closed off the Druzhba pipeline for three days last week in order to force Belarus to accept an oil price increase. After doubts about the phase-out expressed by some members of Germany's ruling Social Democrats party, Chancellor Angela Merkel recently assured them and the public that she was "faithful to the contract" that foresees a complete nuclear phase-out. But the economics minister Michael Glos and environment minister Sigmar Gabriel remain in opposition on whether the country's future energy mix should include nuclear. The economics ministry has said in a recent discussion paper that the EU's climate-focussed energy policy is "not compatible with the continued phasing out of nuclear energy, given current energy predictions, which are seen as realistic." Phasing out Germany's 19 nuclear power plants to be replaced by gas or coal would significantly boost CO2 emissions, the economics ministry said. The environment ministry argues that Germany's greenhouse gas emission cuts can be achieved without the help of nuclear power, as renewables take a stronger role in the energy mix and energy efficiency improves. The share of renewables in energy production should go up from 4.5% today to 15.7% by 2020, the environment ministry calculates. --------------- Federal enviro plan includes nuclear Fort McMurray Today - Jan 18 - The Conservative government launched its green rebranding effort Wednesday with a controversial boost for nuclear power. In the first big announcement since Rona Ambrose was shuffled from the environment portfolio two weeks ago, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn promised $230 million over four years for research into clean energy. But he gave no specifics on how the money will be spent -- "it hasn?t been allocated yet" -- leading to criticism that the government is making more vague promises like those that scuppered Ambrose. The government is trying to restore credibility on the environment, which has emerged as a top issue for voters, and an election could come soon. Lunn said one target area for the research money is "next-generation nuclear. "Nuclear energy is emission-free, there?s no greenhouse gases, there?s no pollutants going out (with) the energy," he told a news conference. "There?s a great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy, something I am very keen on." Although it is often touted as an alternative to fossil fuels because it doesn?t directly produce greenhouse emissions, nuclear power is still panned by most environmentalists. "The range of problems associated with nuclear power is such that this is in no way a solution to the greenhouse gas problems," Matthew Bramley, director of climate change with the Pembina Institute, told Today in a telephone interview from Ottawa. "The generation of large amounts of radiation and hazardous wastes impact on surface and ground water quality and when you consider the security, the cost, this is in no way a good idea for cleaning up the oilsands sector," he said. Emilie Moorhouse of the Sierra Club of Canada said there?s no storage system that can keep nuclear waste isolated because it remains active for millions of years . Lunn suggested nuclear energy could be an ideal source of power for the massive oilsands project in Alberta. But Moorhouse said that would be problematic because nuclear plants need water for cooling, and high demand for water is already one of the biggest problems in Alberta. The new research program, dubbed the ecoEnergy Technology Initiative, is similar to a Liberal research program now terminated, although annual funding will rise somewhat. But the "overwhelming priority" Bramley said is to actually reduce emissions now and not for more research and development on technology. "For the oilsands, carbon capture is the obvious technology. We know that carbon capture technology is already available at a cost of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide," the climate change watch director said. "It?s in the oilsands industry?s own economic interest to deploy carbon capture technology on a large scale -- because its cost is modest," he said. The $30 per tonne cost to use carbon capture works out to be an additional $2 per barrel of produced oil and would eliminate 100 per cent of carbon dioxide. Lunn promised that the government will soon announce short-term emissions- cutting targets for industry. Nor would he give his view on whether the government should stop generous tax breaks for the petroleum industry, saying that?s a matter for Finance Minister John Flaherty. Environment Minister John Baird, who also attended Wednesday?s news conference, offered no defence for the tax breaks for the oilsands, saying he did not know why they were introduced. Lunn is expected to make news with further clean energy announcements this week in Victoria and Toronto. Lunn got a cautious thumbs-up from Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who said improved technology is the only way to improve the situation. But Alvarez warned that change will take time and a lot more money than Ottawa is willing to allocate. "There are no silver bullet solutions right now. We?re going to need more. But what?s encouraging to us is that we?re now having the debate on energy technologies that for the last 20 years nobody has wanted to talk about." ----------------- Entire Irish Nation Gathers On Beach To Futilely Shake Fists At Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant (DUBLIN) Shitegist Jan 12 - The entire population of the Republic of Ireland are due to gather on Dollymount Strand, Clontarf this coming weekend to join in the world's largest instance of impotent fist- shaking at a neighbouring nuclear polluter. 'We're gonna tell them British bastards what's feckin' what so we feckin are' said a random drunk who crawled out from under a nearby rock. Campaign manager Gubnait O'Toss says that the demonstration will send a powerful message to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) that the Irish people are serious about the issues of nuclear waste disposal in the Irish Sea and that they are prepared to take serious measures to make their case heard. Irish Government ministers were quick to lend support to the campaign, with Minister for the Environment, Dodgy Roach, claiming that the Irish Government has been pursuing a 'vigorous campaign' against the nefarious Albionites and their radioactive goo-dumping. 'No more' fumed Roach, 'will the Irish sea be the cess-pool where England dumps it's radioactive gysm. For too long the island of Ireland have been the continental wank-rag of the British Empire'. Government spokesmen, speaking under terms of strict anonymity, indicated that the government is willing to consider further radical action to make itself and the Irish people heard. Amognst some of the more startling suggestions mooted are a mass staring session, formation frowning, synchronised, county-by-county grumbling and a nation-wide simoultaneous foot-stamping. ---------------- Radiation dose 60 per cent too high Telegraph UK Jan 19 - Lisa Norris is just one of the many patients who have died after being given the wrong treatment. The teenager had 19 radiotherapy sessions at the Beatson Oncology Centre in Glasgow to treat a brain tumour. But after she was given the all clear, consultants told the 16-year- old she had mistakenly been exposed to radiation levels 60 per cent higher than prescribed. advertisementLisa, above, from Girvan, Ayrshire, was left covered in painful burns and blisters from the radiation overdose and died months later. An inquiry revealed that the medic who planned Lisa's treatment was a trainee with limited experience, and that senior staff failed to monitor him correctly. Lisa's father Ken said after the report into his daughter's death: "It is very hard for us to take in all the errors that took place. It is also hard to believe so many things could go wrong with someone's treatment in an NHS hospital. "It is frightening to think staff who were not properly trained were able to work with radiation. " ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sontermj at tpg.com.au Fri Jan 19 02:37:55 2007 From: sontermj at tpg.com.au (Mark Sonter) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:37:55 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: SI units In-Reply-To: <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> References: <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> Message-ID: <45B08363.6090707@tpg.com.au> Deary me! I remember as a kid learning 12 inches equals 1 foot, 3 ft equals 1 yard 5-and-a-half yards one rod pole or perch, 16 ounces equals 1 pound, 2240 pounds one ton, etc etc; not to mention 32 poundals one pound force, and something about slugs...and horsepower, BTUs, bushels, and acre-feet; but maybe I'm wrong. No wonder NASA lost the Mars lander, if it was trying to work in both imperial and metric.... And then at university came the blessed discovery of first the cgs system of units and then the kgs system, now SI. Then when I was teaching physics in Papua New Guinea, we, following Australia, 'went metric', and at last gallons (two types, US and Imperial), ounces (two types, Troy and Avoidupois), Fahrenheit, psi, and a host of other awful units were rendered obsolete. Then I went off and did my Medical Physics, and learned pCi and rem, and, God help us, Roentgens; and then I got beaten up by a curmudgeonly state regulator who refused to talk in other than Bq and Sv (and rightly so, as SI was now enshrined in national legislation). There were a few cases of mixed up units and accidentally ablated thyroids (not on my watch: I was counting mSv in a uranium mine..) All I can say to our US colleagues is: try to embrace and encourage the transition: make it as fast as possible: other countries have done it; it will in the end save you immense brain energy on essentially wasted work; and you (and the rest of the world) will then ultimately breathe a huge sigh of relief. Mark Sonter From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 19 03:26:51 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:26:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? Message-ID: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Mr Sandy Perle, Thank you very much for the interesting news item on divers. Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! I have a question. Do you know whether they wear on line radiation monitors? It appears so. Is it possible for achieving dose control by making these workers practice their trade under simulated conditions? Doing any work under water may require special skill. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group, Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy Room No 18 Ground Floor, North Wing Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094 E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 25486081 (O) 91+22 27706048 (R) 9869016206 (mobile) ___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 19 07:52:48 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:52:48 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? In-Reply-To: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B05CB0.801.25FA35AE@sandyfl.cox.net> Dear Dr. Parthasanathy, I am familiar with many US facilities where the divers do wear direct reading electronic dosimeters that are transmiting data to a central system that is monitored by health physics, along with voice communication in order to provide effective communication and information to and from the divers. This type of work as well as others often involves mock- up training i order to reduce the overall expected dose for the individual as well as cumulative dose. Regards, Sandy On 19 Jan 2007 at 9:26, parthasarathy k s wrote: > I have a question. Do you know whether they wear on line radiation monitors? It appears so. Is it possible for achieving dose control by making these workers practice their trade under simulated conditions? Doing any work under water may require special skill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Fri Jan 19 08:32:46 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:32:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear r Message-ID: In a fomer life, I was an underwater construction safety officer and inspector, and can say that almost everything done underwater is rehearsed and practiced. Since an underwater facemask acts like a magnifying lens, eye-hand coordination takes some practice. Luke McCormick From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 19 09:30:52 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:30:52 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Diver Pics using remote electronic dosimeter and communication monitoring Message-ID: <45B073AC.4020.1416CC27@sandyfl.cox.net> Dear Dr. Parthasanathy, I've forwarded to you 3 images from diver set-up using remote electronic dosimetry and communication monitoring provided by GDS sister-company, MGP, courtesy of Keith Spero. The 3 images are from a nuclear plant in 2001: First image: Prepping diver with vest for electronic dosimetry &multiplexer... Second image: Into the dive suit (connecting Airline & Audio with Telemetry Antenna) Third image: Real-time monitoring from the dive platform... 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From DGMiller at enercon.com Fri Jan 19 13:03:59 2007 From: DGMiller at enercon.com (Dustin G Miller) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:03:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Available Room at Hilton Knoxville for Midyear HPS Meeting Message-ID: <000301c73bfc$94514560$3a04000a@enercon.com> Due to a late cancellation, I have one room that has become available at the Hilton Knoxville for the HPS Midyear Meeting. Is there anyone out there that would like to have this room at the HPS price of $99 per night for Saturday to Thursday (Jan 20th to Jan 25th)? The check out date may be changed to Wednesday and the check-in date may be changed without cost if there is a "weather" delay. I will have the room put in your name and you would change the payment information when you arrive. The room should be a King Non-smoking room or 2 queens Non-smoking. Email me directly and not to RadSafe, please. Otherwise, I look forward to meeting some of you at the meeting!! Dustin G. Miller Radiation Safety Officer Enercon Calibration Laboratory ENERCON Services, Inc. dgmiller at enercon.com www.enercon.com From alanpeg at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 17 09:08:50 2007 From: alanpeg at sbcglobal.net (alanpeg at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:08:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> Message-ID: <004b01c73a49$65d88220$81cd3c4b@Staples451> Before retirement I often did peer review. I would send comments such as "you would make your point more convincingly if you plotted ..." or "you really have two papers here. Please rewrite so that one is on subject A and the other is on subject B." Sometimes the authors thanked the anonymous reviewer, often not. The writing style of many scientists (including me) is often terrible and, if I could help clarify the writing, I felt I was doing a service. Al Rosenfield Columbus Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Terry" > Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for helping > you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. From terryj at iit.edu Fri Jan 19 14:05:33 2007 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:05:33 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health In-Reply-To: <004b01c73a49$65d88220$81cd3c4b@Staples451> References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> <004b01c73a49$65d88220$81cd3c4b@Staples451> Message-ID: I would argue that thanking an anonymous reviewer for helping make a point is completely different from thanking reviewers by name for "the opportunity to speak with and learn from Drs. Chris Busby and Michel Fernex at the Hamburg conference. Their contributions to this paper stem from their long-term, on-going, related research as well as, more particularly, to the helpful and thoughtful comments they gave as peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript." It is a practice of mine to suggest reviewers for my papers (when journals request this information) that I haven't worked with in the past. I have no idea who actually reviews the papers that I submit but I would find it somewhat unseemly if I only had friends and colleagues review my work. Jeff On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:08 AM, alanpeg at sbcglobal.net wrote: > Before retirement I often did peer review. I would send comments > such as "you would make your point more convincingly if you > plotted ..." or "you really have two papers here. Please rewrite so > that one is on subject A and the other is on subject B." Sometimes > the authors thanked the anonymous reviewer, often not. The writing > style of many scientists (including me) is often terrible and, if I > could help clarify the writing, I felt I was doing a service. > > Al Rosenfield > Columbus Ohio > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Terry" > >> Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for >> helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. > From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 14:10:58 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:10:58 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health In-Reply-To: <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> Message-ID: <007e01c73c05$eff7b580$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> <> Terry: You can thank the anonymous peer reviewers in the acknowledgments of the paper if you are so inclined, which I have done in the past. Occasionally they may reveal their identity to you at a later time, but usually not. But your point is well taken that "peer review" involves a process that works best when anonymous; so that the critique is less likely to be interpreted as a "personal attack" and that the reviewer is less likely to be compromised. D. McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque From maurysis at peoplepc.com Fri Jan 19 17:18:37 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:18:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How? Message-ID: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> This brief article is related to radiation safety and risk to the extent that anthropogenic global warming (GW) is related to nuclear power vs. other means of power production. This anecdotal article sums the issue well aside from the fact that all of us know excellent scientists who, without pay, are convinced mistakenly of the human role in GW. The idea of decertifying GW Skeptics is about as silly as adults can be. Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) PS What was polar bear population 20-30 years ago compared with most recent survey? ======================== AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION January 19, 2007 Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano at epw.senate.gov After Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 "In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education. Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188 The Weather Channel Mess January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed Well, well. Some ?climate expert? on ?The Weather Channel? wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent ?global warming? is a natural process. So much for ?tolerance?, huh? I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can?t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at ?The Weather Channel? probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. *The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe. If you don?t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue. In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science. WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast. I have nothing against ?The Weather Channel?, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won?t go. From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jan 19 21:52:17 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:52:17 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070119201917.009e87e0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 19, 2007 (See RADSAFE, Jan. 17:) Steven Dapra (SD): Do you [James Salsman] have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged excess Basrah cancers? James Salsman (JS): Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf < Eric Daxon: The citation is an undated presentation (not a published paper) that appears to have other presentations embedded in it. The data were taken when Saddam was still in power and there are several limitations the most important of which are a lack of exposure assessment (levels of uranium exposure were not measured in neither the parents nor the children), the lack of a control group (comparable measurements were not made in other cities, and census data were used for the denominator as opposed estimates of the populations in the cities at the time. The discussion of biological plausibility that DU was the cause does not include a discussion of dose. The logic used could be applied tom many other toxins - most notably mustard gas. Comments from SD about the presentation: The presentation is not dated, however one of the early pages is a photograph of the head table with a date of Jan. 14-16, 2003, and a sign or banner stating that this was a "Symposium for Peace." The Mt. Sinai pathologist (last name Fasy) appears to have prepared this presentation, which looks like a slide show or (more likely) a Power Point presentation. I looked at the nuclearpolicy.org website and it has a link to some slides by Fasy. Most of the presentation is tables of statistics with no source material for them; and photographs of deformed children. (Rather unpleasant to look at.) Near p. 34 the presentation acknowledges that there was not independent measure of exposure, and that there was no control city for Basrah, the city that was studied. Near p. 44 we find the only citation in the presentation. It is a paper titled "Radiation Risk Of Low Fluences of Alpha Particles May Be Greater Than We Thought." (Zhou, et al., PNAS 98:14410-14415; 2001) Around pp. 45-50 the author gives some superficial facts about uranium chemistry. Around p.53 a slide acknowledges that some of the neural tube defects may be caused by a folic acid deficiency. Presumably this is a reference to some of the deformed children. Technically, JS's "citation" is a citation. Because the presentation has no citations for any of its data, it is worthless. And of course, the presentation admitted itself that it has some limitations no control city, for example. That's a significant deficiency, wouldn't you say, James? If you are reading this, James, you said you had "plenty" of citations. How about one that is somewhat scholarly? (A word of warning to RADSAFErs. If you have a dial-up modem this presentation has a lot of color and pictures, and is very slow and cumbersome.) Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From lars.ingeman at telia.com Sat Jan 20 02:24:37 2007 From: lars.ingeman at telia.com (Lars Persson) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:24:37 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dale Preston Message-ID: Have you heard of epidemiologist Dale Preston - he worked in Japan at RERF? I have lost contact wth him. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Sat Jan 20 02:43:57 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:43:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dale Preston References: Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08F215@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Hello Lars, See: Dale Preston, PhD Hirosoft International 1335 H Street Eureka, CA 95501 preston at hirosoft.net Regards, Jim Muckerheide -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Lars Persson Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 3:24 AM To: Radsafe Message Cc: Grace Lossman Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dale Preston Have you heard of epidemiologist Dale Preston - he worked in Japan at RERF? I have lost contact wth him. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Jan 20 10:04:58 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:04:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> 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 > > -----Urspr?ngliche 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 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 10:13:35 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <272596.27084.qm@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <826534.8316.qm@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, I believe that I offered copies of the original paper when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one to Jim. Did you need a copy? I think that you not only chery-picked the sentences, but also do not understand what was written. You may understand the differences between solid tumors and leukemias. There are also differences between cancer incidents and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would bias the data. --- howard long wrote: > Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > hear from. > > As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most > significant part of the > Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its > ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report > finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by > official records) when 126 would be expected in > those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 > rem, 40 rad) over 20 years . > > This confirms amazing evidence for safety and > effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will > employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds > of new nuclear power plants in the USA then. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > 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).? > > > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > > of mortality data. > > No answer to, > > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis > > Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same > > population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 > > Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org > > Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the > > Health and Vital Statistics for the population of > > Taiwan published yearly by the Department of > Health > > showed, > > ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer > > deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, > > ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and > > solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected > > after 20 years, in addition to a number of > > spontaneous cancer deaths.? > > > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences > > do seem higher with that dose of radiation. > Chang?s > > table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The > > absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 > > years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests > less > > severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so > > by the radiation. > > > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate > > these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental > > establishment? > > > > Viva hormesis! > > > > Howard Long > > > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Dr. Long, > > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as > a > > reliable study, and the recently published study > of > > the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your > > beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to > > confuse you message any more than it already it? > > > > --- howard long wrote: > > > > > John, > > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > > > your own? > > > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > > > establishment not only used a one tail test, > > showing > > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted > the > > > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > > > critical review of the data in the papers, like > > the > > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > > > some of my suggestions to make his language > > > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > > extra > > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > > hidden > > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > > jobs. > > > > > > Howard Long > > > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > > Cameron > > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the > results > > > of > > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > > indicate? > > > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > > good > > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of > > increased > > > > life expectancy. > > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > > 2.8 > > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > > Bernie's > > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > > Jerry > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > ?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.? > -- John F. Kennedy > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > > === 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Sat Jan 20 10:47:29 2007 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:47:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How? References: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: Maury&Dog and Marc Morano wrote and Jim Dukelow interpolates some comments: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Maury Siskel Sent: Fri 1/19/2007 3:18 PM To: Mailing List for Risk Professionals; radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How? This brief article is related to radiation safety and risk to the extent that anthropogenic global warming (GW) is related to nuclear power vs. other means of power production. This anecdotal article sums the issue well aside from the fact that all of us know excellent scientists who, without pay, are convinced mistakenly of the human role in GW. The idea of decertifying GW Skeptics is about as silly as adults can be. Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) PS What was polar bear population 20-30 years ago compared with most recent survey? ======================== AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION January 19, 2007 Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano at epw.senate.gov After Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 "In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education. Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188 The Weather Channel Mess January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh? [JSD comment -- There is a more generous possible interpretation of Heidi Cullen's suggestion that the AMS should not be "certifying" broadcast meteorlogist that do not believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The AMS, like the Health Physics Society and many other professional societies, has developed a number of consensus position papers on science policy issues, in an attempt to give the wider society and its leaders the benefit of their considered position on the scientific issues involved. In July 2005, the AMS issued a position paper, , that simply endorses the "Joint Academies Statement: Global Response to Climate Change", issued by the national academies of science of Braxil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Joint Academies Statement is available at . In February 2003, the AMS issued a position paper, "Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences" . This position paper is one of the nicer short summaries of the state of climate science (as of early 2003) and the conclusions that ought to be drawn from a balanced consideration of what we knew about climate. End JSD comment] I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. [JSD comment: The Romans had a name for this argument -- ad hominem. End JSD comment] *The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe. [JSD comment: The Romans also had a name for this argument -- non sequitur. The fact, admitted by all who study climatology, that climate is naturally variable on every time scale, due to variability in insolation and volcanic eruptions and to the internal dynamics of the complex, non-linear, climate dynamical system, neither confirms nor refutes the separate assertion that man's interactions with the global environment are leading to global warming and other climate changes. End JSD comment] If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue. In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science. WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast. I have nothing against "The Weather Channel", but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won't go. [JSD comment -- What Heidi Cullen and number of others within the climatology community (see and do a search on "AMS certification") are saying is that the AMS should not give its "Seal of Approval" to weather broadcasters who deny the accepted consensus on global climate change. Cullen and the others are not contesting Morano's right to state his beliefs, they are simply saying he should not be able to do it with the AMS imprimatur. End JSD comments] 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 hflong at pacbell.net Sat Jan 20 11:08:49 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:08:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <826534.8316.qm@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <834360.20640.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> JJ, 1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer). 2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, I believe that I offered copies of the original paper when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one to Jim. Did you need a copy? I think that you not only chery-picked the sentences, but also do not understand what was written. You may understand the differences between solid tumors and leukemias. There are also differences between cancer incidents and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would bias the data. --- howard long wrote: > Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > hear from. > > As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most > significant part of the > Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its > ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report > finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by > official records) when 126 would be expected in > those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 > rem, 40 rad) over 20 years . > > This confirms amazing evidence for safety and > effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will > employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds > of new nuclear power plants in the USA then. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > 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).? > > > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > > of mortality data. From radbloom at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 13:01:58 2007 From: radbloom at comcast.net (Cindy Bloom) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:01:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: SI units In-Reply-To: <45B08363.6090707@tpg.com.au> References: <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070120135838.03754948@mail.comcast.net> And I learned that a ton was 2000 pounds (versus 2240 pounds), but when I got older I found out there are short tons and long tons and both are called commonly called a ton. At 06:37 PM 1/19/2007 +1000, Mark Sonter wrote: >Deary me! > >I remember as a kid learning 12 inches equals 1 foot, 3 ft equals 1 yard >5-and-a-half yards one rod pole or perch, 16 ounces equals 1 pound, 2240 >pounds one ton, etc etc; not to mention 32 poundals one pound force, and >something about slugs...and horsepower, BTUs, bushels, and acre-feet; but >maybe I'm wrong. > >No wonder NASA lost the Mars lander, if it was trying to work in both >imperial and metric.... > >And then at university came the blessed discovery of first the cgs system >of units and then the kgs system, now SI. > >Then when I was teaching physics in Papua New Guinea, we, following >Australia, 'went metric', and at last gallons (two types, US and >Imperial), ounces (two types, Troy and Avoidupois), Fahrenheit, psi, and a >host of other awful units were rendered obsolete. > >Then I went off and did my Medical Physics, and learned pCi and rem, and, >God help us, Roentgens; and then I got beaten up by a curmudgeonly state >regulator who refused to talk in other than Bq and Sv (and rightly so, as >SI was now enshrined in national legislation). There were a few cases of >mixed up units and accidentally ablated thyroids (not on my watch: I was >counting mSv in a uranium mine..) > >All I can say to our US colleagues is: try to embrace and encourage the >transition: make it as fast as possible: other countries have done it; it >will in the end save you immense brain energy on essentially wasted work; >and you (and the rest of the world) will then ultimately breathe a huge >sigh of relief. > >Mark Sonter From fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jan 21 04:42:37 2007 From: fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:42:37 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russian nuclear sub may be raised with the help of British experts Message-ID: <001b01c73d48$de264c60$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> Sunday Times reports British to help raise Russian nuclear sub http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2557885,00.html A RUSTING Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the Barents Sea with the loss of nine crewmen may be raised from the ocean bed next summer with the help of British experts. A Ministry of Defence salvage team will examine the vessel's two nuclear reactors before deciding whether it can be raised from a depth of more than 900ft. The K-159, a November-class submarine commissioned in 1962, sank when it was hit by a storm while being towed to be scrapped in September 2003. The Russian government was embarrassed by its loss, 40 miles off the coast of the Arctic Circle city of Murmansk. Its reactors are filled with three-quarters of a ton of spent uranium. The vessel is lying at more than twice the depth from which the Kursk - the nuclear submarine that sank in 2000, killing its 118-man crew - was raised. "There's an element of fear of the unknown here," said Morgyn Davis, project team leader for salvage and marine at the Defence Logistics Organisation, whose team is consulting the Russian authorities about the K-159. We have towed nuclear submarines before and we have practical experience with nukes, which obviously very few nations have. " The Norwegian government, which was given responsibility by the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial nations for overseeing the post-cold war clean-up of ageing military equipment in the Arctic, has come in for criticism over the sinking. Norway largely financed the disastrous Russian towing operation in which four rusting pontoons, built in 1942, were used as a support structure for the submarine. After the sinking, Britain stepped in and offered its services, playing a key role in towing two remaining November-class submarines safely across the Barents Sea. The British team will now work with Norwegian and Canadian diving experts and Dutch salvage engineers. Currently engaged in keeping the oil tanks of the sunken battleship Royal Oak from leaking into Scapa Flow, Davis's team last raised a submarine in 1985. It was also involved with a British company whose submersible rescued seven Russians in the mini-submarine Priz off Kamchatka in the Russian Far East in August 2005. "We've worked closely with the Russian government and we think we understand what's involved with the K-159," said Davis. "The first thing to do is to get down to the wreck in remote-control submersibles, cut the pontoon wires around the submarine and put sensors on to check for radiation. We think it is flooded with water, so raising it like that, from that depth, would be very difficult." If the hull is intact the team may pump in compressed air to allow the K-159 to rise with the assistance of balloons. If the vessel is too badly damaged it may just be entombed in concrete and left on the seabed. According to some reports the hatches were open at the time of the sinking - to allow the crew to get air. Shortly after the accident, retired Admiral Eduard Baltin revealed that the K-159 had been taking water during its last mission in 1983. He said that placing men on the crumbling submarine "was like putting them in a barrel full of holes". The families of the submariners who died welcomed the news that Britain may help raise the K-159. They have fought to have the vessel brought back to the surface since 2003 and are now suing the Russian government for compensation. "The defence ministry has been promising to raise the sub for three years now, so it's high time it happened," said Valentina Lappa, the widow of the K-159's commander, Sergei Lappa. "We've been treated with utter disregard. We have no place to mourn our loved ones. There may still be some remains in the submarine. Our men deserve a proper burial. I have no husband and no tombstone, only a terrible void." Fred Dawson fwp_dawson at hotmail.com From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 21 14:51:04 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:51:04 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Foes blast nuclear plant, NRC Message-ID: <45B38BE8.25685.3E9D7A@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Foes blast nuclear plant, NRC Waste disposal at Yucca Mountain unsafe Lawmakers to consider bill for building new nuclear plant Jordan seeks nuclear power for peaceful means Radiation release, false data prompt Hanford safety review Dirt near nuclear plant not dangerous =========================== Foes blast nuclear plant, NRC BERKELEY Asbury Park Press - Jan 21 - George Cox doesn't see the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant as a local issue. Rather, the township resident sees the concerns many have about the plant and other nuclear facilities -- such as safety and security from terrorism -- as issues that could potentially affect the entire globe. "We're all in the same boat," Cox said. "The whole planet could be affected by this." Cox was one of more than 50 people who turned out Saturday morning to hear a discussion by three activists who oppose the relicensing. The forum, held at the Ocean County Library's Berkeley branch, was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Ocean County. The organization's leaders have also taken a stand against extending the plant's operations. The speakers raised many of the issues that opponents of the plant have cited, such as the contention that the plant is no longer safe due to corrosion of its radiation barrier and other factors and that it is ill-prepared for a terrorist attack. But they also said there are problems in the relicensing process itself. For instance, Paul Gunter, who directs the reactor watchdog project of the Nuclear Information and Resources Service, accused the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission of being too sympathetic to the nuclear industry to objectively evaluate plant safety. "The issue of lack of federal regulatory oversight, not just at Oyster Creek but as a national issue, is as compelling as the deterioration of containment at Oyster Creek," Gunter told the audience. Corrosion of the drywell liner -- or radiation barrier -- has been one of the most scrutinized issues of the relicensing application. Portions of the liner have been found to be significantly thinner than when the plant was constructed in the late 1960s, which opponents of the plant have argued poses an unacceptable safety risk. Richard Webster, an attorney with the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic who is representing renewal opponents from the Shore area, also said on Saturday that Oyster Creek's design is fundamentally unsafe. As the first commercial nuclear plant in the nation, the plant was built at a time when there was still much to be learned about nuclear power and that the federal government no longer allows plants of Oyster Creek's design to be constructed, Webster said. "You can be in favor of nuclear power and still want to see Oyster Creek closed down," he said. AmerGen officials weren't invited to the forum. However, the company maintains that the plant operates safely and can continue to do for another 20 years. Rachelle Benson, a plant spokeswoman, said $1.2 billion in upgrades have been made to the plant since it was built. "Oyster Creek is safe," she said. "If we weren't safe, we wouldn't continue to operate." ------------------ Waste disposal at Yucca Mountain unsafe Myrtle Beach On-line Jan 21 - The Jan. 6 opinion piece by State Sen. William Mescher, "Nuclear energy could ease power concerns," is just plain wrong when it states that the reason the federal government's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program for spent nuclear fuel is on the brink of collapse is a NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) reaction on the part of the state of Nevada. In fact, it is Yucca Mountain's intrinsic and unfixable flaws and the federal government's shoddy and politically motivated science that have left the nation and Nevada with a site that is incapable of isolating deadly radioactive waste for the long time period necessary. Another fact Mescher missed is the reality that Yucca Mountain is not needed for the so-called nuclear renaissance. Spent fuel is perfectly safe and secure at existing and new power plants, with improved dry storage technologies making such storage even safer and more economical. It is certainly much safer than having tens of thousands of shipments of deadly radioactive waste traversing the nation's highways and railroads over a period of three decades or more to an unsafe disposal site in Nevada. If NIMBY is, in fact, at work in this regard, the irrational push by commercial nuclear utility companies to get spent fuel out of their backyards and into an unsuitable and unsafe site in Nevada is a prime example. -------------- Lawmakers to consider bill for building new nuclear plant Topeka Lawrence Journal World Jan 21 - As the state tries to chart an energy course, Kansas lawmakers will consider a measure aimed at providing incentives to build a nuclear power plant. The legislation - HB 2038 - is one of numerous proposals in the hopper on energy issues, which has become a major topic for the 2007 Legislature. A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday before the House Energy and Utilities Committee. State Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, a member of the committee, said there are no plans currently to build a nuclear plant in Kansas. The bill, he said, "is a recognition that as we look at energy independence for the state, nuclear, renewable energy and coal all have a place," Sloan said. He added that for the first time in years, "there are noises nationally of restarting this nation?s nuclear program." Driving that in part is the rising cost of fossil fuels and the health implications of building new plants powered by climate changing sources, such as coal. State officials currently are reviewing a request to build three 700-megawatt coal-fired plants in western Kansas. The legislation would exempt from property taxes any new nuclear generation or new facility at the Wolf Creek nuclear plant near Burlington. The owners of Wolf Creek, which started operating in 1985, have recently applied for a 20-year extension of its operating license, but say there are no plans to build additional capacity there. "We are not looking at any kind of expansion at Wolf Creek," said Gina Penzig, a spokeswoman for Westar Energy, which owns 47 percent of the plant. "The capital costs are just too large for a utility our size." An extension of the plant?s license would extend the facility?s use from 2025 to 2045. Sloan said if nuclear energy becomes economically and politically feasible, then the legislation would help lay the groundwork for an effort to expand nuclear power. While many countries have increased dependence on nuclear power, nuclear energy development practically halted in the United States because of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania and the problem of where to store high-level nuclear waste. Wolf Creek officials have said the plant site has enough space to store its waste through 2025, and hope that by then the federal government will have approved a national storage site. However, a proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been stalled for years by environmental groups and Nevada officials. Bill Griffith, president of the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said the group is adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. He said the expense of nuclear power and the unresolved issue of a permanent storage site make it untenable. "So much can be done with efficiency and renewables," Griffith said. "We have just barely touched energy efficiency and wind. Why even talk about nuclear?" It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different. In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming. Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long- term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations. Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease. Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic. The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year. ----------------- Jordan seeks nuclear power for peaceful means JERUSALEM (AFP) - Jordan wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful means, King Abdullah II said in an interview. "The Egyptians are looking for a nuclear program. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are looking at one, and we are actually looking at nuclear power for peaceful and energy purposes. We've been discussing it with the West," he told Israel's Haaretz daily newspaper. "I personally believe that any country that has a nuclear program should conform to international regulations and should have international regulatory bodies that check to make sure that any nuclear program moves in the right direction," he told the liberal daily. "The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region. Where I think Jordan was saying, 'we'd like to have a nuclear- free zone in the area,' after this summer, everybody's going for nuclear programs," the Jordanian king said. Israel is considered the sole, albeit undeclared, nuclear power in the region. But following Iran's development of a nuclear project, several Arab countries have announced their desire to acquire nuclear technology. --------------- Radiation release, false data prompt Hanford safety review RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) Jan 19 - A radiation leak just days after the discovery that an employee had falsified records halted some cleanup efforts at the Hanford nuclear reservation so workers could take a "safety break." The safety review Wednesday affected about 1,000 employees and subcontractors of Washington Closure Hanford, which is cleaning up contaminated areas near former reactor sites along the Columbia River. Workers returned to their jobs Thursday, Washington Closure spokesman Todd Nelson said. On Tuesday, radioactive tritium contamination was found to have spread outside a tent where radiological work was being performed near the closed B and C reactors on the nuclear reservation's north side. The levels of contamination were too low to require reporting and were not believed to have affected worker health, Nelson said. It is too early to say whether the U.S. Department of Energy will fine the company, Nelson said Thursday. "They're going to have to say," he said. "We're taking aggressive action to get work going and make sure it doesn't happen again." DOE spokeswoman Colleen French did not immediately return a call for comment from The Associated Press on Thursday. Washington Closure and Energy Department officials were working on a decontamination plan for the tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that spreads easily because it binds with oxygen. The spread of tritium and the problem with landfill compacting records discovered last week "make us concerned about the conduct of operations," said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the cleanup project. EPA will discuss its concerns with DOE and Washington Closure officials, he said. Tritium, which is used in hydrogen bombs, was produced at Hanford reactors from 1949-1952 until its production was moved elsewhere. The leak occurred after workers tapped a small canister Friday that was among debris retrieved from a burial ground that held waste from Hanford's B Reactor and nearby buildings. They discovered tritium gas inside. Work inside the radiological tent was halted Monday after tritium contamination was found. Additional tests found the contamination had been tracked outside the tent. Washington Closure has about 700 workers and its subcontractors have about 300. The company is in charge of cleaning 761 waste sites and burial grounds contaminated by radioactive and chemical wastes. The radiation contamination comes on the heels of the discovery last Friday that a subcontractor employee had falsified records at a low- level radioactive waste landfill. S.M. Stoller, which operates the landfill, said that one employee had been recording compaction test data even though he had not performed the test at times over the past year. The test ensures that compacting of waste is adequate so that contents won't settle and possibly affect the integrity of an engineered cap that will cover the landfill. The Energy Department's primary concern has been working with Washington Closure to ensure employees are safe and the environment is protected, French told the Tri-City Herald on Wednesday. The agency is looking at the circumstances surrounding the tritium contamination, she said. "While this is tough work, worker safety is the department's priority and any action or process breakdown that calls that into question is simply unacceptable," she said. "That's what we'll be looking at as we continue to gather facts and examine the causes." --------------- Dirt near nuclear plant not dangerous PADUCAH Lexington Hearald Leader Jan 21- The dirt and rubble piles in the creeks and ditches around the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant are not contaminated by radiation that could endanger the public, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Surveyors from the federal department inspected more than 30 miles around the plant and, in most cases, found no contamination above natural radiation in the soil, said Bill Murphie, manager of the Energy Department's project office overseeing the nuclear plants in Paducah and Piketon, Ohio. "None of these piles have shown any evidence of levels of potential contamination unacceptable to and threatening the public," Murphie said. The investigation, done with state and federal environmental regulators, grew out of a discovery in November of seven mounds of low-level radioactive dirt east of the plant in the West Kentucky Wildlife Area. Those mounds had the highest radioactivity levels of any found, but were essentially harmless, Murphie said. "If you sat there on the dirt continuously for three days, your dose (exposure) would be equivalent to a dental X-ray," he said. The dirt piles also had traces of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. PCBs and radiation are common contaminants of the uranium enrichment plant. Before they were banned, PCBs were in oily insulators for the plant's massive electrical system. The search has found 100 dirt piles and 50 mounds of concrete rubble around the plant or in the surrounding wildlife area, Murphie said. Much of the dirt is believed to have come from dredging Little and Big Bayou creeks 20 to 30 years ago, and some of the rubble piles came from old plant construction work, he said. "In most cases, no contamination was found," he said. "There were a few detectable levels above background (natural radiation). 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sun Jan 21 21:20:53 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:20:53 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? In-Reply-To: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c73dd4$5abe23c0$49197254@pc1> Dear collegue, Since I assume that you have a wide knowledge about not only the "Indian subcontinent", but also about countries in the far east I would seriously like to invite you to comment not only to me, but also to the RADSAFE community about the status of SI units in the Far East. I know that at least a few years ago Japan still officially had the outdated old units, but all my collegues I met during a month of intensive visits to many institutions there, that all my collegues and friends used SI-units. How is it in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Korea (from my visits I know that the scientists use SI-units there as well as in China), etc. etc. I would appreciate your input to this discussion. Sincerely Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! From rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk Mon Jan 22 00:39:44 2007 From: rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk (Cheng Kit-man) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:39:44 +0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? In-Reply-To: <000001c73dd4$5abe23c0$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <000d01c73df0$1d783110$51950d0a@rhu.dh.gov.hk> In Hong Kong SAR China, we introduced metrication to our radiation regulations in 1982. We have been applying primarily SI to radiation measurement and reporting since. Clement K M CHENG Radiation Health Unit, DH Direct Line: +852 2977 1888 E-mail: rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?hofer Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:21 AM To: 'parthasarathy k s'; 'Sandy Perle'; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors;intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? Dear collegue, Since I assume that you have a wide knowledge about not only the "Indian subcontinent", but also about countries in the far east I would seriously like to invite you to comment not only to me, but also to the RADSAFE community about the status of SI units in the Far East. I know that at least a few years ago Japan still officially had the outdated old units, but all my collegues I met during a month of intensive visits to many institutions there, that all my collegues and friends used SI-units. How is it in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Korea (from my visits I know that the scientists use SI-units there as well as in China), etc. etc. I would appreciate your input to this discussion. Sincerely Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! _______________________________________________ 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 maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jan 22 02:05:12 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:05:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Electric power. How? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B47038.5080900@peoplepc.com> Hi Robert, Nawww, Maury wrote that piece; I only collaborated with a little editing here and there. Among other features, however, I did ensure that he said the piece was anecdotal. He never suggested that I should rouse myself from my food bowl -- neither of us sleeps in my food bowl and neither of us is given to brutish yelling nor to assuming that other humans are poor and benighted requiring some kind of enlightenment. -- he likes rib eye steaks and I really love Milk-Bones. Your choice of words makes me wonder if you think I'm a little pig-headed. Were you unhappy with your dog when you were a youngster? We do really try hard to be lovable. Maury taught me that we all make mistakes; that we often differ, but that those characteristics are OK -- we still try to stay cool and not hurt each other. So far in my own 13 years, I've never bitten anyone or jumped on a toddler to push them over ... don't think he has either -- in fact, he's older than dirt and can't jump at all anymore. I understand that human bites are really dangerous! I had no knowledge of this Marc Morano -- we were merely attracted to the content of his writing. We are familiar with the views of Dr. Gray and of John Christy as well as the conflicting, but scholarly, opinions of many on these Lists. We simply interpret the science differently. I'd like to note in passing my canineocentric skepticism of Spann's claims about other meteorologists; but that's OK too. It happens. Maury referenced my polar bear friends because yes, the data are readily available suggesting that their numbers were severely diminished 20-30 years ago when they were still hunted. However, they seem now to be thriving since the change in hunting status. Thus, I'm very dubious about enriching the Fish and Wildlife agencies by unnecessarily placing my brethren on endangered species lists. You guys like to watch the bears -- we enjoy watching your antics. (I'll have to look up the citation for these data if required) Finally, please note that there seems little argument now about global warming. There is, however, intense disagreement about the genesis and future course of that warming -- given that you guys don't fare too well on the weather forecasts for ten days from now. Best arfs to all, Dog&Maury (maurysis at peoplepc.com) PS. Maury lets me read his email until I get my own address. Best, Jake (Dog) ========================== Robert Beck wrote: >Dear Dog, > >I assume you are the author of the series of posts signed "Maury&Dog" rather than this Maury person, whoever he may be, given the nature of the series. > >It is most dog-like how you doggedly rouse yourself from your food bowl to loyally send some enlightenment to us poor, benighted humans and we do appreciate it for what it's worth. > >However, it needs to be pointed out that you are making the classic caninocentric intellectual mistake by assuming that people, like dogs, respond to repeated, brutish yelling. You would do better to > ----------------snipped---------------- From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 04:54:34 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:54:34 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers Message-ID: The original peer-reviewed citation to the Med J Basra U is: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm Sincerely, James Salsman From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Mon Jan 22 07:01:19 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:01:19 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA011079FF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> 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 -----Urspr?ngliche 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 > > -----Urspr?ngliche 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 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." -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From Morten.Sickel at nrpa.no Mon Jan 22 09:33:59 2007 From: Morten.Sickel at nrpa.no (Morten Sickel) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:33:59 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russian nuclear sub may be raised with the help ofBritish experts In-Reply-To: <001b01c73d48$de264c60$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> References: <001b01c73d48$de264c60$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> Message-ID: <2326C830ADA651438DC694248E5FEF60F9847C@mailix.NRPA.LOCAL> I don't know the general journalistic standards of the sunday times, but Norway was by no means involved in the towing of K-159. We were, on the other hand togheter with UK within the AMEC cooperation involved in the sucessfull transport of another November class sub, 291 on a heavy lift vessel late last summer. Morten Sickel Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Fred Dawson Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:43 AM To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russian nuclear sub may be raised with the help ofBritish experts Sunday Times reports British to help raise Russian nuclear sub http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2557885,00.html A RUSTING Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the Barents Sea with the loss of nine crewmen may be raised from the ocean bed next summer with the help of British experts. A Ministry of Defence salvage team will examine the vessel's two nuclear reactors before deciding whether it can be raised from a depth of more than 900ft. The K-159, a November-class submarine commissioned in 1962, sank when it was hit by a storm while being towed to be scrapped in September 2003. The Russian government was embarrassed by its loss, 40 miles off the coast of the Arctic Circle city of Murmansk. Its reactors are filled with three-quarters of a ton of spent uranium. The vessel is lying at more than twice the depth from which the Kursk - the nuclear submarine that sank in 2000, killing its 118-man crew - was raised. "There's an element of fear of the unknown here," said Morgyn Davis, project team leader for salvage and marine at the Defence Logistics Organisation, whose team is consulting the Russian authorities about the K-159. We have towed nuclear submarines before and we have practical experience with nukes, which obviously very few nations have. " The Norwegian government, which was given responsibility by the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial nations for overseeing the post-cold war clean-up of ageing military equipment in the Arctic, has come in for criticism over the sinking. Norway largely financed the disastrous Russian towing operation in which four rusting pontoons, built in 1942, were used as a support structure for the submarine. After the sinking, Britain stepped in and offered its services, playing a key role in towing two remaining November-class submarines safely across the Barents Sea. The British team will now work with Norwegian and Canadian diving experts and Dutch salvage engineers. Currently engaged in keeping the oil tanks of the sunken battleship Royal Oak from leaking into Scapa Flow, Davis's team last raised a submarine in 1985. It was also involved with a British company whose submersible rescued seven Russians in the mini-submarine Priz off Kamchatka in the Russian Far East in August 2005. "We've worked closely with the Russian government and we think we understand what's involved with the K-159," said Davis. "The first thing to do is to get down to the wreck in remote-control submersibles, cut the pontoon wires around the submarine and put sensors on to check for radiation. We think it is flooded with water, so raising it like that, from that depth, would be very difficult." If the hull is intact the team may pump in compressed air to allow the K-159 to rise with the assistance of balloons. If the vessel is too badly damaged it may just be entombed in concrete and left on the seabed. According to some reports the hatches were open at the time of the sinking - to allow the crew to get air. Shortly after the accident, retired Admiral Eduard Baltin revealed that the K-159 had been taking water during its last mission in 1983. He said that placing men on the crumbling submarine "was like putting them in a barrel full of holes". The families of the submariners who died welcomed the news that Britain may help raise the K-159. They have fought to have the vessel brought back to the surface since 2003 and are now suing the Russian government for compensation. "The defence ministry has been promising to raise the sub for three years now, so it's high time it happened," said Valentina Lappa, the widow of the K-159's commander, Sergei Lappa. "We've been treated with utter disregard. We have no place to mourn our loved ones. There may still be some remains in the submarine. Our men deserve a proper burial. I have no husband and no tombstone, only a terrible void." Fred Dawson fwp_dawson at hotmail.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 larry.romanowich at brucepower.com Mon Jan 22 09:38:28 2007 From: larry.romanowich at brucepower.com (ROMANOWICH Larry(L) - BRUCE POWER) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:38:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy Message-ID: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7@BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> Hi: Does anyone have a good working description of how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons? Thanks. Larry Romanowich Bruce Power (519) 361-2673 ext 1565 ************************************************************************************************** *** The contents of this email and any attachments *** are confidential and may be privileged. *** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. *** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the *** sender to that effect, don?t forward the message to anyone *** and delete the message from your computer. *** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience. ************************************************************************************************** From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 22 09:41:19 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:41:19 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] =?utf-8?b?TmV3IG51Y2xlYXIgcG93ZXIg4oCYd2F2ZeKAmSA=?= =?utf-8?b?4oCUIG9yIGp1c3QgYSByaXBwbGU/?= Message-ID: <45B494CF.22025.4496D58@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: New nuclear power `wave? - or just a ripple? German nuclear phase-out will hit emission target Nuclear Areva targets clean power Truck with radioactive material swept away by swollne creek Russia, Algeria plan cooperation on nuclear power Qatar - Seven more stations to monitor radiation ================================== New nuclear power `wave? - or just a ripple? How millions for lobbying, campaigns helped fuel U.S. industry's big plans In a debate certain to be replayed over and over again in the next few years, residents of Lacey Township, N.J., debate the future of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant -- the nation's oldest operating nuclear facility -- as its operators seek a 20-year extension of its operating license. Buoyed by billions of dollars in subsidies pushed through Congress by the Bush administration, the U.S. nuclear power industry says 2007 is the year its plans for a "renaissance" will reach critical mass. "We see a wave," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry?s chief lobbying arm, pointing to letters of intent by a dozen firms to seek licenses for as many as 31 new nuclear power plants. "We definitely believe it?s going to be a whole new era of new plant construction in this country." Kerekes credits improvements in plant design and efficiency and the ability to operate without spewing carbon into the air - a key advantage amid mounting concern about global warming - as chief reasons for the resurgence. But critics say the real catalyst has been well-funded lobbying by the industry. They believe tax dollars spent to jump-start the dormant industry would be better devoted to alternative energy sources like wind and solar power. "If this were a renaissance, you wouldn?t need to be enticing giant corporations with subsidies in order to get them to build reactors they claim are economically viable," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for the environmental group Greenpeace, a staunch foe of nuclear energy. A remarkable turnaround Regardless of which side is eventually proved correct, the mere discussion of building dozens of new plants is a remarkable turnaround for an industry that less than 10 years ago was widely viewed as the energy sector?s unsafe and expensive also-ran. And it?s a textbook case of how the wheels of government can change direction quickly when enough money, influence and political will are applied. Nuclear power proponents say the interest in new plants is just one sign that the technology may finally be on the verge of achieving the widespread acceptance and use they have long envisioned. Among them: The relicensing of four dozen U.S. commercial reactors. The emergence of well-known environmentalists as supporters of nuclear technology. Groundbreaking for a new uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico. A breathtakingly ambitious Bush administration plan for a global nuclear fuel cartel to light up the developing world with electricity while avoiding the threat of nuclear proliferation. Ardent foes of nuclear energy like Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resources Service respond that these actions all are the result of pro-nuclear work by industry supporters in Congress and the Bush administration, not a genuine watershed in how investors and the public view nuclear power. "There?s a big difference between a letter of intent and the filing of an application," he said of the new plants, predicting that problems with waste disposal, safety and security will ultimately stall what he refers to as a nuclear power "relapse." And while key committee chairmanships will remain in the hands of strong pro-nuclear lawmakers, the retaking of Congress by the Democrats could also present some roadblocks, especially on the central issue of waste, he said. That lawmakers are once more considering such issues shows how far the nuclear energy needle has moved since the mid-1990s. Three Mile Island: The last straw After its birth as an outgrowth of weapons programs in World War II, the nuclear energy industry battled design problems, cost overruns, safety issues and environmental foes for years to wind up with the 103 U.S. reactors that remain in commercial operation today from California to New Hampshire. As construction delays and costs escalated, the meltdown at Pennsylvania?s Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the spring of 1979 was the last straw for those who held the purse strings to new reactor construction. No new commercial reactors have been ordered since, although previously ordered plants continued to be built and come online until 1996. The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia, which is blamed for about 60 deaths by the World Health Organization, further tarnished the technology?s image. At that point, "any talk about a new plant (in the U.S.) would have been dismissed as childish optimism," admits nuclear power?s chief congressional cheerleader, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. While accidents and economics halted nuclear expansion in the U.S., they did not have the same impact elsewhere. Of the 322 operating electricity-generating reactors currently in operation outside the United States, 171 began operating in the 1980s, 48 in the 1990s and 28 so far this century, according to the NEI. Twenty-nine more plants are under construction outside the country, and 10 nations get more than 40 percent of their electricity from nuclear reactors, led by France at 78.5 percent. In the U.S., chastened nuclear operators focused on improving safety and efficiency at existing plants. They were successful: There have been no notable U.S. accidents since Three Mile Island and the U.S. reactor fleet has produced at about 90 percent of licensed capacity since 2001, up considerably from efficiency figures of the early 1980s. Nuclear plants today produce about 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States. Industry improvements are "an outgrowth, in all honesty, of the Three Mile Island accident," NEI's Kerekes said, "because the steps that were taken after that do a better job of sharing information in our industry and applying best practices." Industry gets a second wind The industry?s first big step in its transformation from bastard stepchild to energy panacea and clean air savior came in 1997. That?s when Domenici delivered what he calls a "storied speech on nuclear power" at Harvard. The veteran senator was well-acquainted with nuclear issues by virtue of representing New Mexico, the birthplace of nuclear weapons and the home of two of the nation?s nuclear laboratories. Long fascinated by "gee-whiz-bang technical stuff," in the words of one acquaintance, and mindful of the nuclear industry?s improving efficiency record, Domenici became convinced the technology was not getting a fair shake. Urged on by a number of true believer aides that included Alex Flint, now the industry?s chief lobbyist, and Pete Lyons, now a Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, Domenici urged U.S. policy-makers to undo "bad decisions" of the past and harness "the full potential of the nucleus." The Domenici speech was followed up by a 1998 forum that gathered 60 participants from industry, government and academia to draft a plan to put nuclear power back on the nation?s energy agenda. With those talking points in hand, the industry saw its best opening in years in the 2000 presidential election and backed the Bush-Cheney ticket with nearly $270,000 in contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The victorious Republicans welcomed industry representatives to their energy transition team and later private discussions by Vice President Dick Cheney?s task force on energy. Familiar names from the 1998 forum popped up on the energy transition team: Flint, Domenici's former aide who was in between Senate staff jobs and working as a lobbyist for the industry; Flint?s new boss, former Louisiana Sen. Bennett Johnston, a strong ally of the nuclear industry while in Congress; and Joe Colvin, then president of NEI. At least another half-dozen of their industry colleagues also were involved. Bush administration ties But nuclear interests had long had the attention of Bush and Cheney, themselves major players in the oil and gas industry. One of the biggest names on the Bush energy transition team was Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the electric power industry and its nuclear reactor owners. Not only was Kuhn the president?s Yale classmate and longtime friend, he was one of Bush?s biggest fund-raisers. A study by Common Cause found that in the six years that bracketed the 2000 election, Kuhn?s organization and its members gave $41 million to political campaigns, three-fourths of it to Republicans. Cheney also had close ties to players with stakes in the nuclear sector. When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, the company?s portfolio included Nuclear Utility Services. His close friend, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, another big Republican fund-raiser, worked as a lobbyist on nuclear issues. And Cheney?s wife, Lynne, had served on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, which earned millions from the federal government managing the Sandia Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico. Once in office, Cheney?s energy task force worked quickly and behind closed doors. Kuhn had regular input, though he was not a member of the group. As the administration?s energy policy began to emerge in the spring of 2001, its support for the nuclear power industry was beyond "my wildest dreams," Christian H. Poindexter, chairman of the Constellation Energy Group, later told the New York Times. A number of the policy?s final recommendations, including broad administration support for "the expansion of nuclear energy," streamlining the regulatory process and opening the way to reprocessing spent fuel, had been included in the action plan drafted by the 1998 forum that followed Domenici?s Harvard speech. At a press conference in the spring of 2001 to herald the administration?s energy plan, Domenici congratulated Bush and Cheney for "being courageous and realistic" on the nuclear front and embarked on a four-year effort to turn the plan into law. Task force records remain secret Cheney's conduct of the task force sessions in secret angered journalists and others. Groups at opposite ends of the political spectrum sued over what Tom Fitton of the conservative group Judicial Watch, one of the plaintiffs, called an "unprecedented assertion of executive branch supremacy," but were largely unsuccessful in forcing the release of records they sought. Six months after unveiling its energy plan, the administration forged ahead with the "Nuclear Power 2010 program," which the Department of Energy described as a cost-sharing demonstration project by government and industry to get a new generation of nuclear reactors up and running by "early in the next decade." On Capitol Hill, however, energy legislation languished until Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2003, giving Domenici the chairmanship of the Senate Energy Committee. He hired back Flint, his former aide, from the nuclear lobbying ranks to direct the committee?s work and after 2? years of horse-trading, parliamentary maneuvering and secret conference committee meetings, the bill finally became law in August 2005. Flint has since returned to work for the industry as its chief lobbyist. Domenici, meanwhile, led the fight to build a new uranium enrichment plant in his state to help fuel the presumed nuclear resurgence. On June 23, 2006, it became the first nuclear facility to win a new NRC license in 30 years. Both have declined repeated requests to be interviewed by MSNBC.com. The senator also has become a strong supporter of the Bush administration?s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a futuristic and controversial plan for the United States and other nuclear "haves" to supply technology to "have-nots." The plan envisions the reprocessing of spent fuel, banned for decades by previous administrations because it was feared it could lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. Billions pour into `renaissance? Nuclear industry perks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were spotlighted when President Bush signed the bill at Sandia National Lab in Domenci's home state of New Mexico. With his signature, billions in federal assistance flowed from Bush?s pen into the nuclear "renaissance," including: $3 billion in research subsidies. More than $3 billion in construction subsidies for new nuclear power plants. Nearly $6 billion in operating tax credits. More than $1 billion in subsidies to decommission old plants. A 20-year extension of liability caps for accidents at nuclear plants. Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new power plants. Critics say the energy bill amply rewarded the industry for years of investment in campaign contributions and lobbying. "There no question that the utility industry lobbying and campaign contributions has had a huge influence," said Tyson Slocum of the anti-nuclear group Public Citizen. "... These are business people and business people do not part with money easily unless they are making investments. Politics is not a charity, it?s not tax deductible. The return on that investment dwarfs anything that they could get on Wall Street." But NEI's Kerekes said the legislation reflects the energy realities of the new century. "That would be a wonderful myth to peddle," he said, arguing that nuclear power found new favor on Wall Street and in Congress on its own merits. "Unless they?re going to accuse us of stoking concerns about global climate change over the past 15 or 20 years, I think that argument becomes pretty hollow pretty quickly." Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the vehemently anti-nuclear group Greenpeace and one of a number of well-known environmentalists who now back nuclear power, agrees that nuclear energy earned a second look. Greenpeace founder embraces nuclear energy "I honestly believe that the concern for emissions is why people are saying, `Hey we should be building more nuclear,?" said Moore, whose Vancouver, B.C.-based, consulting firm is now retained by the nuclear industry to improve its image. While the effect of the industry's campaign contributions and lobbying efforts in the years before the energy bill's passage are debatable, the amount of money invested is remarkable by any measure. Numerous reports from watchdog groups provide some details, but the fragmented nature of campaign finance disclosure and lobbying reports makes it difficult to determine cumulative figures. Many contributors, such as General Electric (owner of NBC Universal, which in turn is a partner with Microsoft in MSNBC.com), have numerous business concerns beyond nuclear energy. Others, like the U.S. Enrichment Corporation and NEI, are exclusively focused on nuclear energy. But even a partial accounting is eye opening. MSNBC.com culled these statistics from campaign finance data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics via federal reports: Companies in the energy and natural resources sectors, which includes nuclear power, and their employees, have donated $212.2 million to the campaigns of federal candidates since 2000 alone, three-fourths of it to Republicans. Employees and political action committees of 23 large companies involved in efforts to build new U.S. nuclear reactors gave nearly $41 million to federal candidates from 1998 through this year. The donations accelerated as nuclear power regained favor, totaling $3.5 million in the 1998 election cycle, $4.6 million for 2000, $9.5 million for 2002, $11.3 million for 2004 and more than $12 million in 2006. Lobbying expenses reported by the same 23 firms from 1998 through 2005 exceeded $292.5 million. Four members of Congress singled out by Bush at the signing ceremony as instrumental in the energy bill's passage have been major recipients of nuclear industry largesse. Since 1989, Domenici has received $384,923 from electric utilities with big stakes in nuclear power, and his list of donors includes at least three dozen firms on the membership roster of the NEI. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who succeeded Domenici as chairman of the Senate Energy Committee in January, got $406,576 from electric utilities in the same period and five of his top seven donors are tied to the nuclear industry. Former House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, received $1 million from electric utilities and his Lone Star colleague on the panel, Republican Ralph Hall, got $536,670. Probe of energy task force promised While there is little expectation that the Democratic-controlled Congress will seek to substantially roll back provisions of the energy bill, which was approved by an overwhelming majority in both houses, skeptics say some elements of the onrushing "nuclear renaissance" could face new scrutiny. In particular, the new chairman of the House Energy Committee, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., has vowed to investigate the Cheney energy task force, saying it was "carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies." Dingell himself has been a favorite recipient of campaign contributions from the nuclear power industry over the years. Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and other critics say the industry now faces the challenge of proving its economic argument. The only way to do that, he said, is by demonstrating that the resurgence will result in the construction of more than "a small number of reactors, exactly the number that receive subsidies under the Energy Policy Act." But Adrian Heymer, NEI?s senior director for new plant deployment, said the extent of the rebound will soon be clear; applications to build a majority of the 30-plus new nuclear reactors are expected by year's end. He also brushed aside complaints that the streamlined NRC review process for the new license applications shuts out important opportunities for public comment and participation. "There?s more opportunity for public involvement, a lot more information is available earlier to the public," he said. Besides, he added, there may be little opposition to some of the plants, slated to be built on existing nuclear sites and actively sought by community leaders who look favorably on the economic benefits of large construction projects and the permanent jobs the plants will bring. Don?t count on it, countered Gunter. "The anti-nuclear movement has been seasoned; we?re a lot more sophisticated and far more educated now as to the hazards and folly of nuclear power," he said. "None of the concerns that brought about the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s have disappeared. They?ve only been magnified. We have no better clue as to how to manage nuclear waste now than we did in 1975." Waste disposal remains key issue All parties agree that any large-scale nuclear renaissance will depend on answering the thorny political and technical questions surrounding the handling of spent fuel. The industry and administration?s current bid to get the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada licensed are seen as dead by many observers because the new Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, has always firmly opposed the facility. ----------------- German nuclear phase-out will hit emission target Germany's plan to phase out nuclear energy will make it miss its CO2 emission targets, raise electricity prices, cause more blackouts and "dramatically" increase Berlin's dependence on imported Russian gas, an independent study has warned. The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) is a serious indictment of chancellor Angela Merkel's decision, despite personal misgivings, to stick to the phase-out deal agreed by the previous government in 2000. It will add to the increasingly acrimonious debate within the government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy amid rising concern about global warming and the safety of energy supplies. Michael Glos, the economics minister and a political ally of Ms Merkel, has campaigned vigorously for a revision of the nuclear phase- out deal, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister. The paper also highlights the quandary facing the chancellor, who would have to choose between the three key goals of Germany's energy policy - to reduce emissions, to cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel, and to keep energy prices in check. "Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report, said. "It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today's nuclear plants." A spokesman for the environment ministry said Germany's goal of cutting CO2 emission by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said it would be easy." Backers of nuclear fuel also point out that the phase-out has left the country isolated as holder of the European Union's rotating presidency. Berlin could have difficulties hammering out a compromise on a future European energy policy at the next European council summit in March. With nuclear providing 25 per cent of Germany's electricity - and taking into account rising electricity demand and the fossil-fuel plants that are scheduled for replacement - DB calculates that 42 Gigawatt of new plants will need to be built by 2022. Since lignite and coal-powered plants are highly polluting, most of these would have to be gas-powered. Based on these assumptions, CO2 emissions by the power sector will rise by 16 in the decade from 2010 while Russian gas imports will increase from today's 35 per cent of the total to 50 per cent. Even assuming Germany's ambitious emission targets for the industrial and transport sectors can be fulfilled, total greenhouse gas emissions will fall by only 31 per cent between 2010 and 2020, well short of the environment ministry's goal. There are also doubts, too, about Berlin's emission goals for the non- energy sectors, since these are based on cuts achieved shortly after 1990, when half the fall in emissions was accounted for by the collapse of industrial activity in the former east-Germany. An alternative policy, Mr Lewis said, would be to extend the life of nuclear power stations from 32 to 60 years. A special tax on the profits from these plants could be reinvested into research on "capture and storage" technology that makes coal-powered plants clean. "I see the outline of a possible compromise between Ms Merkel and the SPD," he said, "since it would solve the energy policy dilemma while giving a future to domestically-produced coal, which matters a lot to the Social Democrats." ---------------- Nuclear Areva targets clean power Wind farms are expanding as clean energy gains in appeal French firm Areva - the largest maker of nuclear reactors - has tabled a $1bn (?506m; 772m euro) bid for leading clean energy firm Repower of Germany. Areva said it would pay 105 euros a share for the wind turbine firm, a move that would allow it to tap into the booming wind energy sector. Climate change has fuelled a greater commercial interest in clean energy, as firms try to reduce carbon emissions. News of the unsolicited offer pushed Repower shares 20% higher. The 105 euros a share offer represents a 17% premium on the firm's closing price on Friday. Areva said the deal would give it access to the technology, financial means, and expertise to speed up development especially in off-shore projects. Repower is one of Germany's major wind turbine producers and is present in Europe, Japan, China, India and Australia. Areva's move comes after it said its operating income would be considerably lower for 2006 than in 2005, but that it would "easily remain well in the black". News of the deal also gave a boost to fellow companies in the wind power sector. Denmark's Vestas, the world's largest maker of turbines saw the value of its shares rise 3% while shares in Spain's wind power firm Gamesa rose 1.7%. --------------- Truck with radioactive material swept away by swollne creek McALESTER, Okla. The search resumes tomorrow for a pickup truck carrying radioactive material that was swept from a bridge over a swollen creek. Authorities blamed runoff from melting ice and snow and heavy weekend rains for the accident near McAlester today. No one was hurt. Pittsburg County Undersheriff Richard Sexton says a pickup truck carrying radioactive materials used in pipeline scanning equipment was swept from a bridge and disappeared in swollen Coal Creek. The truck's two occupants escaped unharmed, but efforts to locate the truck and its radioactive cargo were suspended tonight due to darkness. Sexton says officials hope the creek's level will fall enough tomorrow to reveal the truck's whereabouts. A container containing the material is bolted to the truck. --------------------- Russia, Algeria plan cooperation on nuclear power ALGIERS Jan 22 -- Algeria and Russia want to cooperate in developing nuclear energy in Algeria, Russian industry and energy minister Victor Khristenko said in a statement carried by the Algerian news agency APS. "The [Russian] minister expressed satisfaction that Algeria and Russia agreed on the principle of future development of cooperation in the field of nuclear energy," the statement said late Sunday. The remarks following the signing of a "memorandum of understanding and cooperation" on energy. Khristenko said: "We have agreed within the framework of the memorandum to begin contacts between experts in the two countries to study the possibilities of bilateral cooperation and to determine the areas of possible cooperation in this [nuclear] context and I hope that we can begin this work soon." Algeria has been operating two experimental nuclear reactors since 1995. One of these is at Draria, Algiers, and the other at Ain Ouessara in the central south of the country. Both are inspected regularly by the International Atomic Energy Agency. On January 9, in remarks to a regional African conference on nuclear matters, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika defended the right of African countries "to benefit from scientific and technological progress made in the [civil] nuclear field." Algerian and Russian officials said that the memorandum provided assurance that joint projects would be followed up at every stage in the process of the exploration, production, marketing, and transportation of hydrocarbons. Algerian energy and mines minister Chakib Khelil had said beforehand that he would give approval "as soon as possible" for the development of a gas field at Illizi in the Sahara Desert. This resource was discovered by Algerian company Sonatrach in association with Russian companies Rosneft-Stroytransgaz. Algerian authorities say that the investment required is estimated at $3 billion to $4 billion. Development of this gas field "will show that Russian companies can compete with other companies and achieve very positive results in Algeria," Khelil said. He hoped that this example of cooperation with Sonatrach would be followed by other Russian companies such as Gazprom or Lukoil in the activities of exploration and production. Khristenko has been visiting Algeria since Friday to strengthen cooperation between the two countries, particularly in the gas sector. ----------------- Qatar - Seven more stations to monitor radiation Gulf Times Jan 22 - Qatar is to have seven more nuclear accidents and radiation emergency early warning stations. Like the existing four such stations, the new facilities will be set up with the International Atomic Energy Agency?s help. It will provide a grant of $120,000 this year and a similar amount in 2008, according to a team of IAEA experts, now visiting Qatar. Besides helping Qatar develop its human resources with eight scholarships, the agency will also provide four experts and organise four scientific trips. This was announced at a press conference at the Supreme Council for Environment and Natural Reserves (SCENR). SCENR secretary-general Khalid Ghanem al-Ali said that all "organisations and agencies in Qatar were doing their best to augment their capabilities to achieve maximum protection from the dangers of radiation". The IAEA team included Dr Galmoni Balqasem, member of the IAEA; Dr Tom Ryan, radiation safety expert from Ireland; Dr Adlien Isloe, from France; and Ibrahim Shaddad, an expert from Sudan. Also present at the press conference was Dr Ahmed al-Khatibeh, adviser on radiation protection at SCENR. This is the second visit by the IAEA team to Qatar. The previous one was in 2003. Khalid al-Ali pointed out that no country in the world could do without radioactive materials that are used for peaceful purposes such as in medicine and industry. The IAEA officials expressed appreciation for efforts by Qatar in the effective use of radioactive materials for peaceful purposes. Now, Qatar can increase its capabilities in this context since it was among the best in the region in terms of monitoring radiation. The IAEA has agreed to implement five projects, including the monitoring centres, in nuclear application in Qatar. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From lboing at anl.gov Mon Jan 22 10:16:12 2007 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:16:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Decommissioning Training Course - Las Vegas, NV - March 2007 Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DF887@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> Argonne National Laboratory will be conducting its "Facility Decommissioning" training course in Las Vegas, NV, March 26-29, 2007. All the details can be found at http://www.dd.anl.gov/ddtraining/index.html. 'Early bird' discounts available for early registrants! Larry Boing Lawrence E. (Larry) Boing Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 P-630.252.6729 F-630.252.7577 lboing at anl.gov http://www.dd.anl.gov/ http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/ From gordon.riel at navy.mil Mon Jan 22 12:58:37 2007 From: gordon.riel at navy.mil (Riel, Gordon K CIV NSWCCD W. Bethesda, 6301) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:58:37 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons Message-ID: One word answer: Yes Short answer: A cylindrical polyethylene moderator of about 22 lb, or about 10 kg, slows fast neutrons so that a thermal neutron detector in the center will count in proportion to the dose equivalent (within a factor of four or so) for neutrons of any energy from thermal to 14 MeV. A partial thermal neutron shield around a three inch central cylinder helps to shape the response. If you want more, just ask gordon.riel at navy.mil Dr. Gordon Riel, PE, CHP (301) 261-7735, FAX 2252 NSWCCD 6301 Bethesda, MD 20817-5700 Message: 4 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:38:28 -0500 From: "ROMANOWICH Larry\(L\) - BRUCE POWER" Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy To: Message-ID: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7 at BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi: Does anyone have a good working description of how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons? Thanks. Larry Romanowich Bruce Power (519) 361-2673 ext 1565 From HAROLD.W.ANAGNOSTOPOULOS at saic.com Mon Jan 22 13:42:24 2007 From: HAROLD.W.ANAGNOSTOPOULOS at saic.com (Anagnostopoulos, Harold W.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:42:24 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Copy of DOE Document - Recycled Uranium Message-ID: RADSAFERs; I'm looking for a copy of A Preliminary Review of the Flow and Characteristics of Recycled Uranium Throughout the DOE Complex 1952-1999, DOE-F001-F001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March, 2000. I did the requisite internet search, with frustrating results. I found several links to a DOE site, which no longer work. Use of the search feature on the DOE home page was also unsuccessful. Any information would be appreciated. Harold.W.Anagnostopoulos at saic.com Thanks, - Harry Harry Anagnostopoulos, CHP Senior Health Physicist SAIC 8421 St. John Industrial Dr. St. Louis, MO 63114 314-770-3059 From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 22 14:45:58 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:45:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Power Message-ID: <45B4DC36.18045.650FE3@sandyfl.cox.net> Nuclear Power - One of Humankind?s Biggest Mistakes By Jim Bell www.jimbell.com, jimbellelsi at cox.net Nuclear Power was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking to justify leaving them nuclear power?s toxic legacy -- a legacy they will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations. And why did we do it? To power our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them. Our creation of nuclear power will be especially difficult for our descendants to understand because they will know that in the nuclear era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power everything in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake. On its own, nuclear power?s toxic radioactive legacy should be enough to give any thinking person sufficient reason to want to eliminate it as quickly as possible and do everything to protect our descendants from the radioactive wastes already created. The human family has been at war with itself for the majority of its history. Human history is full of successful, advanced and sophisticated civilizations that utterly collapsed. To the informed, even our current civilization(s) don?t feel very solid. Plus there are earthquakes, tsunami?s volcanoes, severe weather, terrorism, and just plain human error. This given, who can guarantee that anything as dangerous and long-lived as nuclear waste can be kept safe for even 100 years much less the hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years it will take before some of these wastes are safe to be around. And even if an insurance company did guarantee its safety, what is their guarantee worth? What could they do to protect us and future generations if San Onofre?s spent fuel storage pond lost its coolant water. If this happened an almost unquenchable radioactive fire would spontaneously erupt, spewing radioactive materials wherever the wind blew for weeks if not months -- rendering Southern California a dangerous place to live for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. Notwithstanding the above, the nuclear industry is lobbying the public and the government to continue supporting them politically and economically so the industry can expand. Its latest rational is that nuclear power will produce fewer greenhouse gases than what would be produced using fossil fuels to make electricity. This is true if one only looks at what happens inside a reactor. It?s not true when accounting for all the fossil fuel energy consumed during nuclear power?s fuel cycle, and what it takes to build, operate and dismantle plants when they wear out. Additionally, even if nuclear power was ended today, fossil fuel energy must be consumed for millennia in order to protect the public from the radioactive residues that nuclear power has already generated. An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly. In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been uses directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled "The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power." In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only "the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it." In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel. To put this in perspective, the typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plants uses around 33 tons or over 1 million oz of nuclear fuel each year. As a teenager I saw a TV program that showed a man holding a piece of metal in the palm of his hand. He was saying that if what he held was pure uranium it would contain as much energy as the train full of coal that was passing by him on the screen. I became an instant "true believer" in nuclear power. I thought if something that small can produce the same amount of energy as all that coal, there will be plenty of energy and therefore plenty of money to address any dangers that using it might pose. Unfortunately, to get that level of energy from a small amount of pure or near pure uranium it would require that it be exploded as an atomic bomb. Of the uranium used in a reactor, only a fraction of the energy in pure uranium gets used. That?s why we are left with depleted uranium and other long-lived wastes. The nuclear industry says that nuclear power is safe, a big net energy producer, and that it will be cheap and easy to keep its wastes out of the environment and out of the hands of terrorists. But if these claims are true, why has an industry that supplies only 8% of our country?s total energy and 20% of its electricity consumed hundreds of billions of tax dollar subsidies since its inception? The 2005 Federal Energy Bill continues this trend. According to U.S. PIRG, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Public Citizen and the Congressional Research Service the recently passed 2005 Federal Energy Bill includes "a taxpayer liability of $14 to $16 billion" in support of nuclear power. If nuclear power is so safe and wonderful, why does it require the Price Anderson Act? The Price Anderson Act puts taxpayers on the hook if the cost of a major radioactive release exceeds $10.5 billion. According to a Sandia National Laboratory analysis, this puts taxpayers on the hook for over $600 billion to cover the damage that a serious radioactive release would cause. Another Sandia Laboratory study focusing just on the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, concluded the damage caused by a serious release from that plant could cost up to a trillion dollars. Needless to say, any serious radioactive release from any U. S. plant would wipe out any net energy gain by nuclear power if -- there ever was one. Realizing the potential cost of a serious radioactive release, manufacturers, insurers and utilities, were unwilling to build, insure or order plants. They only got seriously involved after the Congress assigned these cost to the taxpaying public. On page 7 of a report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research titled The Nuclear Power Deception, they included the follow 1996 quote from then NRC Commissioner James Asselstine, "given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect a meltdown within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such as accident could result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than the released estimates to have occurred at Chernobyl." Bare in mind, a meltdown is only one of several things that could happen with nuclear power to cause a serious radioactive release. As I said in the beginning, nuclear power is a mistake. Especially considering we already have all the technologies and know-how needed to make us completely and abundantly renewable energy self- sufficient. Solar energy leaves no radioactive residues for our children or future generations. Additionally, although not completely environmentally benign yet, solar energy collection systems can be designed to last generations, be perpetually recyclable and leave zero toxic residues behind. If San Diego County covered 24% of its roofs and parking lots with PV panels, it would produce more electricity than the county consumes. This assumes that 3 million resident use, on average, 10 kWh per capita per day after installing cost-effective electricity use efficiency improvements. For details read my free books at www.jimbell.com. They are also available in most local libraries. For ourselves, our children and future generations, let?s move into the solar age. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 22 14:55:15 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:55:15 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Kudankulam plant Message-ID: <45B4DE63.4871.6D8E82@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Kudankulam plant Berlin warned on phasing out nuclear energy Michigan Attorney General Opposes Sale Of Palisades Nuclear Plant =================================== Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Kudankulam plant Kudankulam (Tamil Nadu), Jan 22 (RIA Novosti) Russia will supply nuclear fuel to the Kudankulam nuclear power plant it is helping to build in the second quarter of 2007, a top Russian official said Monday. Atomstroyexport, Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, has been building the Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu since 2002 in line with a 1988 agreement between India and the Soviet Union and an addendum signed in 1998. The plant is designed to have a capacity of 2,000 MW. 'In the second quarter of this year, we will deliver nuclear fuel to the first power unit of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant,' said the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power Sergei Kiriyenko, currently on a visit to India said. He added that the first delivery had already been coordinated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Kiriyenko said Russia was prepared to provide the Kudankulam plant with nuclear fuel throughout its entire operational life, which is expected to begin later this year. 'Russia believes that India has an unimpeachable reputation in the nuclear non-proliferation sphere, and therefore we are going to push for an end to relevant sanctions against India,' said Kiriyenko. India, one of the world's eight confirmed nuclear powers, has never been party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has been under US, Japanese and European sanctions since 1998 when it tested nuclear weapons. Kiriyenko visited the construction site of the plant and said it was his second visit in the past 10 months, adding that a great deal of work had obviously been done since then. He also said the Russian and Indian partners had agreed to accelerate the plant's construction in a bid to finish it ahead of schedule. Russia has offered India a government loan on favourable terms for the Kudankulam project. -------------------- Berlin warned on phasing out nuclear energy Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns. The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) will add to the pressure on Angela Merkel, chancellor, to renegotiate the phase-out deal agreed by the previous government in 2000, \despite her pledge not to reopen the controversial debate. Rising concern about global warming and energy security have sparked a lively dispute in Ms Merkel's Christian Democrat-led grand coalition government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy. Michael Glos, the conservative economics minister, has campaigned vigorously against the phase-out, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister. Without nuclear energy, the bank says, the chancellor faces a painful choice between the three goals she has set herself - to reduce emissions, cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel and keep energy prices in check. "Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report, said. "It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today's nuclear plants." A spokesman for the environment ministry said Germany's goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said it would be easy." The SPD has yet to show any willingness to renegotiate the nuclear exit deal. Rainer Wend, a Social Democratic MP and member of parliament's economics committee, said: "If we must import more Russian gas, then so be it. Russia is a reliable supplier." Backers of nuclear energy point out that the phase-out has left Berlin isolated as holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, which complicates Ms Merkel's task of drafting a European energy policy at the next European Council summit in March. With nuclear covering 25 per cent of Germany's electricity needs - and taking into account rising electricity demand and the need to replace old fossil-fuel plants - DB calculates 42,000MW of new plants will be needed by 2022. ------------------- Michigan Attorney General Opposes Sale Of Palisades Nuclear Plant (AP) Jan 22 - Michigan?s attorney general is opposing Consumers Energy?s proposed sale of the Palisades Nuclear Plant near South Haven. Attorney General Mike Cox says ratepayers would pay at least $62 million more for electricity than they otherwise would have paid if the sale doesn?t go through. He also is questioning whether the sale would deplete funding needed to decommission the plant and pay for cleanup in 2031, and is urging state regulators to slow down the review process. Entergy Corp., a New Orleans-based utility holding company, wants to buy the plant for $380 million. It?s currently owned by CMS Energy Corp. in Jackson. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From swagh at anl.gov Mon Jan 22 15:00:44 2007 From: swagh at anl.gov (Wagh, Sulbha S.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:44 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Copy of DOE Document - Recycled Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harold, http://www.hanford.gov/information/foia/rl-2000-43/Report.pdf Here it is at the url above ...(SEE OTHER TITLES IN THIS OCLC RECORD below...it is the document you want) Swati Wagh Technical Librarian Argonne National Lab swagh at anl.gov Title: Review of generation and flow of recycled uranium at Hanford. Author(s): Mecca, James E. Joy, Angel Splett, Gail M. Ellingson, Lupe Stutheit, Ricky L. Corp Author(s): United States.; Dept. of Energy.; Richland Operations Office. ; Fluor Hanford, Inc. Publication: Richland, Wash. : U. S. Dept. of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Year: 2000 Language: English Contents: vol. II. pt. 1. Hanford Site site assessment team report. Report No: DOE/RL-2000-43; DOE/EH-0617 Note(s): "June 30, 2000."/ Report: DOE/RL-2000-43/ DOE/EH-0617 Other Titles: Cover title :; Recycled uranium :; the flow and characteristics of recycled uranium throughout the DOE complex, 1952-1999 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Anagnostopoulos, Harold W. Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:42 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Copy of DOE Document - Recycled Uranium RADSAFERs; I'm looking for a copy of A Preliminary Review of the Flow and Characteristics of Recycled Uranium Throughout the DOE Complex 1952-1999, DOE-F001-F001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March, 2000. I did the requisite internet search, with frustrating results. I found several links to a DOE site, which no longer work. Use of the search feature on the DOE home page was also unsuccessful. Any information would be appreciated. Harold.W.Anagnostopoulos at saic.com Thanks, - Harry Harry Anagnostopoulos, CHP Senior Health Physicist SAIC 8421 St. John Industrial Dr. St. Louis, MO 63114 314-770-3059 _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Mon Jan 22 15:37:00 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:37:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Message-ID: <45B4E82C.31613.93C817@sandyfl.cox.net> On 22 Jan 2007 at 15:59, J. Marshall Reber wrote: > At what point below does your quote of Jim Bell end? The entire piece is Jim's posting. I don't agree with any of his positions, but told him I would post it for him. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From wwebber2004 at comcast.net Mon Jan 22 17:12:14 2007 From: wwebber2004 at comcast.net (Bill) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:12:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Power In-Reply-To: <45B4DC36.18045.650FE3@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45B4DC36.18045.650FE3@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <45B544CE.70706@comcast.net> Substitute ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY for NUCLEAR POWER and it makes for an interesting read. > [Advanced Technology] - One of Humankind?s Biggest Mistakes > By [Theodore Kaczynski] > > [Advanced technology] was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human > family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking > to justify leaving them [advanced technology]?s toxic legacy -- a legacy they > will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations. > > And why did we do it? To [produce] our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air > conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them. > > Our creation of [advanced technology] will be especially difficult for our > descendants to understand because they will know that in the [pre-industrial] > era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power > everything [we needed] in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free > solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake. ... > The use of nuclear power from fission only makes sense if it is better and more efficient then the alternatives. One way to reduce the waste and improve the efficiency is to recycle the uranium instead of just throwing it away. To control Global Warming the release of green house gases must be reduced by ALL of the worlds countries including USA, EU, Russia, China, and India. To make the USA less dependent on foreign threats and free up oil for poorer nations, we must reduce our use of oil without increasing our release of green house gases. [It is not enough to just reduce our use of foreign oil since in a world market there is no difference between foreign and domestically produced oil]. One way to do this is by increasing the efficiency of our transportation systems. William Webber Webber Consultants From jk5554 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 21:44:43 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:44:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B4E82C.31613.93C817@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material to be posted to Radsafe? Such material is easily available on the internet, and I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have been heavily exposed to such opinions during their college years and while reading newspapers etc. On this topic, I'd like Jim Bell and his ilk to look at this cartoon: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/01/polar-bears-for-nuclear-energy.html Anti-nuclear activists who loudly brag that 390 Megawatts of solar energy can "save the planet" are either numerically illiterate or, frankly, they're just not telling the truth. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/california.html A lot of times, anti-nuclear activists will proclaim their concern about global warming when, in fact, their actions have served to block the development of the energy source that is the largest displacer of fossil-fuel carbon emissions. Hydroelectric dams are a close second....solar is pitifully small, even compared with wind power, much less hydroelectric or nuclear. Ruth --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 22 Jan 2007 at 15:59, J. Marshall Reber wrote: > > > At what point below does your quote of Jim Bell > end? > > The entire piece is Jim's posting. I don't agree > with any of his > positions, but told him I would post it for him. > > 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 cox.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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Tue Jan 23 06:31:21 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:31:21 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <006c01c73e7a$58cb5000$0200a8c0@saturn> References: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA011079FF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> <006c01c73e7a$58cb5000$0200a8c0@saturn> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01172A3E@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Don, if indeed continuous irradiation at the chronic exposure rates typical for the Taiwan sample population did suppress carcinogenesis by (i) accelerated cellular damage repair, (ii) by enhanced apoptosis of irreparable cells, (iii) by enhanced tissue homeostatic control due to a bystander effect and (iv) by raising the defences of the immune system due to as yet enigmatic mechanisms then - after approach to a stationary equilibrium level - you would expect what the earlier report claims to have seen. You would also expect that the thereby reduced cancer rate approaches again (from below) the normal cancer incidence rate after cessation of such a protective radiation exposure - what appears to be compatible with the later report. Given that and the data(!) of the later report one might muse whether one had done better to let these people continue to live in their flats - with the exception of the most highly exposed and of school children. Unfortunately both reports present insufficient information to assess what other reasons might contribute to their discrepancy. The earlier lacks adequate data for me to assess technical aspects of epidemiology, the second only presents parameter fit values to support its claim but no data to assess the fit quality (Chisquare statistics and the like for me are only sufficient if you are estimating the parameters of an analytical model WELL founded in theory or first principles - and even then I would insist to see the scatterplot of the residuals if the result had any impact on my own work). So without proper methods (Chen 2004) and proper/complete data (Hwang 2006) the door remains wide open for speculations of any kind. Your conclusion about follow-up studies of course remains appropriate! 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Don Higson [mailto:higsond at bigpond.net.au] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2007 00:09 An: Facius, Rainer; crispy_bird at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - John, Rainier Bearing in mind: - the earlier report from Chen, Luan et al that a dramatic reduction of cancer incidence apparently took effect almost immediately, and - the fact that there is still plenty of time for increases in the incidence of solid tumours due to the exposure to radiation from Co-60, do you find it conceivable that there might have been short-term hormesis, followed by carcinogenesis in the longer-term? Follow-up studies certainly appear to be essential. Don Higson ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:01 AM Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - 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 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 09:22:10 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:22:10 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c73f02$4605d3e0$49197254@pc1> Dear Ruth and RADSAFERs, I join your questions, because I think that we are bombarded with "nuclear" nonsense enough in everyday life. Anybody who wants to read this s**t can find enough web sites to download it. I read a few sentences and then deleted it, because I am bored by the continuously repeated nonsense that such agitators distribute. If this person would like to forward his thoughts to RADSAFE he could subscribe to the list (just a few keyboard strokes) and distribute it under his own name. I have problems to understand that Sandy Perle, whom I once esteemed as a highly reputable and remarkable collegue, has distributed this nonsense - without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ruth Sponsler Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. J?nner 2007 04:45 An: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material to be posted to Radsafe? Such material is easily available on the internet, and I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have been heavily exposed to such opinions during their college years and while reading newspapers etc. On this topic, I'd like Jim Bell and his ilk to look at this cartoon: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/01/polar-bears-for-nuclear-energy.h tml Anti-nuclear activists who loudly brag that 390 Megawatts of solar energy can "save the planet" are either numerically illiterate or, frankly, they're just not telling the truth. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/california. html A lot of times, anti-nuclear activists will proclaim their concern about global warming when, in fact, their actions have served to block the development of the energy source that is the largest displacer of fossil-fuel carbon emissions. Hydroelectric dams are a close second....solar is pitifully small, even compared with wind power, much less hydroelectric or nuclear. Ruth --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 22 Jan 2007 at 15:59, J. Marshall Reber wrote: > > > At what point below does your quote of Jim Bell > end? > > The entire piece is Jim's posting. I don't agree > with any of his > positions, but told him I would post it for him. > > 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 cox.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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Tue Jan 23 09:55:22 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (=?UTF-8?B?U2FuZHkgUGVybGU=?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:55:22 +0000 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Message-ID: <1868291452-1169567773-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-251391394-@bxe035-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> My posting was clear and my position on nuclear power is clear and has not waivered in 35 years .. Your statement "I have problems to understand that Sandy Perle, whom I once esteemed as a highly reputable and remarkable collegue, has distributed this nonsense - without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts." Ios ludicrous. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless From Efforrer at aol.com Tue Jan 23 14:10:41 2007 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer at aol.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:10:41 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Requirements in California Message-ID: Can anyone enlighten me as to the educational requirements that the state of California has to add someone as an RSO on a license. Gene Forrer From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 15:42:14 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:42:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45B4E82C.31613.93C817@sandyfl.cox.net>, <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> On 22 Jan 2007 at 19:44, Ruth Sponsler wrote: > Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material > to be posted to Radsafe? > > Such material is easily available on the internet, and > I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have > been heavily exposed to such opinions during their > college years and while reading newspapers etc. Hi Ruth, Your points are well taken. The primary reason I went ahead and posted the information was because of all the pro-nuclear and nuclear renaissance, as well as concerns raised by the current NRC Chair. Otherwise, I agree that the posting would not add any value to the dialogue. On another issue, Marshall Reber and I have corresponded and I definitely concur that I should have put Mr. Bell's entire article in quotes to categorically make it understood that all of the posting was his beliefs, and not mine. I treated this posting as other news postings, and don't use quotes. I do however understand that this is not a case of posting a news article from the wire services, and, should have used the quotes. However, my pro-nuclear support should not have been questioned, as was the case in one posting. My 35+ years supporting the nuclear option is well documented and I apologize to nobody regarding that. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 16:34:57 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:34:57 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> Sandy, This post is really interesting. You write to Ruth "Your points are well taken." To me, who supported the opinion of Ruth, you wrote that my "statement".... "Ios ludicrous (your spelling)" and you distributed it as well to the list. What is the difference - that Ruth is obviously a US-citizen and I am not? Come on, Sandy. This is an international list and not a list restricted to US citizens. From somebody who travels such a lot one would expect a little broader view on radiation protection than the narrow US one you obviously propagate since some time (thinking of your comments on SI units....). I think it is about the time that you return to your status of a widely accepted and well reputated scientist, who's "news" I have distributed even to my own Austrian list of news from the radiation protection world. Best wishes and best regards from a country which is almost exactly 10% of the "all important Nambia", has very little oil and no uranium. Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Sandy Perle Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. J?nner 2007 22:42 An: radsafe at radlab.nl; Ruth Sponsler; jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear On 22 Jan 2007 at 19:44, Ruth Sponsler wrote: > Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material > to be posted to Radsafe? > > Such material is easily available on the internet, and > I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have > been heavily exposed to such opinions during their > college years and while reading newspapers etc. Hi Ruth, Your points are well taken. The primary reason I went ahead and posted the information was because of all the pro-nuclear and nuclear renaissance, as well as concerns raised by the current NRC Chair. Otherwise, I agree that the posting would not add any value to the dialogue. On another issue, Marshall Reber and I have corresponded and I definitely concur that I should have put Mr. Bell's entire article in quotes to categorically make it understood that all of the posting was his beliefs, and not mine. I treated this posting as other news postings, and don't use quotes. I do however understand that this is not a case of posting a news article from the wire services, and, should have used the quotes. However, my pro-nuclear support should not have been questioned, as was the case in one posting. My 35+ years supporting the nuclear option is well documented and I apologize to nobody regarding that. 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 cox.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 sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 16:57:42 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:57:42 -0500 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net>, <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net> On 23 Jan 2007 at 23:34, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > This post is really interesting. You write to Ruth "Your points are well > taken." To me, who supported the opinion of Ruth, you wrote that my > "statement".... "Ios ludicrous (your spelling)" and you distributed it as > well to the list. What is the difference - that Ruth is obviously a > US-citizen and I am not? The difference is this: Ruth questioned why I posted the Jim Bell statement. I provided a reason why I did, and, I also understand Ruth's points. Franz in his post questioned whether I supported what Mr. bell stated, in this comment, "without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts." Ruth didn't question what I believed in. Ruth only questioned whether or not I should have posted Mr. Bell's comments in the first place. I suggest that Franz get off his "anti-everyone" kick if they aren't from anywhere other than the USA. His anti-USA rhetoric is really beneath him. Consider the personal attack on Mr. Suleiman the other day. Mr. Suleiman's birth country, where he was raised and where he lived is of no importance on this list. The attack was quite distasteful, but that has been the norm these days from our Austrian colleague. Franz needs to learn to debate the issues and not attack the messenger. Franz needs to recognize that is someone asks a question that he feels is not an intelligent question, then he needs to recall a time where he did not know all the answers. Franz is the Simon Cowell of Radsafe. Sandy Perle From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 17:44:27 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:44:27 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units, seen on a global scale Message-ID: <002301c73f48$74094bf0$49197254@pc1> There has been recently a debate on RADSAFE (again) about the SI units, some US hardliners stating that the US will never go to SI. I asked on RADSAFE about the use of SI-units in India and in the far east. I have received one message only ? thank you Cheng. So I consulted Google and there I found a link to Wikipedia. I usually do not rely much on Wikipedia, but the information I found there seems to be quite reliable, especially the part on the USA. Citations: ? the worlds most widely used system of units, both in everyday commerce and in science?, ? . Industrial use of SI is increasing ..!, and the most important citation: ?With very few exceptions the system is used in every country of the world.? Wikipedia (SI) has a link to the use of SI units in the USA and not only that I recognize the various attempts of going metric I see from Wikipedia, that actually quite a lot of measures are not only defined on metric terms, but actually used. I recognize, that there the use of km instead of miles on the highway from Tuscon to Nogales, which I was several times surprised to see, is mentioned. Regarding radiation protection SI units I may mention that at the time of the Chernobyl accident Austria still had not introduced officially the SI-units and it was a terrible problem to convert and compare the contamination with other European countries, all of which used SI-units since long. It is difficult for a scientist to understand, why the US is not following more than 90% of the world population to introduce SI units. I am sure that within the next 50 years the US will be completely ?SI? and the young people will not know about miles, yards, rem, pCi, psi etc. Best regards Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 17:56:59 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:56:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units, seen on a global scale In-Reply-To: <002301c73f48$74094bf0$49197254@pc1> References: <002301c73f48$74094bf0$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <45B65A7B.9273.932261@sandyfl.cox.net> On 24 Jan 2007 at 0:44, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > I am sure that > within the next 50 years the US will be completely "SI" and the young people > will not know about miles, yards, rem, pCi, psi etc. On this we are in agreement. Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Tue Jan 23 18:01:05 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:01:05 -0600 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070123175814.07af5a50@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 04:57 PM 1/23/2007, Sandy Perle wrote: >.... >Franz is the Simon Cowell of Radsafe. Pretty unfair comment, Sandy: From what little I have seen of SC (From "snips" on CNN, etc: I wouldn't waste my time with the actual program!), his criticisms are generally justified..... ;~) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 18:03:07 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:03:07 -0500 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20070123175814.07af5a50@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net>, <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net>, <6.2.0.14.2.20070123175814.07af5a50@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> Message-ID: <45B65BEB.27862.98C04F@sandyfl.cox.net> On 23 Jan 2007 at 18:01, Doug Aitken wrote: > From what little I have seen of SC (From "snips" on CNN, etc: I wouldn't > waste my time with the actual program!), his criticisms are generally > justified..... My sincere aplogies to Mr. Cowell! 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 18:04:12 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:04:12 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <20070123232149.OCXE24316.centrmmtao01.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Message-ID: <002801c73f4b$351cde90$49197254@pc1> Thanks Mitchell, for providing another good laugh to me. Please keep on with your comments, because they provide some funny sunshine in the dark winter-times we have in Austria. I am also glad about that you force me to consult my dictionary for your words like "thug" and "banter" because we did not learn these words at school and I never came across them in my later life. I mentioned earlier that I am always eager to learn. Of course there is a good question whether these words are worth learning. With my very best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mitchell W. Davis [mailto:radiation at cox.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. J?nner 2007 00:22 An: 'Sandy Perle'; radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Ruth Sponsler'; jmarshall.reber at comcast.net; 'Franz Sch?nhofer' Betreff: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Bravo Sandy!!! I have said on several occasions that Franz's anti-American and Pro-anybody who is NOT American attitude should not be tolerated on radsafe. I have taken many a tongue lashing from that Austrian thug (but I enjoyed the banter) and I am glad to see others are sick of it as I am. Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT Midland, TX United States of America (Friend of all Franz's worldwide) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:58 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Ruth Sponsler'; jmarshall.reber at comcast.net; Franz Sch?nhofer Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear On 23 Jan 2007 at 23:34, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > This post is really interesting. You write to Ruth "Your points are well > taken." To me, who supported the opinion of Ruth, you wrote that my > "statement".... "Ios ludicrous (your spelling)" and you distributed it as > well to the list. What is the difference - that Ruth is obviously a > US-citizen and I am not? The difference is this: Ruth questioned why I posted the Jim Bell statement. I provided a reason why I did, and, I also understand Ruth's points. Franz in his post questioned whether I supported what Mr. bell stated, in this comment, "without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts." Ruth didn't question what I believed in. Ruth only questioned whether or not I should have posted Mr. Bell's comments in the first place. I suggest that Franz get off his "anti-everyone" kick if they aren't from anywhere other than the USA. His anti-USA rhetoric is really beneath him. Consider the personal attack on Mr. Suleiman the other day. Mr. Suleiman's birth country, where he was raised and where he lived is of no importance on this list. The attack was quite distasteful, but that has been the norm these days from our Austrian colleague. Franz needs to learn to debate the issues and not attack the messenger. Franz needs to recognize that is someone asks a question that he feels is not an intelligent question, then he needs to recall a time where he did not know all the answers. Franz is the Simon Cowell of Radsafe. Sandy Perle _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Tue Jan 23 18:13:00 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:13:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip Message-ID: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip Nuclear power climate change risk Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival, Official Says German warned on nuclear energy phase-out Arrests over nuclear site protest Westminster students arrested for nuclear plant breach Nuclear plant sees safety system failure; problem fixed Syrian activist defends Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy RTI, Duke, UNC Asheville to Study Chernobyl Radiation Impact Radiation-exposed workers to march ========================================== Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip NEW DELHI (AFP) - Russia's president will offer India nuclear power plants in a major pitch for a slice of the nation's lucrative atomic energy market when he begins a visit to New Delhi, officials said. President Vladimir Putin, seeking to counter growing US ties with India, Moscow's former Cold War ally, is bringing a large contingent of ministers, business people and officials on his two-day trip. The visit's aim is to boost the "strategic relationship" and bring new momentum to a long friendship, said Putin, who will be guest of honour at India's annual Republic Day parade on Friday marking the country's founding as a republic. "We intend to help India directly in construction of atomic energy facilities for peaceful use," Putin said in an interview with the Press Trust of India (PTI). The passage last year of a landmark US-Indian deal allowing New Delhi access to civilian nuclear technology after decades of isolation has unleashed an international race to supply energy-hungry India's atomic energy market. Moscow, which still supplies over 70 percent of India's military hardware, also hopes to sign a slew of defence deals, including on joint production of a fifth-generation supersonic fighter jet and a multi-role transport aircraft. "Many very serious and very substantial" agreements will be signed during Putin's trip, said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, kicking off his own five-day visit to India in the southern high-tech city of Bangalore. Russia says it has sold arms worth 10 billion dollars to India in the past five years and that deals worth a similar amount are in the pipeline with the country which is modernising its outdated defence equipment. India's military, the world's fourth-largest with around 1.3 million people in uniform, is in the market for new fighters and trainer jets, submarines, radar equipment and weaponry. Ivanov added Russia plans to would "actively" participate in an Indian Air Force tender for 126 multi-purpose fighters, a contract valued at close to 10 billion dollars, which pits Lockheeds F-16 warplane and Boeings F/A-18E/F Super Hornet up against fighters from Russia, France and Sweden. "India is pursuing a hedging strategy in its relations with Russia. They are trying not to over-rely on the US either politically, militarily or otherwise as the Russians have always proven to be fairly reliable in the past," Bharat Karnad, analyst at New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research, told AFP. Putin's visit "will strengthen and take bilateral relations between the two time-tested friends to new heights," said India's Minister of State for Planning, M.V. Rajasekharan. Russia will sign a preliminary deal with India to build four nuclear power plants as well as propose to supply four nuclear reactors, reports said. "An agreement... is being prepared for signing on the construction at the Kudankulam nuclear power station (in Tamil Nadu) of additional reactors and also construction of atomic stations at new sites in India," Ivanov also said in Moscow, according to the Interfax news agency. The reactors would be for the flagship nuclear plant Russia is building in southern Tamil Nadu state due to start operation this year and which already has two Russian 1,000-megawatt reactors. Nuclear power now just supplies a scant percentage of the energy needs of India which has been eagerly seeking new fuel supplies to feed its fast-growing economy. India and energy-rich Russia are also expected to discuss boosting cooperation in oil exploration and production. -------------- Nuclear power climate change risk BBC Jan 23 - The government is soon to release its criteria for possible new sites A new study into the potential impact of climate change on Britain's nuclear power stations highlights the threat of rising seas and increasingly severe storms, BBC News learns. Specialists from the Met Office were commissioned by the nuclear power company British Energy to assess the risks of global warming. All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on the coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to guarantee supplies of cooling water. But the Met Office researchers have forecast global warming is likely to bring three changes which could combine to pose serious risks - rising sea-levels, increased wave height and increased height of storm surges. Constant maintenance The study concludes none of the current generation of power plants are at risk. But the findings have implications for the planning of the next generation of British nuclear power stations. "We would locate the station within the site in such a position that we don't perhaps have to work quite so hard in maintaining these hard defences." David Norfolk, British Energy At Sizewell in Suffolk, for example, site of Britain's most modern reactor, the prediction is for the most severe storm surges to be 1.7 metres higher in 2080 than at present. And at Dungeness in Kent, the storm surge increase could be up to 0.9 metres. Already the Dungeness plant, which is sited on land only two metres above sea-level, is protected by a massive wall of shingle which needs constant maintenance in the winter. Waves erode so much of it that 600 tons of shingle has to be added every day. 'Hard defences' Met Office researcher Rob Harrison, who led the study, told the BBC "very large potential changes are in prospect" what we're trying to do is avoid a catastrophic effect. "There's no immediate concern but in the future the extremes may become more severe, especially with the combination of bigger waves and surges. It's reassuring that British Energy are being proactive about this." The Met Office study finds the rise in storm surge heights will be most extreme along the coast of south-east England - the shorelines at Dungeness and Sizewell bearing the brunt of the effects. One option for the nuclear operators is to build stronger sea defences. Another is to site future power stations further inland. David Norfolk, a member of British Energy's strategy team, said any new power plant could be located further from the sea to provide more of a buffer for any flooding. "We would locate the station within the site in such a position that we don't perhaps have to work quite so hard in maintaining these hard defences - put it further back so we have more land, more space to absorb any water that comes over, to attenuate the energy of the sea." The study follows a similar Met Office investigation last year into the impact of climate change on conventional power plants. -------------- Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival, Official Says WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - The senior member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned on Monday that the failure of Congress to pass a detailed budget for the current fiscal year could damage the nuclear renaissance that the government tried so hard to encourage with the energy bill of 2005. No one has applied for permission to build a power reactor since the 1970s. But with the incentives offered by the federal government in 2005, utilities are considering building about 20 reactors, and several of them are expected to apply for authorization this year. The commission member, Edward McGaffigan Jr., said that if the commission received applications this year, "we basically are going to have to put them on the shelf, because we?re not going to have the folks to work on the applications until well into calendar year 2008." Congress passed only 2 of the 11 spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2006, those covering the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department. The rest of the government has been operating under a "continuing resolution," a stopgap measure that finances most agencies at the previous year?s levels. Democrats say they plan to extend that resolution through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. According to the nuclear commission, under a continuing resolution its budget would be lower by $95 million, or about 12 percent, compared with the level approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees but never by the full Congress. Most of the commission?s budget comes from fees paid by companies licensed to use radioactive material. The agency has been arguing on Capitol Hill that giving it the amount already approved by the Appropriations Committees would require only $13 million of general tax revenues. Mr. McGaffigan said that if the commission could not process applications, some companies wanting to build would decide to wait. But he said that "some, seeing the instability, may disappear" and build coal plants instead. Earlier this month, Mr. McGaffigan, saying he had metastatic melanoma, told the White House that he would serve only until a successor could be confirmed. He spoke Monday at a meeting with reporters organized by Platts, an energy information company. Mr. McGaffigan also said that the Energy Department should begin looking for alternatives to Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, for disposing of nuclear waste. When he came to the commission in 1996, he said, the opening of the repository was said to be 14 years away; now it is probably 20 years away. "There?s just tremendous uncertainty," he said, "and each year that passes, we?re not going to get any closer to Yucca under the current circumstances." He said the government should look for a site where there was local cooperation. ------------------ German warned on nuclear energy phase-out Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns. The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) will add to the pressure on Angela Merkel, chancellor, to renegotiate the phase-out deal agreed by the previous government in 2000, despite her pledge not to reopen the controversial debate. Rising concern about global warming and energy security has sparked a lively dispute in Ms Merkel's Christian Democrat-led grand coalition government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy. Michael Glos, the conservative economics minister, has campaigned vigorously against the phase-out, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister. Without nuclear energy, the bank says, the chancellor faces a painful choice between the three goals she has set herself - to reduce emissions, cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel and keep energy prices in check. "Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," said Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report. "It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today's nuclear plants." The environment ministry said Germany's goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said it would be easy". The SPD has yet to show any willingness to renegotiate the nuclear exit deal. Rainer Wend, a Social Democratic MP and member of parliament's economics committee, said: "If we must import more Russian gas, then so be it. Russia is a reliable supplier." Backers of nuclear energy point out that the phase-out has left Berlin isolated as holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, which complicates Ms Merkel's task of drafting a European energy policy at the next European Council summit in March. With nuclear covering 25 per cent of Germany's electricity needs - and taking into account rising electricity demand and the need to replace old fossil-fuel plants - DB calculates 42,000MW of new plants will be needed by 2022. Since lignite and coal-powered plants are highly polluting, most of these would have to be gas-powered. Even so, CO2 emissions by the power sector will rise by 16 per cent in the decade from 2010, while Russian gas imports will increase from today's 35 per cent of the total to 50 per cent. ---------------- Arrests over nuclear site protest AWE is the headquarters of Britain's nuclear development programme Eight people were arrested after they chained themselves together as part of a protest at a nuclear weapons factory. The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) site at Aldermaston, Berks, has been the scene of several protests recently. Five men and three women were arrested on the A340 on suspicion of unlawful obstruction of the highway. Campaigners are angry at the government's decision to give the go- ahead to a new system to replace Britain's existing Trident submarines. Thames Valley Police said all eight were in custody. --------------- Westminster students arrested for nuclear plant breach The Fulton Sun - REFORM, Mo. - Two Westminster College students are out on bond after allegedly breaching security last week at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant. Shawn K. Milligan, 22, of St. Louis, and Corey A. Meyer, 19 of Cape Girardeau, were taken into custody at the plant by the Callaway County Sheriff's Department and charged with first-degree trespassing. Law enforcement officials would not divulge the reason the students gave for being at the facility, but did state that the incident is not considered to be connected with any terrorist act. Both the FBI and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission were contacted as part of standard procedure. The Callaway County Sheriff's Department handled the investigation. "They gave us a story, but that's something we can't discuss at this time," said Callaway County Sheriff Dennis Crane on Friday. "All we can say is that they were trespassing, they both bonded out on $500 each, and that no other charges are expected." Crane also confirmed that a soft air pistol was found in the subjects' vehicle. According to CCSD reports, the incident occurred at approximately 8:20 p.m. when AmerenUE security observed the two subjects drive into a fenced-in area of the plant and take pictures via a cell phone. The area is not considered a high-security area of the plant, but it does have restricted access, Ameren officials said. "People have access to this area, but they have to have authorization to be there, and these two did not," explained Michael Cleary, AmerenUE communications executive. The photos, he said, contained images of the plant's cooling tower and were deleted. "It's hard to speculate why they were there. Whatever their motives were, they were trespassing on our property," Cleary said. "We hope this incident will help others in the community know that operations at the nuclear power plant are critical and the boundaries must be respected." Milligan and Meyer are scheduled to appear in Callaway County Circuit Court in February. Westminster officials Monday acknowledged the arrests and stated their intentions to take appropriate actions once the investigation is concluded. "The situation is under investigation by law enforcement officials and the college is reviewing the situation as well under our disciplinary procedures," said Rob Crouse, director of college relations at Westminster. ------------------ Nuclear plant sees safety system failure; problem fixed MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was threatened with shutdown late Monday when a safety system was determined not to be working properly, but the problem was fixed within several hours, officials said. A special Nuclear Regulatory Commission report was triggered when staff at the Vernon reactor discovered at about 7 p.m. Monday that a high-pressure coolant injection system flow control gauge had malfunctioned, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. The gauge was showing flow through the system of 200 gallons per minute when there was nothing flowing through the system, Sheehan said. "If 1,000 gallons a minute were needed, you may think you're putting in a thousand gallons a minute when you're actually putting 800," Sheehan said of the inaccurate reading. "That's not a good situation." With the malfunction, Vermont Yankee began operating under "limiting conditions of operation," meaning that the plant was going to have to shut down if the problem was not fixed within 14 days, Sheehan said. "As of 8 a.m. (Tuesday) the system was operable again," he added. Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said control room technicians noticed the problem at about 7 p.m. and notified the NRC. The system was declared inoperable while it was re-calibrated, but it could have been operated manually by control room technicians, Smith said. "That system was available to provide its safety function but operators would have to do it manually," Smith said. The system was fixed by 1:40 a.m. Tuesday, Smith said. Sheehan said the risk from the malfunction was low, because the plant has several redundant safety systems. But the watchdog group New England Coalition wasn't buying it. "'No problem, be happy, we got other safety equipment,' is no answer," said Raymond Shadis, technical adviser with the group. He said the plant, owned by Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear "is already running at reduced margins of safety," due to last year's 20 percent increase in power output. He said operating the plant under limiting conditions of operations "is like driving for only a few hours while repairing your car's brakes. Except in this instance they are taking the whole neighborhood for a ride. ------------------ Syrian activist defends Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy IRNA - A Syrian political activist said on Tuesday that Iran is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Deputy Secretary General of ruling Syrian Baath Party Abdullah al- Ahmar in a meeting with a delegation from Iran's Parties House in Damascus on Tuesday condemned pressures on Iran to prevent its access to peaceful nuclear energy. Al-Ahmar said Washington is supporting the Zionist Regime, which possesses nuclear warfare, while opposing Iran's natural rights. Head of Iran's Parties' House Ayatollah Hossein Moussavi Tabrizi too referred to support of Iranian government and nation for Syria in the face of foreign pressures and for the country's campaign to restore its sovereignty over occupied Golan heights from the Zionist Regime. Tabrizi said any threat against Syria would be a threat against Iran and all the regional states. He underlined the need for solidarity among Muslim and Arab nations to confront aggressive policies of the Zionist Regime and support the rights of Arabs. Participants in the meeting discussed relations between Syrian Baath Party and Iran's Parties' House, the policies and aggressive acts of Zionist Regime in the occupied lands, crisis in Lebanon and Iraq and the US threats against Iran and Syria as well as the Palestinian nation's struggles against the occupiers and their right for establishment of an independent state with Qods being its capital, repatriation of refugees and release of all captives and prisoners from Zionist Regime's prison cells. The two sides voiced support for Iraqi people and the political process to end Iraq occupation, guaranteeing national unity and territorial integrity of the country and forge national reconciliation there. He stressed support for the aspirations of Muslims and Arabs and the right for legitimate resistance against occupiers as well as guaranteeing security and stability in Lebanon and liberation of the occupied parts of the country. The Iranian delegation arrived in Damascus late Monday at the invitation by the leader of the ruling Baath Party of Syria. Some Iranian parties and organizations are in the delegation. The Iranian delegation is to have meetings with the ruling coalition, the national progressive parties, in Syria. The talks between the two sides are aimed at promoting ties between Iranian and Syrian parties to cement relations and cooperation between Tehran and Damascus -------------- RTI, Duke, UNC Asheville to Study Chernobyl Radiation Impact RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, - Three North Carolina research institutions are teaming with a Ukrainian group to study the effects and treatment of radiation, including the health effects on workers at the Chernobyl nuclear power site in the Ukraine. An accident at the Chernobyl plant in 1986 led to the deaths and injuries of thousands of people. Results of the program will be used to protect workers and people who might be affected by radiation. RTI International, Duke University Medical Center and the University of North Carolina at Asheville will be working with the Research Center for Radiation Medicine of Ukraine. The $5 million project is being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Researchers hope to secure additional funding. "There is a unique opportunity to do medical and genetic measurements on these workers before, during and after exposures to various levels of ionizing radiation," said Geoff Ginsburg of Duke University's Center for Genomic Medicine. "This will help develop diagnostics and treatments to protect people who work with nuclear materials, and also to protect the public in case of a release of radiation, such as a nuclear terrorism attack." The project director is Michael Samuhel of RTI. "Once the baseline medical and genetic data become available, opportunities open up for medical research by universities, government agencies and companies that are concerned not only about radiation exposures, but also about diseases such as cancer that have genetic components," Samuhel said. ----------------- Radiation-exposed workers to march JOHANNESBURG - Radiation-exposed workers will march to the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) near Atteridgeville on Wednesday to demand that the corporation speed up their compensation, lobby group Earthlife Africa said on Tuesday. Workers, who are suffering from cancer, myetoma, asthma and other occupational related illnesses, are expected to assemble at the corner of Church Street and Masupa in Atteridgeville at 10am and arrive at Gate 3 of Pelindaba (Necsa) at 11am. Madibeng Municipality has granted permission for the march and therefore all affected workers, their families and community must support the cause, said Alfred Sepepe, the convener of the march. Earthlife Africa said most were very ill, out of work and penniless. "A 16th person among the 208 who were reviewed in terms of a health study commissioned by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg died during the first week in January," the lobby group said. Earthlife Africa said it began its investigation two years ago into unsafe practices of the nuclear giant after several workers were diagnosed with "unquestionable occupational-related diseases" which has since been referred to the Compensation Commissioner, but that Necsa still has not submitted the documentation required by law to the Commissioner. The lobby group said at least 52 more people were diagnosed with 72 probable diseases, which means several people have more than one occupational disease, but require additional expensive tests for a clarification. "Further information has repeatedly been requested from Necsa/Pelindaba for a significant number of other workers involved in this study who could not be definitively diagnosed because their Necsa medical files are gaping with inadequate information or have not surfaced," it said. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Tue Jan 23 19:20:01 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:20:01 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip In-Reply-To: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: Sandy Does "All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on the coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to guarantee supplies of cooling water." mean that the "pebble bed" reactor at Winfrith is no longer operating. Winfrith is a long way from "the coast". When I worked there in the 1970's that reactor was ( I think) putting power into the grid when it worked, and was talked about as the "next generation" of reactors. 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 ***** From jk5554 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 19:21:30 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:21:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All - I believe that the current NRC chair, Dale Klein, has some concerns about his agency's manpower requirements to meet the challenge of new licensing. Overall, he's quite positive about the prospect of new nuclear construction in the U.S. Some NRC Commissioners' speeches are here: http://www.tropicalmedicine101.com/staging/ A big part of the personnel problem is that there was a decline from about 1980-1999 in the number of nuclear engineering students in colleges. The reason for that decline was the perceived lack of marketability of a nuclear engineering degree, which was connected with the activities of anti-nuclear pressure groups that attempted to invalidate nuclear power as a viable energy generation option. However, it's important to talk about the much broader issue of energy options and decisions. At this time, with the wider and broader realization that fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide releases are contributing to climate change problems, the "environmental movement" has a great big problem on its hands. The renewable resources that the "environmental movement" promotes [wind, solar energy, and biomass] simply do not have the multiple thousands of megawatts of capability to displace Europe or America's demand for fossil-fuel fired electricity. A simple electricity generation chart shows that nuclear energy, followed by hydroelectric, is the largest source of non-fossil-fuel electricity. Non-hydroelectric renewable sources are only 2.3% vs 6.5% for hydroelectric and 19.3% for nuclear energy. The chart is at this link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html If the "environmental movement" is truly concerned about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, they will have to realize that they need to support nuclear energy...unless they want to support very controversial new dam sites [many of which aren't to be found, anyway]. On the personal note - these are not personal comments directed at any particular person on the list. It's directed at the clueless anti-nuclear crowd who asked a list member to forward the same hackneyed material they anti-nuclear crowd has been distributing for the past 25 years. The net effect of their blockades, frivolous lawsuits, and "nuclear phaseouts" in both Europe and the United States has been to increase fossil fuel use and to increase the associated environmental problems including sulfur dioxide [acid rain], mercury pollution [from coal emissions], particulate emissions [largely from coal], and carbon dioxide emissions [from all fossil fuels, including natural gas as well as coal]. Right now, Germany is running into a serious problem with its emissions reduction goals because of its official "nuclear phaseout" policy. Deutsche Bank just released a report about this issue: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa778212-aa17-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html On the other hand, France is well on its way to meeting emissions reduction goals. http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2006/01/17/1157945?extID=10051 [although this is a fragment, it contains the relevant information]. The "environmental movement" in both Europe and the U.S. has a huge decision to make: If they think that wind power and solar can substitute for fossil fuels by themselves, they will need to endorse covering the landscape with enormous numbers of wind turbines and solar panels, because these are low-density energy sources. Or, they can continue implicitly endorsing fossil fuels along with the associated pollution problems. Or, they can drop their anti-nuclear bias and start to move constructively to reduce pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions. It's not a matter of Europe vs. the U.S. This is a worldwide issue. The developed world has to take leadership and help other countries like coal-dependent China to ease their enormous pollution problems. Some countries have good energy policies while others have bad policies. Personally, I think that transportation policies are quite good throughout most of Europe. I think that electricity generation policy is excellent in France, Sweden, and Switzerland; reasonably good in Denmark; and quite bad in Germany and Italy. I think that transportation policies in the U.S. are bad, while electricity generation policies are fair. I can give links to material about my assessments/opinions of energy policies in various countries if anyone wants them. There. I've tried to raise the level of debate on this post. I believe that the original post was intended to spark a discussion on the list about energy alternatives, rather than an argument about "Austria" vs. the U.S." If anyone has more interest in the topic of EU carbon emissions reduction goals and nuclear energy policies in countries such as France, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, they can visit my blog and search for the name of the country. http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com ~Ruth --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 22 Jan 2007 at 19:44, Ruth Sponsler wrote: > > > Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his > material > > to be posted to Radsafe? > > > > Such material is easily available on the internet, > and > > I'm sure that almost all the members of this list > have > > been heavily exposed to such opinions during their > > college years and while reading newspapers etc. > > Hi Ruth, > > Your points are well taken. The primary reason I > went ahead and posted the information was > because of all the pro-nuclear and nuclear > renaissance, as well as concerns raised by the > current NRC Chair. Otherwise, I agree that the > posting would not add any value to the > dialogue. > > On another issue, Marshall Reber and I have > corresponded and I definitely concur that I > should have put Mr. Bell's entire article in quotes > to categorically make it understood that all > of the posting was his beliefs, and not mine. I > treated this posting as other news postings, > and don't use quotes. I do however understand that > this is not a case of posting a news > article from the wire services, and, should have > used the quotes. However, my pro-nuclear > support should not have been questioned, as was the > case in one posting. My 35+ years > supporting the nuclear option is well documented and > I apologize to nobody regarding that. > > 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 cox.net > > Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ > Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 19:35:24 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:35:24 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip In-Reply-To: References: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net>, Message-ID: <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> On 23 Jan 2007 at 17:20, John R Johnson wrote: > Sandy > > Does "All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on the > coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to guarantee > supplies of cooling water." mean that the "pebble bed" reactor at Winfrith > is no longer operating. Winfrith is a long way from "the coast". > > When I worked there in the 1970's that reactor was ( I think) putting power > into the grid when it worked, and was talked about as the "next generation" > of reactors. Hi John, Per the following, I believe that this site is now in decommissioning: "Winfrith was established by the UKAEA in 1958 as an experimental reactor research and development site. During its history, eight research reactors of various types have operated on the site. Winfrith also had a number of other facilities including fuel manufacture and examination, plutonium laboratories, nuclear waste treatment and storage and radioactive laboratories. The last reactor closed in 1995. Five of the reactors have been removed from the site; the three remaining have had fuel removed and are in various stages of decommissioning. Parts of the Winfrith site have been delicensed and it is expected that the remaining decommissioning will be completed by 2020." 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jk5554 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 19:57:55 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:57:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Error in my post In-Reply-To: <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <880147.29500.qm@web32507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There was an error in this link. The correct form is below. Apologies! > > Some NRC Commissioners' speeches are here: > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2006/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 24 02:58:20 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:58:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in ...... SI Units in India? Message-ID: <98510.36066.qm@web26403.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Dr Schoenhofer, My apologies for not reading your message promptly. From the title of your message, I did not realize that your query was on SI units. I have only limited contact with the countries such as thailand, Bangladesh, Korea in the region; but I had occasion to meet scientists from these countries during many review meetings and conferences (some of them in Vienna) I have attended.I believe that everyone without exception use SI units. Yes, Indian scientists accepted SI units without much difficulty. Old timers (the species have almost vanished!!)are still comfortable with roentgens, rads and curies! Occasionally they argue that many are not able to comprehend SI units. The major incentive for change came from insistence of journals. I belong to a generation of scientists who competed among themselves by publishing articles in international journals. Initially, some of these journals wanted that we must use SI units or use both units. I was the editor of the AMPI Medical Physics Bulletin the earlier publication of the Association of Medical Physicists of India for several years.The Bulletin is now a journal. I was also in the editorial board of the bulletin of Indian Association of Radiation Protection and other publications.We have always encouraged the use of SI units. In 1975, two senior colleagues wrote an interesting paper titled " SI Units for radiation measurements:For or Against" in the Indian Journal of Radiology. I was very much involved in sorting out the "riddle" of rad and gray, rem and sievert, curie and becquerel. By about the middle of the eighties most of us were conversant with SI units. Once I reproduced in the AERB Newsletter, the publication from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, a few quotes from newspapers and journals to illustrate their confusion over radiation units. Two leading dailies in India used "gm" of radiation in place of rad! I could not understand till date the basis of this confusion. It was amusing to realize that there was confusion at all levels. When "Nature" wrote an an article to clarify the position, it defined "curie" incorrectly.(Nature,1985) For "The washigton Post",radiation and radioactivity were synonymous!(The Washington Post,May 2,1986) "The Nuclear Engineering International" bemoaned that even experts seemed a little unsure at times. July 1986 issue of the journal stated thus: "Chernobyl is off the front pages at last, but the confusion over the units in which it is measured lingers on... Data on contamination was rapidly made available in European countries after the accident, but nobody in the media or the public understood what the blast of becquerels, sieverts, rems, absorbed doses, dose equivalents (and from the Soviet Union itself, roentgens, of all things) really meant.Even the experts seemed a little unsure at times." On June 12, 1986 the New Scientist wrote thus: "Confusion over units of radiation continues, the weighty opinion of Lord Marshall of Goring, chairman of Britain's Central Electricity Generating Board, being that sieverts and becauerels are incomprehensible. " I am a rads and rems man myself" he confessed in Geneva. Marshall also condemned the use of becquerels per litre to measure the concentrations of radio-iodines in milk. The people of Britain, he roundly declared, not only do not understand becquerels, but they do not understand litres either". Immediately after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station, we had occasion to interact with some of the best brains in the legal profession.There was a prolonged litigation on imported (allegedly contaminated) butter from Ireland. Lawyers prefer clear and unambiguous language. Many scientists are not good communicators. We had to explain the basis of arriving at the limits of radionuclides in foodstuffs. The discussion covered Bq, Sv and radionuclides such as Sr-90, Cs-137! End of the day one of the eminent lawyers handling the case declared " I do not understand or believe a word of what you say, but I will defend the case". We were mortified. When the metric system was introduced in the United Kingdom, I was a student. We were confused. We felt that we were shortchanged in all cash transactions! It took some time to identify the then newly introduced Pence and the existing shilling and penny! On the of the mementos Professor Spiers (who was then head of the medical physics department, Leeds university) presented me was a scroll detailing the conversion into the metric system. I wrote this long message primarily to show that the introduction of "SI units" had its ups and downs. This was happening in all countries. I am not surprised to see that after several decades history repeats itself. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group, Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy Room No 18 Ground Floor, North Wing Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094 E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 25486081 (O) 91+22 27706048 (R) 9869016206 (mobile) ----- Original Message ---- From: Franz Sch?nhofer To: parthasarathy k s ; Sandy Perle ; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org Sent: Monday, 22 January, 2007 8:50:53 AM Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors;intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? Dear collegue, Since I assume that you have a wide knowledge about not only the "Indian subcontinent", but also about countries in the far east I would seriously like to invite you to comment not only to me, but also to the RADSAFE community about the status of SI units in the Far East. I know that at least a few years ago Japan still officially had the outdated old units, but all my collegues I met during a month of intensive visits to many institutions there, that all my collegues and friends used SI-units. How is it in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Korea (from my visits I know that the scientists use SI-units there as well as in China), etc. etc. I would appreciate your input to this discussion. Sincerely Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! ___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From C.S.Vos at uu.nl Wed Jan 24 04:35:48 2007 From: C.S.Vos at uu.nl (Vos, C.S. (Kees)) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:35:48 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear enterprises RGM1/1 Message-ID: <02BA5F570D0016418ACC9A5ABDB333B60A1FA3@uu01msg-exb04.soliscom.uu.nl> Badly seeking: the (scanned) manual of the 'Radioactive Gas Monitor" Nuclear Entrerprises RGM1/1. Kees From lboing at anl.gov Wed Jan 24 08:29:26 2007 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:29:26 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutin trip In-Reply-To: <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net>, <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DF9A5@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> All- I believe the UKAEA sites at both Harwell and Winfrith are undergoing major site nuclear delicensing push. The IAEA recently published a report that addresses examples of site reuse following decommissioning - an interesting aspect of the decommissioning process now starting to get more attention - "Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities after Decommissioning" Technical Reports Series #444. Its available on the web at www.iaea.org and then you can follow links to the 'Publications' page. Also check the UKAEA website - they have lots of information there as well. Hope this helps. Larry Boing lboing at anl.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:35 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl; John R Johnson Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutin trip On 23 Jan 2007 at 17:20, John R Johnson wrote: > Sandy > > Does "All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on > the coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to > guarantee supplies of cooling water." mean that the "pebble bed" > reactor at Winfrith is no longer operating. Winfrith is a long way from "the coast". > > When I worked there in the 1970's that reactor was ( I think) putting > power into the grid when it worked, and was talked about as the "next generation" > of reactors. Hi John, Per the following, I believe that this site is now in decommissioning: "Winfrith was established by the UKAEA in 1958 as an experimental reactor research and development site. During its history, eight research reactors of various types have operated on the site. Winfrith also had a number of other facilities including fuel manufacture and examination, plutonium laboratories, nuclear waste treatment and storage and radioactive laboratories. The last reactor closed in 1995. Five of the reactors have been removed from the site; the three remaining have had fuel removed and are in various stages of decommissioning. Parts of the Winfrith site have been delicensed and it is expected that the remaining decommissioning will be completed by 2020." 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 cox.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 jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 09:26:47 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:26:47 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers, and more uranium trioxide gas proof Message-ID: I'm sorry, the URL in my earlier message below is for congenital malformations (birth defects). The original citations for the Basra cancers are here: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm and: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm The only thing that varies in those three URLs is the digit in between hyphens. In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID 5527739) is at: http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf --please see section (f) on page 836, which indicates that about half of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion measured. Volatility of uranium trioxide (a/k/a uranyl oxide) gas: http://www.bovik.org/du/vol_uo3g.png --the plotted data points include those from Alexander (2005): http://www.bovik.org/du/Alexander2005.pdf and another Ackermann et al. (1956): http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1743156 and the DOF-adjusted R^2 corresponds to the 95% confidence interval shown. For the burning temperature of the shower-of-sparks which is the result of DU munitions use on hard targets, please see: http://bovik.org/du/scans/mb-388.jpg in particular figures four and six on page 392: http://bovik.org/du/scans/mb-392.jpg Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/22/07, James Salsman wrote: > The original peer-reviewed citation to the Med J Basra U is: > > http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm From robert.atkinson at genetix.com Wed Jan 24 09:31:49 2007 From: robert.atkinson at genetix.com (Robert Atkinson) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:31:49 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutintrip References: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net>, <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DF9A5@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> Message-ID: <260B27D627B0C84E864BAC459B702555061B4D@exch01.GENETIX.LOCAL> See, http://www.ukaea.org.uk/sites/winfrith_decommissioning_progress.htm for Winfrith info. Robert G8RPI. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Boing, Lawrence E. Sent: 24 January 2007 14:29 To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl; John R Johnson Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutintrip All- I believe the UKAEA sites at both Harwell and Winfrith are undergoing major site nuclear delicensing push. The IAEA recently published a report that addresses examples of site reuse following decommissioning - an interesting aspect of the decommissioning process now starting to get more attention - "Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities after Decommissioning" Technical Reports Series #444. Its available on the web at www.iaea.org and then you can follow links to the 'Publications' page. Also check the UKAEA website - they have lots of information there as well. Hope this helps. Larry Boing lboing at anl.gov -------------------------------------------------------- Genetix Limited - Queensway, New Milton, Hampshire, BH25 5NN Registered in England No. 2660050 www.genetix.com Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily Genetix Ltd (Genetix) or any company associated with it. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify Genetix by telephone on +44 (0)1425 624600. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Genetix network. Genetix will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages as a result of any virus being passed on, or arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party. -------------------------------------------------------- From C.S.Vos at uu.nl Wed Jan 24 10:05:32 2007 From: C.S.Vos at uu.nl (Vos, C.S. (Kees)) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:05:32 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear enterprises RGM1/1 References: <02BA5F570D0016418ACC9A5ABDB333B60A1FA3@uu01msg-exb04.soliscom.uu.nl> Message-ID: <02BA5F570D0016418ACC9A5ABDB333B60A1FA9@uu01msg-exb04.soliscom.uu.nl> I'm sorry for the 'badly' requested information and not giving a full name and address. I'm desperately seeking the manual... Kees Vos RSO University Utrecht The Netherlands kees_kever at hotmail.com ________________________________ Van: Vos, C.S. (Kees) Verzonden: wo 24-1-2007 11:35 Aan: radsafe at radlab.nl Onderwerp: Nuclear enterprises RGM1/1 Badly seeking: the (scanned) manual of the 'Radioactive Gas Monitor" Nuclear Entrerprises RGM1/1. Kees From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 11:05:51 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:05:51 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers, and more uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124085108.02e7b5c0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >I'm sorry, the URL in my earlier message below is for congenital >malformations (birth defects). The original citations for the Basra >cancers are here: > >http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm >and: >http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm These articles are totally worthless. There is no statistically significant difference among the annual data for any of the diseases that are listed. Also, the suggested depleted uranium exposures are hypothetical and the etiological connection is imaginary. 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 11:39:07 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:39:07 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the >combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID >5527739) is at: > http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf >--please see section (f) on page 836, which indicates that about half >of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the >aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion >measured. *********************************** In aerosol science the word fume refers to small airborne particles produced by condensation of vapors. The definition given on page 6 in the textbook AEROSOL SCIENCE by W.C. Hinds (Academic Press 1982) states" "Fume: A solid-particle aerosol produced by the condensation of vapors or gaseous combustion products. Particle sizes are generally less than 1 um. Note that this definition is different from the popular use of the term to refer to any noxious contamination the atmosphere." Mr. Salsman's lack of knowledge in this field has led to his misunderstanding of the article by Carter and Stewart. The vapors formed in that study existed only instantaneously at temperature exceeding 2000 degrees Celsius. Carter and Steward studied the insoluble airborne particles formed by vaporization of plutonium and uranium. Their main conclusion was that extremely hot events can lead to the formation of airborne particles of the insoluble metal oxides. No gaseous forms of plutonium metal or uranium metal or their oxides exist at normal ambient temperature Otto 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 11:49:19 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:49:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's even more uranium trioxide gas spoofs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124094412.02e86dd0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >Volatility of uranium trioxide (a/k/a uranyl oxide) gas: > http://www.bovik.org/du/vol_uo3g.png >--the plotted data points include those from Alexander (2005): > http://www.bovik.org/du/Alexander2005.pdf >and another Ackermann et al. (1956): > http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1743156 >and the DOF-adjusted R^2 corresponds to the 95% confidence interval shown. ************************************************** As the first reference shows, temperatures well above 2000 Kelvin are required to produce and maintain uranium trioxide gas. If a person was to try to inhale air at 2000 Kelvin, the presence of uranium oxide vapor would be a minor concern...... 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 crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 11:54:58 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:54:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] non-lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology In-Reply-To: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <209231.22134.qm@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Michael, Have you considered the cost of lead disposal? --- michael olex wrote: > Hello all, > > Does anyone have any strong feelings regarding the > use of non-lead based apparel in a diagnostic > radiology department. We're mainly looking at > Xenolite-NL due to the weight, lack of disposal > issues, and performance. However, I'm a little > hesitant due the transmission through the Xenolite > at energies above 100 kVp. > > Does anyone use this regularly and have any words of > wisdom to offer? > > Mike Olex, MS > Medical Physicst > molex77 at yahoo.com > > > "There is nothing permanent except CHANGE" > -Heraclitus > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:41:43 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:41:43 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Basrah cancers Message-ID: Dr. Raabe, at what confidence level would the increases reported in Basrah be significant? I ask because you imply that you have already done the math. On 1/24/07, Otto Raabe wrote, in regard to: >... > http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm > and: > http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm > These articles are totally worthless. There is no statistically significant > difference among the annual data for any of the diseases that are listed. > Also, the suggested depleted uranium exposures are hypothetical and the > etiological connection is imaginary. > > 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 jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:59:11 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:59:11 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: Dr. Raabe, Are you suggesting that as a gas diffuses and cools below the point at which it is volatile, more than half of it will condense "instantaneously?" That is absurd. The condensation process can take hours to days for a molecule the mass of uranium trioxide, and those molecules which condense on the surface of dust, for example, are almost as immediately soluable in lung fluid as gas molecules. There is nothing in Carter and Stewart to suggest that the process is "instantaneous" or even particularly quick. Carter and Stewart write, "droplets of ... uranium ... which burn in air ... lose about one half of their internal mass which is emitted violently as a vapor." Not a fume, a gas vapor. A vapor is a collection of individual gas molecules. Do you have any support at all for your assertion that their gaseous state is "instantaneous"? Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/24/07, Otto Raabe wrote: > > At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: > > In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the > combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID > 5527739) is at: > http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf > --please see section (f) on page 836, which indicates that about half > of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the > aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion > measured.*********************************** > In aerosol science the word fume refers to small airborne particles > produced by condensation of vapors. The definition given on page 6 in the > textbook AEROSOL SCIENCE by W.C. Hinds (Academic Press 1982) states" "Fume: > A solid-particle aerosol produced by the condensation of vapors or gaseous > combustion products. Particle sizes are generally less than 1 um. Note that > this definition is different from the popular use of the term to refer to > any noxious contamination the atmosphere." > > Mr. Salsman's lack of knowledge in this field has led to his > misunderstanding of the article by Carter and Stewart. The vapors formed in > that study existed only instantaneously at temperature exceeding 2000 > degrees Celsius. Carter and Steward studied the insoluble airborne particles > formed by vaporization of plutonium and uranium. Their main conclusion was > that extremely hot events can lead to the formation of airborne particles of > the insoluble metal oxides. > > No gaseous forms of plutonium metal or uranium metal or their oxides exist > at normal ambient temperature > > Otto > > > > 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 jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Wed Jan 24 15:05:15 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:05:15 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070124145526.042ce590@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 07:21 PM 1/23/2007, Ruth Sponsler wrote: >..........The net effect of their >blockades, frivolous lawsuits, and "nuclear phaseouts" >in both Europe and the United States has been to >increase fossil fuel use and to increase the >associated environmental problems including sulfur >dioxide [acid rain], mercury pollution [from coal >emissions], particulate emissions [largely from coal], >and carbon dioxide emissions [from all fossil fuels, >including natural gas as well as coal]. Ruth: You forgot the radioactive emissions (from burning fossil fuels with NORM) : http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html A carefully ignored (by some!) fact???? Doug Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 15:40:59 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:40:59 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Basrah cancers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 12:41 PM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >Dr. Raabe, at what confidence level would the increases reported in >Basrah be significant? *********************************** Dear Mr. Salsman, I use alpha=0.05, which was not achieved with those data. Even if they were significantly different, there is no evidence that they are connected in any way to depleted uranium in the environment, There are many factors that affect disease incidence including weather, diet, and especially improved disease surveillance. I suspect that you have already convinced yourself of the imaginary risks of depleted uranium, and you are just searching for things that will support your dogmatic position. By selecting only things that seem to support your position and discarding things that obviously conflict with it, you will never benefit from information on this forum. 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 crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 15:45:38 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:45:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <834360.20640.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <898357.76135.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Why would cancer death incidents be better than cancer incidents? Because there are few deaths than diagnoses due to better treatment? Of because the values fit your beliefs? I assume that you heard the cancer rates have also fallen in the last few years. But I do not think that is due to ALARA. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550925 (If you would like a copy of this article, let me know.) Your conjecture that higher leukemia rates in the apartment dwellers is due to higher doses in the early years is interestomg. Does that not raise the question the more solid tumors may be found in future years? That was the finding of the LSS from the atomic bomb survivors. You correctly noted that I mistyped the sentence regarding current childhood leukemia rates. I thought is survival rate was about 70%, but am pleased it is 80%. And my generation was the last to be threatened by polio. If so, this exposure population would mirror the bomb victum study. I was sure that you cherry-picked the sentences. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear you admit it. --- howard long wrote: > JJ, > 1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, > Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than > diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer). > 2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were > higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. > Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > I believe that I offered copies of the original > paper > when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one > to > Jim. Did you need a copy? > > I think that you not only chery-picked the > sentences, > but also do not understand what was written. You may > understand the differences between solid tumors and > leukemias. > > There are also differences between cancer incidents > and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was > 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have > the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) > > Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would > bias the data. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Do you still offer to send the whole article > on-line > > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. > Any > > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > > hear from. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jan 24 17:43:02 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <898357.76135.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422574.84649.qm@web81808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 1. doctors usually can determine and usually report cause of deaths better than diagnosis. 2. Selection, "cherry picking" is how one defines a population. False statement that it represents another is dishonest. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, Why would cancer death incidents be better than cancer incidents? Because there are few deaths than diagnoses due to better treatment? Of because the values fit your beliefs? I assume that you heard the cancer rates have also fallen in the last few years. But I do not think that is due to ALARA. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550925 (If you would like a copy of this article, let me know.) Your conjecture that higher leukemia rates in the apartment dwellers is due to higher doses in the early years is interestomg. Does that not raise the question the more solid tumors may be found in future years? That was the finding of the LSS from the atomic bomb survivors. You correctly noted that I mistyped the sentence regarding current childhood leukemia rates. I thought is survival rate was about 70%, but am pleased it is 80%. And my generation was the last to be threatened by polio. If so, this exposure population would mirror the bomb victum study. I was sure that you cherry-picked the sentences. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear you admit it. --- howard long wrote: > JJ, > 1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, > Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than > diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer). > 2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were > higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. > Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > I believe that I offered copies of the original > paper > when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one > to > Jim. Did you need a copy? > > I think that you not only chery-picked the > sentences, > but also do not understand what was written. You may > understand the differences between solid tumors and > leukemias. > > There are also differences between cancer incidents > and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was > 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have > the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) > > Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would > bias the data. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Do you still offer to send the whole article > on-line > > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. > Any > > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > > hear from. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 _______________________________________________ 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 sergio at bgu.ac.il Thu Jan 25 09:27:06 2007 From: sergio at bgu.ac.il (Dr. Sergio Faermann) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:27:06 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: <0A3A4D16E9B98F46BBD412EE0A649EAF02A2334B@sont05.soroka.clalit.org.il> Dear colleagues As we are going to install our first PET/CT I would like to know what are the tasks of a medical physicist and if a full position is justified.The Nuclear Medicine Institute has 2 working gamma-cameras. Thanking you in advance Sergio Faermann, Ph.D. From WesVanPelt at Verizon.net Thu Jan 25 09:27:50 2007 From: WesVanPelt at Verizon.net (Wes) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:27:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article on Utah Radiation In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <008a01c74095$607e8e80$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Radsafers, While the press often exaggerates the effects of radiation exposure, here is an article that gets it right. The reporter, Lee Benson, quotes Blaine Howard, a retired HP. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650225525,00.html Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. From WesVanPelt at Verizon.net Thu Jan 25 09:52:40 2007 From: WesVanPelt at Verizon.net (Wes) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:52:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] KI tablets for persons doing radioiodinations with I-125 In-Reply-To: <0A3A4D16E9B98F46BBD412EE0A649EAF02A2334B@sont05.soroka.clalit.org.il> References: <0A3A4D16E9B98F46BBD412EE0A649EAF02A2334B@sont05.soroka.clalit.org.il> Message-ID: <00c401c74098$d8556430$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Radsafers, I am curious to know if any radiation safety programs make use of potassium iodide (KI) in the event of an accidental (or routine?) uptake of I-125 when handled in the lab. This would be most likely when performing radioiodination reactions to label proteins or antigens. Issues I am thinking about include: Possible adverse side effects from KI in some individuals. Is a physician's prescription needed? Would a "patient consent" form be advisable or required? At what action level (intake or radiation dose) would KI be administered? Would blocking thyroid uptake with cold KI invalidate thyroid bioassay measurements? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. From lboing at anl.gov Thu Jan 25 10:04:40 2007 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:04:40 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article on Utah Radiation In-Reply-To: <008a01c74095$607e8e80$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <008a01c74095$607e8e80$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DFA53@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> Wes - I also noted this article and I commend those of us in the technical community who stand up and educate others to dispel inaccurate information. Larry Boing -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Wes Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:28 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: benson at desnews.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article on Utah Radiation Radsafers, While the press often exaggerates the effects of radiation exposure, here is an article that gets it right. The reporter, Lee Benson, quotes Blaine Howard, a retired HP. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650225525,00.html Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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 luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Thu Jan 25 10:56:27 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:27 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations Message-ID: In a past life I worked in University research settings, and the RSO had set up a Thyroid counting station for our researchers to come in once a week when using I-125. I question whether checking the reading at the thyroid was correct. Most of the I-125 we got in was in the form of a radiolabeled chemicals such the DNA precursurs. My understanding of uptake is that the moleule will follow its pathway differently than the element. i.e. instead of going to the thyroid like iodine would, it might go whole body or concentrate in another specific organ. Is my thinking correct? Luke McCormick From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jan 25 11:02:02 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:02:02 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC0@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> It has always been my understanding that Iodine, regardless of the form, is absorbed by the thyroid. I am unaware of any other organ with a higher affinity for Iodine than the thyroid. Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Mccormick, Luke I Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:56 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In a past life I worked in University research settings, and the RSO had set up a Thyroid counting station for our researchers to come in once a week when using I-125. I question whether checking the reading at the thyroid was correct. Most of the I-125 we got in was in the form of a radiolabeled chemicals such the DNA precursurs. My understanding of uptake is that the moleule will follow its pathway differently than the element. i.e. instead of going to the thyroid like iodine would, it might go whole body or concentrate in another specific organ. Is my thinking correct? Luke McCormick _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jan 25 11:53:37 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:53:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Luke Your thinking is correct. There are lots of references/papers available; for example, you can look at an old one of mine "Recycling And Metabolic Models For Internal Dosimetry: With Special Reference to Iodine". J. R. Johnson. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1989); pp. 57-58. 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 Mccormick, Luke I Sent: January 25, 2007 8:56 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In a past life I worked in University research settings, and the RSO had set up a Thyroid counting station for our researchers to come in once a week when using I-125. I question whether checking the reading at the thyroid was correct. Most of the I-125 we got in was in the form of a radiolabeled chemicals such the DNA precursurs. My understanding of uptake is that the moleule will follow its pathway differently than the element. i.e. instead of going to the thyroid like iodine would, it might go whole body or concentrate in another specific organ. Is my thinking correct? Luke McCormick _______________________________________________ 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jan 25 12:09:37 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:09:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070125100917.02f02600@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 12:59 PM 1/24/2007, you wrote: >Are you suggesting that as a gas diffuses and cools below the point at >which it is volatile, more than half of it will condense >"instantaneously?" That is absurd. ******************************************* When the oxide molecule forms by "burning" liquified plutonium or uranium it has different chemical and physical characteristics that the pure metal. Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide particles. These particles rapidly coalesce into chain aggregates as shown in the micrographs in the paper by Carter and Stewart or my own studies referenced below. This is virtually an instantaneous process since the melting and vaporization temperatures of the oxides are much higher than those of the pure metals. Hence, the "vapor" form of the oxides only exists momentarily, if at all,and only if the reaction is hot enough to reach the oxide melting point. I have conducted these types of experiments and characterized the particles produced by laser vaporization of plutonium. The vapor oxidation and particle formation is virtually instantaneous. The vapor phase exists only in the superheated zone. [Raabe, O.G., S.V. Teague, N.L. Richardson and L.S. Nelson. Aerodynamic and dissolution behavior of fume aerosols produced during the combustion of laser-ignited plutonium droplets in air. Health Physics 35: 663-674 1978.]. 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 jsalsman at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 12:36:06 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:36:06 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: Dr. Raabe, I find this very difficult to believe: > Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and > results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide > particles. How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and head toward a surface? Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and Stewart contains no such mass measurements. What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, and where are they documented? Sincerely, James Salsman From welch at jlab.org Thu Jan 25 13:01:04 2007 From: welch at jlab.org (Keith Welch) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:01:04 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Message-ID: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 25 13:19:04 2007 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (bobcherry at satx.rr.com) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:19:04 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: Apparently Mr. Salsman has misplaced his physical chemistry textbook and forgotten the part about phase diagrams. Bob C ----- Original Message ----- From: James Salsman Date: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof To: Otto Raabe Cc: radsafelist > Dr. Raabe, > > I find this very difficult to believe: > > > Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion > process and > > results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid > oxide> particles. > > How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and > head toward a surface? > > Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart > supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and > Stewart contains no such mass measurements. > > What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, > and where are they documented? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jan 25 13:45:47 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:45:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c740b9$6e4854f0$49197254@pc1> James, I decided a long time ago not to comment on your postings to RADSAFE, but let me now ask you, how long you want to keep up this ridiculous arguing against the most important and world-wide known experts on such questions? I think that I previously already told you that you are neglecting the most simple rules of science, you are wasting your time by searching for more and more pseudo-confirmations which heavily disagree with scientific research. You have finally lost any connection to the real problems of this world. Even if a few persons of the US-troops would have died from DU (which I categorally deny!!!!!) this would be nothing compared to those who have died by "normal" action and not to talk about the "enemy" forces killed. Don't you read the statistics about casualities of the US army in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Just a "little" to add: how about the more than ten-fold casualities of civilians in both countries? James Salsman, I doubt that this is your correct name, (I mentioned this some time ago!) I rather assume that you are hiding your real identity behind this name, because you do not reveal your identity and your affiliation as recently the list owner requested in his reminder of good conduct at RADSAFE. I would appreciate if you came out with your real identity and your background and if you would accept that this list is an international one. I would appreciate as well if you would comment on the topics of civilian casualities compared to purported DU sufferors mostly regarding Iraq, but probably also for Afghanistan. Of course you will not provide us with data, because this might involve heavy and timne consuming work on the Internet and it seems that you rely on s**t you receive from some groups by internet. I would propose for you, to simply stop posting to RADSAFE. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von James Salsman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. J?nner 2007 19:36 An: Otto Raabe Cc: radsafelist Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof Dr. Raabe, I find this very difficult to believe: > Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and > results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide > particles. How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and head toward a surface? Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and Stewart contains no such mass measurements. What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, and where are they documented? Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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 AWEAVER at research.usf.edu Thu Jan 25 13:49:51 2007 From: AWEAVER at research.usf.edu (Weaver, Adam) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Control Tech Job Opening Message-ID: <4ABCA739AEECE74CA7CF1C598111DF29070BCB39@BUKU.fastmail.usf.edu> Radiation Control Technician at the University of South Florida - Tampa FL Date Posted: 01/17/07 Deadline to Apply: 02/01/07 Annual Salary: $26,000 - $30,000 Duties: This position conducts radiation surveys with a Geiger Counter, and wipe test of laboratories and equipment at USF; conducts weekly radioactive waste collection from USF research labs; and performs close-out surveys of rooms, areas, or equipment prior to salvage, repair, or routine maintenance as assigned by RSO. Minimum Qualifications: High school diploma and two years of work experience with radioactive materials, hazardous waste or work in a research laboratory. Requires valid Florida Driver?s License. Appropriate college coursework or vocational/technical training may substitute at an equivalent rate for the required experience Preferred Qualifications: AA degree in Arts and Sciences/Natural Sciences; ability to walk up to 3 miles a day, and lift up to 50 pounds. Send completed USF Application for Employment to: (Cover Letter & Resume may be included): Linda Mulligan lmulligan at research.usf.edu ? (813) 974-7516 or University of South Florida Attn: Linda Mulligan 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC35 Tampa, FL 33612-4799 Web link to USF employment application: http://usfweb2.usf.edu/HR/Employment/USPSbyTitle.html Thanks Adam S. Weaver, MS, CHP Radiation & Laser Safety Officer University of South Florida 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC35 Tampa, FL 33612-4799 813-974-1194 (phone) 813-974-7091 (fax) From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:55 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:17:55 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC1@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Granted, I cannot claim to speak from personal experience when it comes to Shipyards, but I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with many people from that sector. To the best of my recollection, none of them ever related anything about either the selection process for workers involving any kind of family cancer history screening for screening applicants, nor did any relate anything about workers being removed from the "yards" after being diagnosed with cancer. I have personally worked with several cancer patients, some who died while working nuke. Mostly in the D.O.E. world. None of them were asked to leave their positions post diagnosis. So, from what I can relate, no. The two selection/exclusion factors from your post are not, in my experience, true. Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Keith Welch Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:01 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab _______________________________________________ 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 welch at jlab.org Thu Jan 25 15:42:40 2007 From: welch at jlab.org (Keith Welch) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:42:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC1@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> References: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC1@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <45B92450.2090004@jlab.org> Thanks Floyd. Just a clarification. I didn't mean that workers were removed from employment at the yard after being diagnosed; just removed from rad-worker status, and therefore possibly excluded from making it into the exposed cohort. I used to work at a shipyard also, and I knew one or two folks who were cancer patients while employed there. My recollection is that the first thing that happened in that event was to "take them off badge". What I'm wondering is how that might (if at all) have affected the probability of that person being included in the "exposed" cohort. I wonder what the selection criteria were. I was also told anecdotally of people who were excluded from nuclear worker status by pre-screening for family history. Keith Flanigan, Floyd wrote: > Granted, I cannot claim to speak from personal experience when it comes > to Shipyards, but I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with > many people from that sector. To the best of my recollection, none of > them ever related anything about either the selection process for > workers involving any kind of family cancer history screening for > screening applicants, nor did any relate anything about workers being > removed from the "yards" after being diagnosed with cancer. I have > personally worked with several cancer patients, some who died while > working nuke. Mostly in the D.O.E. world. None of them were asked to > leave their positions post diagnosis. So, from what I can relate, no. > The two selection/exclusion factors from your post are not, in my > experience, true. > > Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Keith Welch > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:01 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had > lower incidences of all cancers - " > > Folks, > I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But > recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about > this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on > > its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to > mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, > but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker > effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health > insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich > victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but > assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different > socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt > with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the > shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for > > nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history > > of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and > therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they > were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based > > in fact? > > Keith Welch > Jefferson Lab > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Thu Jan 25 18:59:49 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:59:49 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Groups sue to shut down Idaho nuclear reactor Message-ID: <45B90C35.17032.AC24E8@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Groups sue to shut down Idaho nuclear reactor Canada pushes nuclear power to get at oil sands Putin promises India more nuclear power Uranium an unsettling reminder of nuclear material on black market Belarus to Go Nuclear 21 Years After Chernobyl Nuclear energy's French connection Five charged over nuclear protest (AEHI) Seeks to Purchase Operating Nuclear Plant in the U.S. Officials: No harmful radiation at Piketon site ================================== Groups sue to shut down Idaho nuclear reactor BOISE, Idaho Idaho Press Tribune Jan 25 - - Two nuclear watchdog groups have sued the U.S. Department of Energy in federal court to shut down a nuclear reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory and force the agency to conduct an environmental review before trying to extend the reactor's life. The Advanced Test Reactor is one of three materials test reactors built at the 890-square-mile complex headquartered in Idaho Falls. Built in 1967, the reactor bombards materials with neutrons to speed the effects of radiation and reveal weaknesses that might develop in materials over time. Last year, the Energy Department launched a 10-year, $200 million program to extend the life of the reactor to 2040. The decision followed a proposal to consolidate U.S. production of plutonium-238 for NASA and national security agencies in the 250-megawatt reactor. Plutonium-238 is not used in nuclear weapons. But because of the heat it generates during a lengthy decay period, the highly toxic material is used as a long-lasting power supply for deep-space satellites and in surveillance devices that are placed underwater or on land. The 40-year-old reactor is already well past its design life, and any program to extend its use will generate significant quantities of radioactive waste, much of which has no identified path for disposal, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Idaho. "Absent major safety upgrades and very significant expenditures, extending the ATR's operation poses unacceptable risks to the residents of southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming and endangers two of the nation's most cherished national parks, Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park," the lawsuit said. The complex sits about 90 miles west of Jackson, Wyo., which is just south of the two national parks. The lawsuit was filed by nonprofit Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free of Jackson, Wyo. and its executive director, Mary Woollen; nonprofit Environmental Defense Institute of Troy; Aberdeen resident Debra Stansell; and John Peavey of Carey, a former Idaho senator for 21 years. Energy Department officials refused to discuss the lawsuit or the program to extend the reactor's life. "The reactor has contributed significantly to the development of the Navy's nuclear fleet, as well as safely producing medical and industrial isotopes," spokesman Tim Jackson said in a statement. "The department intends to assure that ATR continues to operate safely now and in the future." Beginning in 2003 and concluding in 2006, several teams reviewed the reactor and found that while its current condition and staff were sufficient to support safe near-term operations, the viability of long-term operations was in doubt. A March 2006 report on the plan also detailed a 115,000-hour backlog of deferred maintenance and engineering, at an estimated cost of $5 million. The report, prepared for the Energy Department, was released to The Associated Press by the Yellowstone watchdog group, which obtained it through an information request. However, the reactor was shut down for three months last fall for a scheduled maintenance outage as part of the extension program. Maintenance activities included replacement and refurbishment of more than 350 parts and more than 200 technical safety inspections, among other things. Mark Sullivan, a Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free lawyer, said the facility should immediately be shut down until federal officials can assure residents it is safe. In the meantime, he said, the Energy Department must conduct an environmental assessment and at least consider the alternatives to extending the reactor's life. "You have to address the 40 years of inadequate safety requirements," Sullivan said. "But we feel before the government enacts that program, they should at least weigh their alternatives. In fact, they're required to." ------------------ Canada pushes nuclear power to get at oil sands OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada may need to turn to nuclear energy to get heavy crude out of the ground at its vast oil sands deposits if it doesn't want to add seriously to the problem of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Thursday. "We shouldn't be afraid to look at all forms of clean energy, and if it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gases -- ... it has that potential -- we should be open to it," Lunn told Reuters. The decision to use nuclear power at the oil sands will ultimately not be made by the federal government, but Ottawa can encourage a certain direction, and it also has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for climate change. Lunn said discussions are already taking place with the oil industry and the province of Alberta, where the oil sands are located, and that he would meet with the province's energy minister soon. The issue is a hot topic in Alberta, where the oil industry is looking to cut the use of the large volumes of natural gas used to power the separation of oil from sand. The use of nuclear power as an alternative has been rejected several times over the years. A privately held company, Energy Alberta, is pitching the concept of building a nuclear power plant near Fort McMurray, Alberta, where the industry is concentrated, and has said it could have a proposal within the next few months. One method of extracting the tar-like bitumen from the oil sands is to inject steam into the ground to make it flow more easily. Currently, industry burns relatively clean natural gas to make the steam needed to get the gooey crude. This is a process one oil economist has likened to using gold to make lead, using up supplies that can be used in the chemical industry or for heating homes, and in any case emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy does not produce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, though many environmentalists and other critics oppose its use because of the danger posed by the plants' radioactive waste, which must be stored. "Listen, you believe in reducing greenhouse gases or you don't; you believe in climate change, and if you do, you should be taking a hard look (at nuclear energy for the oil sands)," Lunn said. "There's no question that, absolutely, it's worth getting very serious about looking at the options and saying what would be the impacts, and that's what we're doing." Shell Canada Ltd. Chief Executive Clive Mather told Reuters on Wednesday he was not ready to buy into the nuclear concept yet. His company has disclosed long-term plans to boost oil sands production to 770,000 barrels a day. Shell is already one of the country's largest oil sands developers. "At the moment, our on-site cogeneration facilities have proved to be very efficient and very reliable and very competitive in price. But we are watching the nuclear brief because it may offer over time an economic advantage," Mather said. He cautioned nuclear waste containment remains an issue. Canada's minority Conservative government says it will be impossible to meet the emission targets laid down by the Kyoto protocol on climate change, partly because of rising emissions in the booming oil industry. But it is under heavy pressure from the opposition to do what it can to limit those emissions. ---------------- Putin promises India more nuclear power NEW DELHI (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin promised energy- hungry India nuclear reactors and power plants after arriving on a mission to rejuvenate ties with Moscow's former Cold War ally. But at a meeting with Indian business leaders, Putin heard expressions of disappointment over the slow growth of bilateral trade and frustration at difficulties in cracking the Russian market. India, which is racing to secure new sources of fuel to sustain its booming economy, welcomed Russian moves to help "in the expansion of our nuclear sector," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said after a signing ceremony. "We appreciate Russian support," Singh said after the two countries inked a memorandum of understanding in which Russia promised four more nuclear reactors for a flagship nuclear plant it is building in Kudankulam in southern Tamil Nadu -- a state that already has two 1,000-megawatt Russian reactors. The symbolic highlight of Putin's two-day visit will be Friday, when he is guest of honour at India's Republic Day celebrations -- designed to show a close friendship even as New Delhi grows closer to the United States and other Western governments. Putin, on his fourth visit to India since becoming president, also promised to co-operate in building atomic energy stations "at new locations in the Indian republic." The passage last year of a landmark US-Indian deal allowing New Delhi access to civilian nuclear technology after decades of isolation has unleashed an international race to supply the Indian civilian nuclear energy market. Western nations have also been jostling for a slice of India's lucrative civilian nuclear energy market, although any contracts with india still must await approval by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the global nuclear energy trade. Outside of nuclear and military cooperation -- which brought a 250- million-dollar contract Wednesday for the joint production of fighter jet engines -- India's business elite painted a less than rosy picture of relations with Russia. "We have to seek an answer to the question why, despite strong political ties between two time-tested friends, bilateral trade and business ties remain low," Habil Khorakiwala, president of Indian business association FICCI, said. Addressing Putin during a meeting with other Indian and Russian businessmen, Khorakiwala said it was "time to put words into practice and transform the willingness into actual cooperation." Minutes after Putin said bilateral trade ties had jumped an estimated 20 percent in 2006 to reach 3.8 billion dollars, Khorakiwala put the number at just 2.75 billion. Indian businessmen have long complained of difficulties in receiving Russian visas, which Russia has tied to alleged problems with illegal Indian immigration, an Indian government official told AFP. Still, Thursday brought agreement between India's state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp and Russian state oil giant Rosneft to jointly bid for exploration and refining projects in India, Russia and other countries. ONGC and Rosneft will build on their existing partnership in Russia's vast Sakhalin-1 oil and gas field, the two companies said in a joint statement. The two sides also signed a 250-million-dollar deal for a Russian- built hydroelectric power station in northern Uttar Pradesh, as well as a joint venture to produce titanium products in eastern Orissa. Moscow and New Delhi were allies throughout the Cold War, agreeing to billions of dollars' worth of arms deals, but the ground has shifted as India has turned to the US and other Western countries for arms and investment. Putin has said he hoped the countries would triple bilateral trade to 10 billion dollars per year by 2010. ---------------- Offer of uranium an unsettling reminder of nuclear material on black market WASHINGTON - It was one of the most serious cases of smuggling of nuclear material in recent years: A Russian man, authorities allege, tried to sell a small amount of nuclear-bomb grade uranium in a plastic bag in his jacket pocket. The buy that took place last summer, it turned out, was a setup by Republic of Georgia authorities, with the help of the CIA. Their quiet sting operation - neither U.S. nor Georgian officials have publicized it - is an unsettling reminder about the possibility of terrorists acquiring nuclear bomb-making material on the black market. No evidence suggests this particular case was terrorist-related. "Given the serious consequences of the detonation of an improvised nuclear explosive device, even small numbers of incidents involving HEU (highly enriched uranium) or plutonium are of very high concern," said Melissa Fleming of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Details of the investigation, which also involved the FBI and Energy Department, were provided to The Associated Press by U.S. officials and Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili. Authorities say they do not know how the man acquired the nuclear material or if his claims of access to much larger quantities were true. He and three Georgian accomplices are in Georgian custody and not cooperating with investigators. Meanwhile, Russian authorities have confirmed that weapons-grade uranium was confiscated from a Russian citizen in neighboring Georgia, but claim the ex-Soviet republic has not cooperated with Moscow while investigating the incident, the Interfax news agency reported Thursday. According to Interfax, an unnamed source at Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, said the Russian was detained in December 2005, while a Georgian Interior Ministry official, Shota Utiashvili, said Thursday that he was detained in February 2006. Utiashvili identified the man as Oleg Khinsagov, a resident of Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia, a Russian region that borders Georgia. There was no immediate response to requests for comment lodged with Rosatom, the Federal Security Service and the Interior Ministry prior to the Interfax report. Following the report, Rosatom spokesman Ivan Dybov said the agency would not comment. Merabishvili said Georgian attempts to trace the nuclear material since the arrest and confirm whether the man indeed had access to larger quantities have foundered from a lack of cooperation from Russia. Merabishvili said he was revealing the story out of frustration with Russia's response and the need to illustrate the dangers of a breakdown in security cooperation in the region. Interfax also cited an unidentified source at Rosatom as saying Georgian authorities had given Russia too small a sample to determine its origin and had refused to provide other information. Russia has tense relations with Georgia, like Russia a former Soviet republic. Georgia has been troubled by Russia's support for separatists in two breakaway Georgian border regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The sting was set up after Georgian authorities uncovered extensive smuggling networks while investigating criminal groups operating in the breakaway republics, Merabishvili said. "When we sent buyers, the channels through Abkhazia and South Ossetia began to expand, and we started seeing a huge flow of materials," he said. "Sometimes it was low-grade enriched materials, but this was the first instance of highly enriched material." According to his account, during an investigation in South Ossetia, a Georgian undercover agent posing as a rich foreign buyer made contact with the Russian seller in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. After the Russian offered to sell the sample, the agent rebuffed requests that the transaction occur in North Ossetia, insisting the Russian come to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. At a meeting in Tbilisi, the man pulled out from his pocket a plastic bag containing the material. "He was offering this as the first stage in a deal and said he had other pieces, Merabishvili said. "We don't know if that was true." Uranium is more or less harmless to carry around because, like plutonium and polonium, it is an alpha-emitting radioactive material that does not penetrate the skin. Such materials are dangerous only if ingested. The radioactive emissions of highly enriched uranium are so low that radiation detectors often fail to pick them up if they are contained in a simple lead container. While it is not normally handled casually, research laboratories do not use the same precautions in handling highly enriched uranium that they use with other radioactive materials. The man was arrested and sentenced to eight to 10 years in prison on smuggling charges. His accomplices were sentenced on lesser charges. Russian authorities took a sample of the material but failed to offer any assistance despite requests for help from the Georgians, Merabishvili said. "We were ready to provide all the information, but unfortunately no one arrived from Russia, not even to interview this person," Merabishvili said. "It is surprising because it is in Russian interests to secure these materials. There are terrorist organizations in Russia who would pay huge amounts of money for this." The Georgians asked for U.S. assistance. Agents from the FBI and the Energy Department took the material back to the United States, where it was tested by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "The material was analyzed by agency nuclear experts and confirmed to be highly enriched uranium," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the agency. Fleming, of the IAEA, said the agency was aware of the Tbilisi seizure and was expecting formal notification from Georgia soon. The CIA would not comment on the case, and the FBI confirmed its involvement in the investigation but nothing more. Merabishvili, who was visiting Washington this week, said he did not have some details of the investigation, including the exact date the arrest was made or the full name of the suspect. Further efforts to clarify with the Georgian Embassy were not successful. None of the U.S. officials would confirm the weight of the seizure or its quality, but Merabishvili said it was about 3.5 ounces of uranium enriched by more than 90%. Uranium enriched at 90% is weapons grade. A nuclear bomb of a design similar to the one exploded over Hiroshima in 1945 would require about 110 pounds of uranium enriched at over 90%, according to Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate who focuses on nuclear theft and terrorism at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Bunn said that a more sophisticated implosion type nuclear bomb would require 33 to 40 pounds. According to an IAEA database, there have been 16 previous confirmed cases in which either highly enriched uranium or plutonium have been recovered by authorities since 1993. In most cases the recoveries have involved smaller quantities than the Tbilisi case. But in 1994, 6 pounds of highly enriched uranium intended for sale were seized by police in the Czech Republic. In 2003, Georgian border guards using detection devices provided by the United States caught an Armenian man with about 5 ounces of HEU, according to the State Department. Fleming said examples of stolen or missing bomb-grade nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium, are rare and troubling. David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said that lacking help from Russia, the CIA may be looking to other allies to help identify who has access to lost nuclear material. "Russian cooperation in answering these questions is critical, but it has not been forthcoming," he said. "One way to identify who is active in trading these materials is to conduct sting operations." ---------------- Belarus to Go Nuclear 21 Years After Chernobyl Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Belarus, hardest hit by the Chernobyl nuclear accident that released 400 times the radiation of the Hiroshima bomb, will expedite its nuclear power program as President Alexander Lukashenko seeks alternatives to Russian fuel. Lukashenko demanded the country's top officials work without pause to offset the $3.5 billion Belarus will lose this year in energy subsidies from neighboring Russia. Alternative power and energy efficiency will be key to plugging the gap, Lukashenko said on a visit to OAO Naftan, the country's biggest oil refinery. ``There's no time for a warm-up,'' Lukashenko said in comments posted on his Web site. The president ``noted the necessity to make construction of nuclear power plants in Belarus more active,'' the site said. Belarus has clashed with Russia on energy supplies twice in the last month after the Kremlin sought to make relations with its neighbor more business-like. The sides reached an agreement to maintain natural gas supplies two minutes before Jan. 1, only to begin the battle anew over oil transit fees. Lukashenko demanded Russia pay taxes on its crude shipments to central Europe, which provoked a shut-off of the main Druzhba pipeline and a three-day standoff during which deliveries to central European refineries were disrupted. Market Prices A new Russian policy toward Belarus, which it had subsidized by as much as $6 billion via sales of oil and gas at below-market prices, leaves the eastern neighbor anxious for its ``national safety and integrity,'' Lukashenko said. A faulty safety test at a Chernobyl reactor in northern Ukraine on April 26, 1986, triggered the world's biggest atomic disaster, releasing 6.7 tons of radioactive material in the form of a cloud over neighboring countries and as far as Scandinavian and West European countries. Reports on how many people will be eventually affected by the accident range from 4,000 to more than 10 times that. Ian Fairlie, a radiation scientist, estimated that of the millions of people possibly exposed to Chernobyl's radioactive throw-out, between 30,000 and 60,000 may die. The figures come from a report called The Other Report on Chernobyl, financed by the Green Party of the European Parliament and published in June 2006. Belarus plans to begin generating electricity from its first post- Chernobyl reactor in 2012, and add a second in 2015, in a plan estimated to cost $3 billion, said Yaroslav Romanchuk, president of the Mizes scientific research center in Minsk, capital of Belarus. ``The idea is a sound one: To secure independent, long-term energy supplies,'' Romanchuk said by telephone from Minsk. The project may hit a snag due to a lack of cash, he added. ``Atomic energy is a grand project that can happen only when there is money available,'' Romanchuk said. ---------------- Nuclear energy's French connection MSNBC Jan 25 - Ambitious Areva is second to none at American-style power politics A protester plays dead during an October demonstration against Areva's plans to build one of its new reactors at Flamanville in northern France. Areva hopes to build similar plants in the United States through its Unistar venture with Constellation Energy. With help from the allies it funds in Congress and legions of highly paid lobbyists, the U.S. nuclear power industry won billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for its promised "renaissance." But the biggest winner of all could be a French firm that most Americans have never heard of. That?s because Areva, an atomic energy giant owned by the French government, appears to be better positioned than any of its competitors to benefit from growth in the U.S. nuclear industry and increased federal spending on it. With 59,000 employees, facilities in 40 countries, operations in more than 100 and revenue of more than $6.6 billion in the first half of the current fiscal year, the firm brags in its annual report that it is "the only group to be active in every stage of the nuclear cycle," referring to divisions that cover everything from uranium mining to reactor construction to handling waste. Areva?s U.S. operations already employ 5,000 people and generate $2 billion in revenue, but the company is hoping to add to that total. One of its largest potential sources of business here would be the sale and operation of a U.S. version of its new "evolutionary power reactor" now under construction in Finland. And as the world?s main player in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, Areva could profit substantially from the Bush administration?s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. "Our U.S. facilities and people will contribute significantly to Areva?s international business and, as with all international companies, that growth prospect is important to Areva," the company said in a statement in response to questions from MSNBC.com. Areva, which fields an impressive stable of lobbyists in Washington, had strong ties to President Bush?s energy transition team before the administration took office. Energy task force members land jobs Later, after the Bush administration hammered out its energy policy in a series of private meetings of a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the company gave top posts to two senior members of the group - former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and the task force's executive director. When the task force?s work passed through Congress and was signed by President Bush as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it contained $13 billion in government subsidies for the nuclear power industry. Areva told MSNBC.com that neither it "nor any associates participated in any task force work" and that it "did not request any effort to be made on its behalf" by its associates on the transition team. Abraham concurred: "I am personally unaware of any efforts or contacts by Areva or its predecessor companies to me or the task force in general." "Areva is a great company with good people who are visionary and who adhere to the highest ethical standards," Abraham told MSNBC.com in a written response to questions about his work for the firm. The firm makes no secret of its ambitions to continue the rapid growth it has experienced under its charismatic and capable CEO Anne Lauvergeon. Led by `Atomic Anne? Called "Atomic Anne" by the French press, the 47-year-old Lauvergeon in recent years become one of the world?s most powerful evangelists for nuclear power, championing it as the answer to global warming. Her success in delivering that message has made her one of the highest-profile businesswomen on the planet, as evidenced by her move from No. 53 on Forbes Magazine?s 2004 list of the "100 Most Powerful Women" in the world to No. 8 last year. Lauvergeon?s training as a physicist, and experience in government - she served as an aide to the late French President Francois Mitterrand - and industry helped her consolidate France's nuclear interests with breathtaking speed after she was appointed in 1999 as CEO of Cogema, France?s state-owned nuclear fuel reprocessing and services company. By 2001, Lauvergeon had merged Cogema with Framatome, France?s nuclear-engineering and uranium-mining company, to create Areva. France long ago established its prowess in the nuclear field. While the expansion of the use of nuclear energy stalled in the U.S. in the 1970s and ?80s, France forged ahead and achieved global domination of several key sectors of the industry. Today, France gets nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power while the United States is far down the list at 20 percent. In its latest annual report, Areva claims to be the world leader in construction and servicing of nuclear reactors, with 30 percent of the market; fuel reprocessing, 80 percent; and spent fuel treatment, 70 percent. It also controls large shares of the world's uranium mining and enrichment operations. The company?s stated goal is to "capture one-third of the world market by 2010" across all sectors of the industry. While Areva sees potential for growth in Europe and Asia, its most recent annual report is peppered with references to new opportunities in the United States. The 2005 energy bill, which lavished subsidies and tax credits on the nuclear industry, is mentioned frequently. Areva created Unistar, a joint venture with the U.S. firm Constellation Energy to sell and operate new reactors in the United States, soon after the passage of the energy bill, and its sponsors claimed the creation of the new firm was a direct result of the legislation. -------------------- Five charged over nuclear protest AWE is the headquarters of Britain's nuclear development programme Five people have been charged and three cautioned over a protest outside a nuclear weapons factory. On Tuesday, eight protesters chained themselves together on the A340 outside the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) site at Aldermaston, Berkshire. Campaigners are angry over plans to develop a replacement for Trident, the UK's nuclear defence system. Three men and two women, all from Scotland, were charged with wilfully obstructing a highway. The people, aged between 19 and 32, will appear before magistrates in Newbury on 1 February. Two men, aged 20 and 26, and a 37-year-old woman received adult cautions. ------------------ Alternate Energy Holdings (AEHI) Seeks to Purchase Operating Nuclear Plant in the U.S. ROANOKE, VA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 01/25/07 -- Alternate Energy Holdings (PINKSHEETS: AEHI) announced its active intentions to purchase an operating nuclear plant, located within the United States, for optimization and additional nuclear construction. The company is contacting nuclear plant owners directly at this time to initiate negotiations and is willing to pay upwards of one billion dollars for a deregulated site. After assuming ownership, AEHI intends to optimize the plant's performance to generate immediate profit and, under the provisions of the 2005 Energy Bill, begin construction of an additional nuclear unit on the site within two years. President and CEO Don Gillispie states, "We think many of the nuclear plants sold over the past several years were priced below their actual market value considering, among other things, the demand for clean energy to reduce CO2 emissions. Excluding a shrinking contribution from hydro and small additions by wind and solar, nuclear stands alone as the only CO2 free, cost competitive, large scale power source available to address global warming." ---------------- Officials: No harmful radiation at Piketon site Residents still are asking for more information Central Ohio.com Jan 25 - Radiation is indeed present in and around the Piketon uranium enrichment plant site, but the state Environmental Protection Agency said there's not enough of it to do any harm. "The Ohio EPA concluded that the radiation source was Probably uranium and not radon," said Timothy Christman, professional engineer with the EPA. "Uranium sources include coal, soil and the uranium enrichment process." At a public meeting Wednesday night at Piketon High School, EPA officials released results of tests which concluded although there is a presence of radioactive material, the levels are low enough to meet safety standards, Christman said. "The levels are extremely low," Christman said. "Black shale in Ohio also contains uranium and that's naturally occurring." It's impossible to completely eradicate radiation sources since they are present in the natural environment, Christman said. "Radiation comes from the sun, you'll get more radiation exposure traveling in the airplane," he said. "The radiation you'd get living here is lower than what you'd get from visiting the dentist's office." Although the Department of Energy has spent more than $1 billion to clean up the plant site, it still continues to slowly leak contaminants from it southern point. Deep water "plumes," or wells beneath the ground, contain contaminants carried through Gallia sand and gravel. Barriers stopped the flow of other contaminated plumes on the site, but the south end continues to leak, said Groundwater Specialist Doug Snyder, a geologist with the Ohio EPA. "We've put a clay barrier in to contain the leak, because water doesn't travel very well through the clay," Snyder said. "But some contaminants have migrated to the west of that barrier." The leak moves slowly, however, giving scientists more time to contain it. "For the water to travel from here to the back of the room (about 40 feet) it would take months, possibly years," Snyder said. "We do have a little bit of radioactivity in that south plume, but we have time to contain it." Neighbors of the Piketon plant said no levels of radioactivity in or near their properties can be safe. "They've all acknowledged that there is radioactivity present, but they haven't answered why we have a high reading," said Vina Colley, who said she worked at the plant for five years. "When I worked there we cleaned uranium contaminated cells and we dumped it all down the drain. I got sick, and I've had three tumors." The EPA acknowledges there was nuclear waste handled on the site and possibly was not disposed of properly. When operations began at the plant in the 1950s, laws regarding handling of nuclear waste were non- existent, said Maria Galanti, site coordinator for the EPA. "This site had poor management practices," Galanti said. "All the facilities like this had poor practices, but this plant poses some of the most serious technical problems from a clean-up standpoint." Many people present at the meeting also had concerns about the future of the site, many of which the EPA was unable to answer. "We can't really speak or speculate on decisions regarding the future of the plant," Mary McCarron, a spokesperson for the EPA. "Many of these questions should be directed to the DOE." The future of the site has been the subject of controversy. A proposal by the Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative for use of the plant as a site for recycled nuclear waste products have been met with a heated response from some residents, who said having such a site jeopardizes their health and safety. The Department of Energy plans to discuss the future of the site at a private meeting scheduled for March 8. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jan 25 20:39:53 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:39:53 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Basrah cancers (Salsman's citations) Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070125193750.009f2dd0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 25, 2007 On Jan. 24 James Salsman (JS) wrote: I'm sorry, the URL in my earlier message below is for congenital malformations (birth defects). The original citations for the Basra cancers are here: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm and: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm Otto Raabe replied: These articles are totally worthless. There is no statistically significant difference among the annual data for any of the diseases that are listed. Also, the suggested depleted uranium exposures are hypothetical and the etiological connection is imaginary. Additional comments: I have read the "earlier message" offered by JS and the two recommended above. The earlier one says: "Ionising radiation can be highly penetrating and is capable of causing mutation in man [citation omitted] and those can cause defective development of human embryos if exposure occurs." This is true, of course, however depleted uranium is an alpha emitter and alpha is not penetrating. This paper says there was an unacceptably high level of radioactivity in plants near Basrah, Iraq, however it gives no levels --- not here and not anywhere in the paper. It also acknowledges that there was a "relatively small number of cases" of disease. It covers only the period from 1990 to 1998, and says nothing about rates before 1990. The next to last sentence says: "The evidence so far presented [on?] the effect of ionising radiation in this study on the incidence of congenital anomalies is circumstantial." Note the qualifier: circumstantial. Another paper reports 488 cancers in Basrah in 1990, and 544 in 1997 (a 1.115% increase). These are all cancers in tissue (no leukemias). Don't solid tumors have a typical latency period of 20 years? The third paper says other factors cause cancer, "but the evidence presented by our data point out clearly to the role of exposure to depleted uranium in developing cancer among children in Basrah." The nature of this "evidence" is not revealed. None of these papers give any exposure levels, nor do they show a cause and effect relationship between (alleged) exposure to DU, and cancers. They are merely a series of assertions, accompanied by some tables of incidence rates and percentages of increase. JS's argument about vapors cooling and so forth is an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. First he has to show that any of the alleged victims inhaled any of these vapors, then he has to show that this exposure caused the cancers he invokes. JS has done neither of these, and I doubt that he (or anyone else) can do the latter, so the whole thing falls down flat right there. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Fri Jan 26 01:34:17 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:34:17 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Trader specialising in fish and sausages caught selling weapons-grade uranium Message-ID: An international nuclear smuggling scandal erupted yesterday after it was revealed that a Russian man has been caught selling weapons-grade uranium on the open market that could easily be used in a small nuclear bomb. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2186528.ece Fred Dawson Health Physics Assistant Director & Team Leader Directorate of Safety & Claims 6-D-30 MOD Main Building Whitehall, LONDON SW1A 2HB phone +44 (0)20 7807 0215 mobile +44 (0)7 973 169 339 email dsc-hpad at mod.uk http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/HealthandSafety/ DSC/DsandcHealthPhysics.htm "The information contained in the e-mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is solely for the intended recipients. For those other than the recipients any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful". From jsalsman at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 02:47:29 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:47:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ceramic vapor condensation Message-ID: Bob Cherry wrote: > Apparently Mr. Salsman has misplaced his > physical chemistry textbook and forgotten the > part about phase diagrams. Apparently not. According to Palatnik, et al. (1970) in "Volume Condensation of Metal Vapors" Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics, vol. 9(4), pp. 335-7, the condensation zone of heat-volatilized metal vapors has a radius on the order of a few centimeters at most, and the gas molecules which escape that zone remain as such until they have an opportunity to plate out on the ground, dust, a wall, a plant, etc. -- or someone's lung. When you have so-called authorities like Dr. Raabe claiming that "all" of the vapor condenses "instantaneously," and completely unable to substantiate those claims with empirical mass measurements, is that ethically any different than Colonel Daxon claiming that Dr. Kang's unpublished reports indicated that U.S. troops' children's birth defect rates decreased, when they have actually been steeply increasing? Apparently Colonel Cherry misplaced his copy of the Department of Energy's safety handbook DOE-HDBK-3010-94, "Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Facilities" all the time he was supposed to be responsible for determination of depleted uranium weapons safety, and never read section 2.2, "Vapors (Condensible Gasses)" which clearly states, "transport losses must be substantiated for the specific configurations associated with an event." -- http://hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk3010/h3010v1.pdf The only proponent of depleted uranium weapons who has ever called for such substantiation is Dr. Johnson. Colonel Cherry, will you join him, or do you prefer to remain in the dark? Sincerely, James From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Fri Jan 26 07:55:37 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:55:37 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Basis for radiation dose limits Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C74@mail.nymc.edu> Not having ICRP 60 available, I wanted to ask the group what is the basis for the difference in limits for whole body, skin, eye, etc. I know the fundamentals, but I am trying to explain this to a non-technical person. Thank you in advance for your response. 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 From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jan 26 08:26:30 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:26:30 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Basis for radiation dose limits - organ specific In-Reply-To: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C74@mail.nymc.edu> References: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C74@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA0117329D@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Thomas: Limits for organ specific doses are determined so as to PROHIBIT 'deterministic' i.e. threshold (early) effects in an organ such as erythema for skin or cataracts for the eye. Whole body effective dose is designed to CONSTRAIN cancer mortality below a level deemed acceptable - of course under the questionable assumption of the LNT postulate(!). 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Johnston, Thomas Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2007 14:56 An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Basis for radiation dose limits Not having ICRP 60 available, I wanted to ask the group what is the basis for the difference in limits for whole body, skin, eye, etc. I know the fundamentals, but I am trying to explain this to a non-technical person. Thank you in advance for your response. 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 26 03:27:32 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:27:32 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: http://groups.google.com/group/Progressive-Media/browse_thread/thread/85a86954e8a13fd1/c43e3ddcb6fa06f8?q=Rokke&rnum=9 Yes, they fire radiation out into the very same air that our families breathe. Tons of radioactive munitions, in fact. Depleted Uranium is the name of one of the materials they use. And if that material sounds familiar? It because it's the same stuff that they're using on the "enemy" - that is, on civilians - in Afghanistan and Iraq. No, we do not know what in the world the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan ever did to deserve the "honor" of being blasted to kingdom come with Uranium-238 - rendering their nations permanently uninhabitable. By the same token, nor do we know what American citizens have done to deserve Depleted Uranium being exploded into our air so that we are gassed with it, either. But now the country is starting to buzz with the word of radioactive open air "testing" near San Francisco. And with such a progressive part of the nation that has historically fought hard for peace, equal rights, racial equality, gay rights, and ecological sustainability? As one could say, the Greater San Francisco Bay area is now again boldly "coming out of the closet" with regard to letting the proverbial cat out of the bag about this "dirty" business of Uncle Sam's. But this is not a story entirely about San Francisco's troubles. Nor is it even all about California. As you will see, this story affects you and me, no matter where we live in the country. California's tale is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The story about your community and mine? Now that's the heart of this story. The fiery "hot" issue of Depleted Uranium explosives "testing" has emerged into the spotlight in the San Francisco Bay area recently all because of some people who live in a city called Tracy. That's how anything important usually starts - when just a few people who are fed up enough get together and become vocal enough and publicly put up a fuss. No wonder why they're upset. Only a few miles away from them on a federally owned 7,000 acre parcel of land in the Altamont Hills at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties, California, radioactive explosives containing Depleted Uranium are being shot out into the open air at a location called Site 300. Yes, Depleted Uranium is being exploded across the street from a motorbike recreational area. Site 300 is only a few miles away from where people live. What started all the ruckus was that on November 13 a new permit, issued by California's San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, was put into effect that allows the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to use more than triple the amount of explosive materials in "test" detonations at Site 300 than in the past. This means that the equivalent of 350 pounds of explosives may now be fired instead of the previously permitted 100 pounds. There are two efforts underway to appeal the new permit for Site 300 that allows for much larger explosions by using greater amounts of radioactive materials. Two appeals have been filed, one by a housing developer and the other by a resident who lives about five miles from the radioactive blast location, Site 300. Small business owner, Tracy resident, and long-standing member of Tri-Valley Communities Against A Radioactive Environment (CARES), Bob Sarvey is leading the way to protect his community of 72,400 from radioactivity at Livermore's Site 300 by appealing the permit of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. A health risk assessment performed recently shows a higher health risk just from merely inhaling toxic non-radioactive air contaminants than the Livermore Lab shows in its own radiological assessment. Residents realized something was not quite right about this report. "Previously", according to Sarvey, "the Lawrence Livermore Lab didn't need a permit from the Pollution Control District because their chargers were under 100 lbs. equivalent to TNT - and under 1,000 pounds per year. Now, they are going to increase that to 350 pounds per charge, equivalent to TNT ...and they are also going to increase the annual limit to 8,000 pounds. That's eight-fold of what it was annually... and on a per change basis, three and a half times per charge". In addition to allowing up to 8,000 pounds of explosives containing radioactive matter annually, as reported in the Tracy Press on December 14 the current county air pollution control permit allows Livermore Laboratory to emit up to 1,440 pounds of particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter per year into the air. The public does not even have to be notified of such emissions unless the particulate matter exceeds a 20,000 pound limit. It only takes one invisible micron of Depleted Uranium to cause organ damage and health failure. Can anyone possibly hazard a guess as to how much potential hazard that 1,440 pounds of particulates could cause - never mind the 20,000 pound particulate upper limit? Can you imagine willingly causing up to 1,440 pounds of radioactive particles to be blasted into the open air? If one miniscule particle so tiny as to be invisible can cause a terminal illness, whose mind can even fathom the devastation 1,440 pounds of this stuff could do to countless numbers of people? But we must remember - Livermore Lab is allowed to explode up to 20,000 pounds into the air in a year and not even have to notify the neighboring communities. And Site 300 is only one of several such explosive "test" sites in the nation. Lawrence Livermore representatives will not reveal to Tracy residents precisely how many bombs might be "tested" in a year. Tracy Press reports that the only reason given by Lawrence Livermore for the eight-fold annual increase in explosives testing is "national security," according to air district spokeswoman Kelly Morphy. On January 8, Recordnet.com quoted Livermore Public Affairs Director Susan Hougton stating that the Lab plans to conduct "only three'" of the larger, 350-pound detonations in the next year and a half. According to Houghton, no blasts larger than 100 pounds have been conducted since 1997. "Only three" large radioactive explosions in a year - and an unknown number of smaller ones at 100 pounds a "pop" - certainly does not sound like too much to be concerned over. So what is the big deal with exploding up to 8,000 pounds of explosives including radioactive toxics like Depleted Uranium out into the open air, anyway? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT DU? Depleted Uranium is an inexpensive, radioactive heavy metal more dense than lead. It is basically nuclear waste made from the uranium enrichment process. The supply is plentiful and the US Military uses it in its guns, tanks, bombs, missiles and cannons. To get a feel for how much of it there is of the stuff, The U.S. government has produced more than 1.1 Billion pounds of DU in its uranium enrichment facilities in Ohio and Kentucky. It's also used as military tank armor, and aircraft, ship and missile counterweight ballasts as well as to provide the massive casing for hydrogen bombs that enable them to undergo fission and give off about fifty percent greater energy "bang for the buck". Our military has found that there are many attractive advantages to using Depleted Uranium (Uranium-238) over Tungsten steel, as Uranium-238 is an easier substance to process. It is also pyrophoric, which means it burns instantly upon impact or if ignited. DU also has the advantage of being easily able to penetrate targets from armored tanks to concrete bunkers. Always happy to rid itself of nuclear waste, Depleted Uranium has been cheerfully given away by the government to weapons manufacturers, who then in turn make a profit by selling the weapons to the US Military for use in combat as well as for running "tests" out into the air. Sometimes in the past fifty years it has been burned in open pits and other times DU is exploded in an estimated twenty-three locations all across the nation, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Experts who have studied the properties of Depleted Uranium and its deleterious effects upon human health have a great deal to tell us. Recently in a letter to Tracy Press, Marion Fulk, local resident and nuclear physical chemist retired from the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab formerly involved with the Manhattan Project, tells us a bit about the uranium that is being exploded at Livermore and its effects upon human health: "Uranium-238, sometimes called 'depleted uranium', poses a serious health threat, especially if inhaled in finely divided particles like those created by open-air explosives testing. Because of its properties, uranium-238 is a triple threat to human health. Its properties as a heavy metal create health damage once inside the body. Its properties as a hazardous chemical catalyst cause additional health risks. And its properties as a radioactive material offer a third route to cellular and DNA damage, illness and premature death in humans and animals." Despite the fact that Uranium-238 is commonly called "Depleted", this was a label invented to get the public to think that it is a weakly radioactive material. Nothing could be further from the truth. This poison dust packs a powerful punch to the human body, as Dr. Rosalie Bertell, biometrician and environmental epidemiologist, international radiation expert, and Founder of The International Institute of Concern for Public Health explains, "Depleted uranium concentrate is almost 100 percent uranium. More than 99 percent of both natural and depleted uranium consists of the isotope U-238." In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy and the 1995 U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admits that a small amount of additional toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopes are also present in Depleted Uranium, such as plutonium, neptunium, americium, Uranium-236 as well as Uranium-234 and Uranium-235. The Uranium-238 which is used in our weapons and is "tested" at test sites throughout the United States is some mighty powerful stuff. We should not, therefore, allow the name of this type of radioactive munition, "Depleted Uranium", fool us. As a matter of fact, in order to bring greater clarity to the issue, scientists from the Low Level Radiation Campaign are no longer calling uranium weapons "Depleted Uranium" or "DU" but have switched to the term "WDU", which stands for Weapons-Derived Uranium when referring to exposures from use of weapons containing any class of Uranium. Hopefully the term WDU will eventually catch on, because just like the words that the US Military uses to describe DU such as claiming it is "mildly" or "weakly" radioactive, the fact of the matter is, no radiation is harmless radiation. Uranium weapons destroy health and irreparably damage all living things. In his book Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure, John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. makes his point about radiation crystal clear: "By contrast, we think human evidence and logic combine to make a case which is already conclusive -- by any reasonable standard of proof -- against the existence of any safe dose or dose-rate of ionizing radiation, with respect to cancer-induction." For the case of simplicity for now, we will stick to the misnomer "Depleted Uranium". A pyrophoric munition, DU explodes spontaneously upon being fired. Up to 80% of it is then oxidized, and an aerosol is formed of minute radioactive particles between the range of below 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers. Immediately after the Uranium-238 is fired, these particles are so tiny that they are actually an invisible gas which can be either inhaled easily into the lungs, ingested in food, or can enter the body inside a break in the skin, such as through a small cut on a finger. In combat, Depleted Uranium can also enter the body via shrapnel that enters the skin. At the May, 1999 Hague Peace Conference, Dr. Rosalie Bertell stated that Depleted Uranium is "converted at high temperature into an aerosol, that is, minute insoluble particles of uranium oxide, UO2 or UO3 , in a mist or fog...Uranium oxide and its aerosol form are insoluble in water. The aerosol resists gravity, and is able to travel ... in air. Once on the ground, it can be resuspended when the sand is disturbed by motion or wind. Once breathed in, the very small particles of uranium oxide, those which are 2.5 microns [ one micron = one millionth of a meter ] or less in diameter, could reside in the lungs for years". Once in the lungs, the uranium slowly passes through the lung tissue into the blood. Uranium oxide dust has a biological half life in the lungs of about a year. Eventually, the uranium passes through the lung tissue and then into the blood stream, which may then be broken down in body fluids. Eventually the uranium may be stored in bone, lymph, liver, kidney or other tissues. When found in urine seven or eight years after exposure, it is an indication of its long term internal uranium contamination through storage in the body's tissues. Marion Fulk gives us an energetic picture of how DU creates havoc once inside the body. "It is an alpha emitter, which means that it is particularly damaging if lodged inside the body. Uranium-238 decays with an energy of 4 million electron volts per alpha particle. The energy emitted tears up surrounding cells and may initiate a whole bunch of negative health outcomes, including, but not limited to, cancers." Dr. Doug Rokke states how fast DU works once inside the body, "Alpha particle emission measurements show that the dose or exposure rate is in excess of 10000 counts per minute." DU, he says, "is a serious internal hazard". Explaining this nasty cell-busting process, Janette D. Sherman, M.D., specialist in internal medicine and toxicology, member of The Radiation and Public Health Project, and author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease states that when we are exposed to Depleted Uranium, it is a serious hazard as a chemically toxic heavy metal, plus it is also radioactive. Because the uranium is so concentrated, the alpha activity is increased, and a decay process occurs. Both alpha and beta radiation are emitted into the cell tissue that surrounds the miniature DU particle, affecting other cells and disrupting cell membranes, DNA, and the cell development process. Quoting from Dr. Sherman's book, "Aside from the radioactivity of uranium, it is a heavy metal poison and foreign body irritant with the potential to remain in the body for decades." Uranium poisoning also involves general health impairment to the kidneys, liver, lungs, and cardiovascular, nervous and cell production systems, and cause disorders of proteins and carbohydrate metabolism . Hmmm...Uranium can stay in the body for decades, you say? Well then, how do we know that any of us is not walking around right now with an invisible particle of Uranium-238 lodged inside one of our lungs, hanging out and waiting to give us cancer twelve years down the road? The point of the matter is, we don't. In an effort to de-mystify what is called by the US Military "Gulf War Syndrome" in veterans of wars in the Middle East, Dr. Sherman explains what many have come to call Depleted Uranium Poisoning. In "Life's Delicate Balance", Dr. Sherman details precisely how we get sick from breathing in Uranium-238. "When DU burns, it releases fine particles of radioactive material, much of it as small as nano particles which when inhaled go deep into the lungs and from there are transported to the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, brain, skeleton, seminal fluid, and other parts of the body. DU that is swallowed from airborne particles is transported to the intestinal tract and absorbed and transported to other parts of the body, including the liver and kidneys." As evidenced by increases in incidences of cancer in veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in civilians in these countries, Depleted Uranium clearly plays a role in cancer development, in auto-immune system disorders, and in the alteration of gene expression patterns. By now we've all seen the horrific pictures of children from Iraq and Afghanistan with cancers and those born without limbs and unrecognizable facial features. In effect, scientific evidence suggests that Uranium-238 does appear to have an adverse impact on reproduction and the destruction and mutation of genetic material, which is passed down to future descendents which can lead to birth defects in the exposed individual's offspring. Studies have also shown that DU has a toxic effect on the kidneys as they are the organ that eliminates toxins in the blood and thus are particularly vulnerable to both radiological and heavy metal toxicity and are the first organs to be damaged by uranium. Uranium-238 also causes neurologically related behavioral effects. Recently scientists have observed that there appears to be a correlation between Depleted Uranium and increases in diabetes. Alan Cantwell, M.D. covers the latest scientific thinking on this connection in his article, "Depleted Uranium, Diabetes, Cancer and You". In it Dr. Cantwell writes that "The CDC predicts that Type 2 diabetes will increase 165% by 2050. People with Type 2 diabetes are also twice as likely to get pancreatic cancer." Basic common sense tells us that such dramatic increases in the diabetes epidemic is quite unlikely to be due merely to genetics and "lifestyle choices" alone. Recent data from The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) indicates the enormity of the diabetes epidemic indicating that the disease now affects 246 million people worldwide. They predict that the total number of people living with diabetes worldwide will reach 380 million within twenty years. According to IDF President Pierre Lef?bvre, "Just twenty years ago, the best information available suggested that 30 million people had diabetes. A bleaker picture has now emerged. Diabetes is fast becoming the epidemic of the 21st century." Never before has a quote been so fitting as that from Leuren Moret, geo-scientist and international radiation specialist who wrote, "If it's an epidemic, it's not genetic." Scientists like Moret and Dr. Ernest Sternglass are now observing that increasing atmospheric radiation seems to play a vital role in the expanding worldwide increase in cases of diabetes. ABOUT RADIOACTIVE BLASTS With such known devastating health effects of this life-devastating toxin that stays in the body and basically rips it apart, one can't help but wonder just what type of super-top secret, "national security" projects would necessitate exploding radioactive toxic uranium gas into densely populated areas where millions of Americans inhale these toxics right where they live and work? I contacted the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Public Affairs office to try to better understand the rationale for detonating even greater amounts of radioactive explosives within a highly populated area. Could it be, I wondered, that they do not realize that their 11.7 square miles of nuclear waste materials "testing" Site 300 is less than 50 miles from San Francisco? Maybe someone needed to tell Livermore Lab (i.e., Uncle Sam) that more than seven million people live in the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area and have been breathing in this "gene busting" chemical toxic and radiological poison for about fifty years? Certainly, I reasoned, no sane individuals would be exploding radiation into the air for fifty years - on purpose - if they realized how many families - men, women, children, and infants are breathing in that air? The Public Affairs Director, Susan Houghton, seemed pleased to share that Livermore had been "very successful for 50 years" before Tracy Press started reporting on this issue, but she declined to elaborate further. One can't help but wonder how the Lab has been "successful" ... I wanted to ask her, "successful" at doing... exactly what? Perhaps Livermore Lab is proud they've been "successful" at keeping the community in general - and California as a whole - quiet and totally in the dark with regard to the hazards to their health? Apparently the US government has determined that the public does not have a right to know what is in the air they breathe. As reported by Tracy Press on December 14, Livermore Lab spokesperson Linda Seaver stated, "We are not bound to do a public notice for every permit we request. We worked directly with the local air quality board and our various regulators". How do you think the American public would feel if it realized that nuclear bomb simulators purposely and routinely fire off 100 pound toxic and radioactive air blasts that affect the air, water, soil, and food supplies in our communities? Site 300, after all, is only one of at several DU "testing" grounds in the nation. For example, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories both fire Depleted Uranium into the open air, as does the Nevada Test Site and Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. When asked in a phone conversation about radioactivity in the outdoor explosions, Public Affairs Director Houghton said she would not answer questions, but stated that tritium would not be used in the 350 lb tests. On this subject, another laboratory spokesperson, Linda Seaver, informed SF Gate that the Laboratory last used tritium in test explosions in 2001. Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is present in nature in tiny amounts. Significant quantities, however, are generated by nuclear power plants and the manufacture of nuclear weapons and atomic bomb testing. Tritium, like Uranium-238, is another destroyer of human cells and DNA. According to the Nuclear Information Resource Service website: "Tritium emits radioactive beta particles. Once tritium is inhaled or swallowed, its beta particles can bombard cells. If a particle zaps a DNA molecule in a cell, it can cause a mutation. If it mutates a gene important to cell function, a serious disease may result... Research indicates that tritium can remain in the human body for more than ten years". At a Tracy City Council meeting on January 2, Tracy Press reported Larry Sedlacek, Deputy Associate Director of Operations in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, as saying that tritium could be used in tests that would be "aerosolized" after test blasts. He also stated that he "would not rule out using tritium in the blasts... saying details of the blasts are classified." Sedlacek also admitted, "We have used tritium at Site 300 in the past...It is contained in our environmental impact statement that we could potentially use small quantities in the future, but we don't have any scheduled." Whether the tritium and DU blasts are scheduled on the calendar or they occur at the whim of the detonator button-pusher on duty at Livermore that day, there appears to be some big project going on in the hills near San Francisco. Livermore representatives won't name a project linked to the planned explosions, but word has it that there's something new in the works. One is left to ponder what would tritium be used for in the smaller, radioactive tritium tests? Local war correspondent Bob Nichols offered, "It is pretty clear from the tritium that Livermore, like Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab, is busily modeling the explosion of global thermonuclear weapons". APPEALING BIG EXPLOSIONS With such a long history of radioactive explosions at Site 300, one is left to sit and ponder the impacts of these explosions upon the health of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. A health risk assessment for air pollution was done by the San Joaquin Pollution Control District, yet their health analysis does not require them to report radiological impacts. Their function is only to report non-radiological toxic air contaminants. Tracy resident Bob Sarvey stated in an interview, "Radiological impacts are not regulated by the Air Pollution Control District. In fact, their health risk assessment is inadequate" because it will contain neither the Depleted Uranium nor tritium used at the site. How curious it is that the county which is required to report levels of air pollution toxics is not required to measure nor report on toxics caused by radioactive explosions being conducted within its county? Livermore Lab's been "testing" there for 50 years, so it's not like the Air Pollution Control Board hasn't heard of what they've been up to all those years. San Joaquin's non-reporting of radiation in a county where Depleted Uranium is fired out into the open air is certainly curious indeed. Residents like Bob Sarvey are understandably concerned that radioactive material such as Depleted Uranium and tritium will continue to be blown into Tracy. Living approximately five miles from the explosive "test" site, Sarvey felt compelled to personally cover a $750 fee to file an appeal against the larger explosives permit. Since the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is not required to regulate radioactive material, Sarvey believes this issue should have referred that question to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The second petition being filed on February 7 is by a developer, Tracy Hills LLC, AKT Development. Out of Sacramento, AKT is calling for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to review the accuracy of emissions estimates, and environmental and noise impacts of the larger blasts, according to appeal documents. Part of the Tracy Hills property adjoins Site 300, although the 5,500 housing community would be not much more than a mile from Site 300. I phoned them to ask if the developer still plans on building those homes so close to a Depleted Uranium explosives "test" site even if their appeal is denied, but my call was not returned. OK IT'S HARMFUL - BUT IS THIS STUFF LEGAL? Far, far away, the US Military's premiere weapon of choice, Depleted Uranium, has been used in combat overseas at least as far back as 1991. It was also used in the former Yugoslavia and surrounding Balkans region [Europe] in the 1990s, in Kosovo in 1999-2000, in Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and in Iraq starting in 1991. While many people believe that DU use started in 1991 and then resumed in 2003 with the second Gulf War, Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi, Associate Professor in Environmental Geological Engineering of Mamoun University for Science & Technology, and Member of the reminds us, however, that the use of DU in Iraq never actually stopped. As the expert on uranium weapons-related environmental impact and diseases told us in August, 2006, at the 3rd ICBUW International Conference Hiroshima, "The USA and UK continuously used Depleted Uranium weapons against the population and environment in Iraq from 1991 until today." What makes it hard to comprehend is that these weapons have been used for 15 years in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the Middle East despite the fact that the United Nations has prohibited its use. As stating in its 1996 resolution, it "Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium". Doug Rokke, Ph.D., health physicist, former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project, and one of the authors of the Pentagon's program for environmental remediation summarizes the international violations associated with use of DU: "According to an August 2002 UN report, the use of DU munitions breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907." Before the second war in Iraq even started, Karen Parker, J.D., President and Co-founder of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, further elaborated on the illegality of DU weapons, in August 1999 when she testified "...these radioactive weapons have already been used in Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo and Serbia even though they are illegal under existing humanitarian law. There are four main tests which determine whether or not the use of weapons is illegal: (1) whether or not they stay within the territorial range of the conflict; (2) whether or not they damage the environment; (3) whether or not the effects of the weapons end when the conflict ends (or the temporal range of the weapons); and (4) whether or not they are inhumane, that is, continue to cause physical harm beyond the point used for military purposes. As the Sub-Commission is aware, Depleted Uranium Munitions fail all four tests." So apparently, international law be damned and world leaders dare not oppose this behemoth of a military beast. The US military's continued violation of international law by its use of DU in nations overseas in which it declares an "enemy" is certainly no secret to the rest of the world. At the very least, what the United Nations, the Middle East, eastern Europe and Okinawa (Islands of Japan) and Puerto Rico (both locations where DU was exploded) all realize too well about the horrific ramifications of the use of US uranium weapons inside our country seems to be a well-kept secret here at home. How many Americans do you think realize that radioactive Depleted Uranium explosions are being detonated in several federal "test" sites right here in the United States, where American families live, work, play - and try to breathe? How many people even living in the Livermore Lab's backyard, inside the greater San Francisco Bay area realize that the radioactive particulate matter of Uranium-238 stays in our atmosphere for 4,510,000,000 years? We're not talking about a poison that will go away in a few generations. This radiation will, in fact, be around longer than the earth itself has been around. In the scheme of things, we are radioactively poisoning earth forever. We have created a legacy of a toxic radioactive environment for our children and future descendents forevermore. We who are Baby Boomers have slept through this nuclear and nuclear waste radioactive "testing" while we went to school, built our careers, and have been immersed in raising our families and trying to make a living. So, too, have our parents' and grandparents' generations, and now today's younger adults are just starting to make their way in this world. While we were busy doing other things, far too busy to worry about what was taking place on military "testing" ranges, proving grounds, and national "laboratories", sixty years of radioactivity "testing" has taken place right here, our own soil, into our air. There appears to be no end to it in sight. Through "testing" of bombs, tanks, and guns containing Uranium-238, tritium and other toxic substances at military ordnances, national laboratories, and other federal lands throughout the United States including Hawaii and off the coast of Alaska, we have permitted the creation of radiation-filled toxic earth, air, and water for our offspring. Knowingly or not, we have allowed irreparable harm to be done to our earth, land, water, and human genetics and cellular physiology - for the prematurely aborted future of humankind. What we are doing with these uranium munitions is, as Leuren Moret states, "illegal under international human rights and humanitarian law". She informs us that the US "has used this inhumane weapon on the battlefield, exposing its own soldiers, its allies, civilian populations, and future generations. DU testing in the Nevada trained on nearby bombing and gunnery ranges for the Gulf War. Now, the "don't look, don't find policy" of the military is concealing the cause of a recent leukemia cluster among children in Fallon." Jim Howenstein, M.D. agrees and posits that the use of thousands of tons of Depleted Uranium used for decades at Fallon, Nevada "is no doubt responsible for the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the U.S. The military has denied that DU has anything to do with this cluster. " Dr. Howenstein goes even further by stating that his own "medical profession has been involved in the cover-up-just as they were hiding the adverse effects that low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants were producing." MAKING THE CONNECTION What would happen, do you think, if the connection was made in the minds of 300 million Americans between widespread cancers, diabetes, asthma and other respiratory diseases, auto-immune system diseases and birth defects as a result of Americans breathing in low-level, ionizing radiation? To say the least, this mind-blowing revelation would not exactly "sell" on-going American wars. One can understand precisely why a government - and the mainstream media it controls - would try extremely hard to keep the radioactive explosions, irreparably damaging to the air and environment, all very hush-hush. One can't help but ponder the concept of a government - any nation's government - willfully, knowingly, releasing vast amounts of radioactive substances into the air, water, and food supply of its very own people. Upon contemplation, the average brain can not begin to comprehend the sober seriousness contained within such a concept. Aghast with the horrific implications, one is forced to ask if this poison dust - which is being inhaled in our air and ingested within our food and water - is not purposely intended to have an adverse health impact upon those living within our own country, too? What seems to be too horrific a concept must at least be considered. In a working paper submitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen at the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights on September 25th, 2003, Yuen concluded "that these weapons are intended to be used on enemy soil, thus making their devastation less of an issue for their users and their own nationals than for the 'enemy' victims." Arguably, Yuen's reasoning certainly does appear logical. If a weapon of devastating consequences is used which has consequences upon "the enemy", yet possesses no adverse effects upon the aggressor population using it, the chances of that weapon being discontinued due to the insistence of the aggressor's population would be slim. It will therefore be interesting to observe if Americans will react differently (that is, react with appropriate and fitting moral outrage) against uranium weapons use upon civilians in the Middle East when we realize that our government has been using upon us - right here in the United States - the exact same types of munitions they have been using on our so-called "enemies" overseas. As Charles W. Chestnutt said, "Sins, like chickens, come home to roost." Or, in other words, "What goes around comes around". Use of uranium in weapons upon some unknown foreign "enemy" who are we told "hates our freedom" is apparently not too big of a concern for most Americans - at least not yet. BUT WHY HERE? WHY US? Radioactive weapons use inside the US is certainly nothing new. The US Military has been conducting explosive radioactive "tests" inside America for the past sixty years. At this point, after umpteen years of "testing" the same materials, one can't help but wonder if it's actually the explosive material they are continually "testing"... or rather, what happens to citizen populations when radioactive materials are continually fired into the open air in communities where people live? Former Livermore Laboratory whistleblower, Leuren Moret, gives us a clue as to why a nation might want to "test" Depleted Uranium within its own country: "International scientists, Drs. Andre Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitali, watch-dogging nuclear weapons developments globally, pointed out that DU weaponry is being used to study the radiobiological effects of the new nuclear weapons now under development." Moret also informs us: "The use of weapons in war are most effective when the weapons do not kill, but create long-term health and environmental consequences such as lingering illnesses which slowly destroy the health of the environment and productivity of a nation and the economy.... DU is a permanent terrain contaminant with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, forms immense volumes of nano-sized particles (smaller than bacteria or viruses) which are lofted permanently as components of atmospheric dust traveling around the world until they are rained or snowed out of the air...Even worse, uranium targets the DNA... and slowly destroys the genetic future of exposed populations." Site 300, where these radioactive explosions occur, is only about 40 miles from San Francisco. More than seven million people live in the highly populated Greater San Francisco Bay area. America has been breathing in this toxic, "gene busting" invisible poison since 1945 when Uranium-238, as well as other radioactive materials, were used inside the hydrogen bomb that the US exploded in the New Mexico de Dr. Janette Sherman, after hearing about the DU explosions at site 300 at Livermore admitted, "I can not think of a single reason why munitions have to be tested in that area. It's not like munitions have not been tested before. I believe it must be stopped." It would certainly appear that those in power are cooking up some "hot" treat for the liberal Greater San Francisco Bay area. In fact, San Francisco has been a long-established place to experiment upon the population. An advanced Google search using the exact phrases "human experiment" and "San Francisco" yielded 14,300 Google "hits". As was noted by a recent report, "Lack of transparency is cause for concern if only because of the history of secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pentagon experiments in germ warfare that used the American people as guinea pigs. In his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Common Courage Press reporter William Blum noted that both agencies 'conducted tests [over two decades] in the open air in the United States, exposing millions of Americans to large clouds of possibly dangerous bacteria and chemical particles.' >From 1949-69, the US Army tested the spread of dangerous chemical and bacterial organisms at over 239 US populated areas including San Francisco, New York, and Chicago with no warnings to the public or regard for the health consequences, Blum wrote. The Pentagon even sprayed navy warships to test the impact of germ warfare on US sailors." AND WHAT ABOUT TRITIUM ? The United States government fully admits that it has done radiation experiments on Americans before. And with the long history of such chemical, biological, and radiological exposures upon the people of the San Francisco area, one is forced to realize that its nation's government certainly did not, as the song goes, leave its heart there. Since such exposures have been going on since the Cold War started, one can not help but wonder what type of a "national security" project would involve dispersing radioactive uranium gas and tritium into such a densely populated area where millions of American lungs are breathing in the toxic air and drinking the water (of which tritium is not removed) all around them? Livermore knows exactly what it is doing to the health of America's citizens with these DU blasts out into the California air. At a Tracy City Council meeting on January 2, Tracy Press reported that Larry Sedlacek, Deputy Associate Director of Operations in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, as saying that tritium could be used in "tests" that would be "aerosolized" (turned into gas) after "test" blasts and that he "would not rule out" using tritium in the blasts when interviewed Wednesday, saying details of the blasts are classified." Sedlacek was quoted as saying, "We have used tritium at Site 300 in the past...It is contained in our environmental impact statement that we could potentially use small quantities in the future, but we don't have any scheduled." One can't help but wonder if anyone gets rewarded for keeping things so quiet for so long? Take for example, how happy you would be if you were the head of a major nuclear weapons lab and your staff was able to keep explosions of radioactive materials so damaging to human health and the environment a really big secret from the nation for fifty year Undoubtedly, the ability to keep such a major deal under wraps from the 7 million people living and working in the San Francisco Bay area must make for some mighty swollen incentive bonuses for public relations staff who know how to keep Uncle Sam's "hottest" and "dirtiest " of secrets! STARTING AT TRACY - AND WAY, WAY BEYOND... So going back to the people in the Tracy/Livermore area, any way you look at it, they've been dealt a really bum deal. According to Steve Sarvey, "It's like a triple whammy. There's three things going on." First, there's the issue of radioactive outdoor explosive "testing". It is not known exactly how much radiation has been released out into the atmosphere at Livermore, but outdoor explosives "tests" at Site 300 have averaged about 60 per year at 100 pounds each since 1997, according to Susan Houghton. Want to make your head spin? Just do the math. If Livermore explodes 60,000 pounds of explosives in ten years? Since the high explosives "tests" began at Site 300 in 1955, that makes 60,000 pounds every ten years, which amounts to 300,000 pounds or 150 tons of radioactive blasts. And that's at only one of the federal "test" sites - of which there are several. Site 300 is a contaminated Toxic site on the Superfund National Priorities List due to contamination of groundwater and tonnage of materials deposited there, such as Depleted Uranium, beryllium, and tritium. Some of these radioactive substances sit in unlined pits. There are extensive plumes of various substances with fifty-seven separate contaminant release areas that exist including soil and water both above and below the ground. According to Bob Sarvey, the Tracy City Council voted in April to have Livermore Laboratory remove the piles of highly enriched uranium as well as plutonium and tritium that are sitting in unlined pits, but Livermore Lab has failed to do so. And to add insult to injury? Livermore Lab, which is run and staffed by the University of California, also applied to increase the amount of toxic waste it can store at Site 300 from 3,300 gallons to 5,500 gallons, according to Department of Toxic Substances Control permit project manager Andrew Berna-Hicks. Last but certainly not least, Site 300 is one of the sites that the Department of Homeland Security is considering to run a Bio-Safety Level 4, anti-biological laboratory. Level 4 labs test and store incurable fatal diseases such as the Ebola virus and mad cow disease. Again, the question must be asked, why in the world would anyone want to even consider doing work on fatal and incurable diseases so close to seven million people? As far as health affects caused by DU radiation "testing" goes, anecdotal reports from Tracy citizens suggest an inordinately high number of cancers in their area including cancerous brain tumors and mysterious illnesses. Journalist Chris Bollyn interviewed Marion Fulk, former Livermore Laboratory scientist and skin cancer survivor, who told him that as a result of tritium pollution from the National Lab, children born in Livermore are 6 times more likely to have skin cancer than other children. Not surprisingly, looking at the health of the overall San Francisco Greater Bay area, one notes that the incidences of cancer are higher when compared to the state average. From the years 1988 to 2002, the Greater San Francisco Bay area experienced an annual rate of 468.9 cancers per 100,000 peopleCalifornia's 2003 cancer incidence rate of 425.1 per 100,000 residents. Here in the US, cancer is the leading cause of disease-related deaths in children. The fetus and infant are particularly sensitive to radioactive toxins. Every year, about 12,400 children and teens under the age of 20 are diagnosed with cancer each year, and approximately 2,300 of those children will die. Will our children be next? Only time will tell as many medical reports document a 5-10 year lag between radiation exposure and the onset of childhood cancer. Another disorder linked to Depleted Uranium poisoning in soldiers from both Gulf Wars is asthma. A chronic lung disease characterized by persistent cough and wheeze, incidences of asthma have been steadily increasing. The most common serious chronic disease of America's children, more than 5 percent of the U.S. population or nearly five million children younger than 18 years - are affected by this disorder. Asthma is the cause of nearly three million doctor's visits and 200,000 hospitalizations each year. In children ages 5-14 years, the rate of death from asthma almost doubled between 1980 and 1993. If you are not living in California and don't love anyone who is, by now you may be thinking, Well that really is too bad (and thank God I don't live anywhere near there)! Even for those of us who don't live on the west coast, however, it's still a good idea to think twice before we take our next breath. This past year there was news out of the UK that suggest that the radioactivity from Site 300 and the poison dust of other radioactive" test" sites throughout the US is far closer to home than we may realize. According to research released in February, 2006 out of England, nine days after the March, 2003 "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad in which bombs containing Depleted Uranium were exploded, radioactivity was found in air filters within the United Kingdom, up to 2,500 miles away. This was proof positive that this radioactive poison travels great distances. In other words, the explosive fire of tanks, guns, missiles launched and bombs dropped does not stay in a contained little cloud over the so-called "enemy" target borders. According to Moret, "After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere." Who would have ever thought that radioactive weaponry that we believed was intended for use on the battlefield upon America's "enemies" would ever be used in our own country, for so many years? How many Americans realize that their very next breath - or that of their children's - may very well contain invisible, microscopic-sized toxic radioactive particles so minute as to be considered a gas? Sadly, people do not know this when they inhale or ingest these invisible particles - as the effects of one tiny Uranium-238 particle can take years to manifest symptoms inside our bodies. In testimony provided to the UN, International Humanitarian Lawyer Karen Parker, J.D., stated, "there is evidence that the ceramic form of uranium dioxide, made during weapons explosions or fires, could stay in the body as long as 20 years. Depleted uranium was detected eight years after the end of the war in the urine of US, UK and Canadian Gulf War veterans and in that of Iraqi civilians." Proof abounds, however, dating back all the way back from 1943 that shows our military leaders knew about the "advantages" - and their capability - of conducting radioactive gas warfare upon citizens. In a memo declassified in 1974 written to James B. Conant and Brigadier General L. R. Groves from: Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey, War Department United States Engineer Office Manhattan District, Oak Ridge Tennessee on October 30, 1943, that proves that they knew that uranium could be used "As a gas warfare instrument". The material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty." The report states that two factors appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or smoke as a weapon. These are: (1) It cannot be detected by the senses; (2) It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging. The 1943 memo also stated that it could be used as radioactive warfare to make evacuated areas uninhabitable, to contaminate small critical areas, and as a radioactive poison gas to create casualties among troops, and to create casualties among civilian populations. It also mentions that "These materials may also be so disposed as to be taken into the body by ingestion instead of inhalation. Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke, " and in the respiratory tract, "articles smaller than 1? [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood... It would seem that chemical gases could accomplish more and do it more quickly so far as the skin surfaces and lungs are concerned." In other words, the US Military has known since 1943 precisely what it was doing with regard to the life-destroying use of aerosolized uranium. In the words of award-winning Robert C. Koehler in his piece on Depleted Uranium, "Silent Genocide": "Before the damage we inflict grows greater, before history's judgment gets worse, before we contaminate the whole world -- even before we vote in the next election -- we must stop what we're doing. We must stop now. " If Americans don't like the idea of breathing in, eating, and drinking this weaponized nuclear waste product gas, how do we follow Koehler's advice and stop what we're doing now? It is imperative that we start somewhere - and halting the large radioactive "tests" now permitted in California is certainly a great place to begin. This affects us all. What is going on in the backyard of the vastly populated San Francisco Bay area is not just another "not in my backyard issue". The explosion of these vast amounts of Depleted Uranium radioactive microscopic particles affect Americans all over the country. We've all watched the Weather Channel and observed how in a matter of just a few hours, wind currents carrying invisible particles start at one part of the country and sweep across the map, reaching into entirely different sections of the country in a matter of hours. So this issue is in fact not at all a problem merely for the city of Tracy's 72,400 thousand residents, nor even just a nightmare for the Greater San Francisco Bay Area's 7 million. The radioactivity being dispersed at Site 300 and other" test" sites still in operation within the US affects people all over the United States - as DU radiation from bombs exploded in Iraq was detected 2,500 miles away in the United Kingdom. >From a February, 2006 report by Busby and Morgan, measurements were examined on air sampler filters deployed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, in Berkshire, UK. Examination of the air filters showed a statistically significant increase in uranium in all the filters beginning at the start of the United States bombing of Iraq in March 2003 and ending when the US "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign ended. Levels of increased uranium in the filters were found in England, up to 2,500 miles away from Baghdad. In the conclusion of the report Despite much evidence that uranium aerosols are long lived in the environment and are able to travel considerable distances, this is the first evidence as far as we know, that they are able to travel thousands of miles. The distance traveled from Baghdad to Reading [England] following the wind patterns implicit in the pressure systems at the time is about 2500 miles. Although this transport may be hard to believe at first, the regular desert sand events which occur in the UK should teach us that the planet is not such a large place, and that with regard to certain long lived atmospheric pollutants, no man is an island. " We never know when you or I or someone we love may be breathing in an invisible particle of radiation in the air from Site 300 or from another of the US "test" sites. As we saw from the distance that radiation traveled away from Baghdad all the way into England, it is not necessary to live near any of these "test" sites to be an unwitting participant in the purposeful poisoning of America. Roughly speaking, using approximate distances from Livermore's Site 300, Seattle is 800 miles away, Chicago is 1,700 miles away, New Orleans is 2,000 miles away, and Washington, DC, Orlando, and Philadelphia are all about 2,400 miles away. It is easy to look at a map of the US and calculate if you or someone you care about lives within 2,500 miles - and are thus within the range of inhaling the radiation from Site 300 within a matter of days. One can't help but wonder if by virtue of having radioactive materials in the form of both hydrogen bombs and Uranium-238 munitions exploded around us within the US for the past 60 years if Americans are now facing the same health issues as those experienced by those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Both countries have been pounded relentlessly by thousands of tons of uranium munitions. In an interview with Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki, author of the compelling book, "Afghanistan After Democracy" which chronicles the health effects suffered by the people in Afghanistan as a result of DU weaponry, I asked Dr Miraki to tell me about the health effects of DU upon the people in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to the citizens of the US with regard to open air Uranium-238 "testing". Dr. Miraki replied, "I can use Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslovia as a benchmark upon which I can base my judgment. There they have used these weapons and they have resulted in a variety of health issues ranging from leukemia to cancers of various types, seeing the unborn as well as congenital deformities as well as pulmonary problems, edema, other issues as well as bizarre conditions - some call it Gulf War Syndrome, some call it other names that's associated - fatigue and neurological problems, other issues are associated with it." As this is documented by many scientists as being true with regard to the devastating health effects of the victims of uranium poisoning in the Middle East, can one assume that these same uranium munitions are having a similar effect on our own citizens here in the United States? Dr. Miraki explained, "It is bound to effect people in the vicinity. After all, the dust of DU is susceptible to wind. Wind will carry it, water flow in any direction is bound to take that, and vegetation will be affected, birds could take particles and move it - so it's the ecological aspect as well as the long term effects. So I assume it would be evident already wherever the regions close by to where the detonations are done... Miraki continued, "For example, I heard in Indiana, Jefferson Testing Grounds, there people have certain health problems that are unexplained, cancer rates and so forth that are up, so on a large scale, what they have done overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and, using that as a benchmark? Logic dictates that it will result in similar conditions here as well... a high upsurge in diabetes in various areas among young people - as well as older - could very well be one effect of DU dust. Then you know we are talking about DU dust, we are talking about intercellular radiation. So it could affect anything. It could create any kind of problem, from the conventional as well as bizarre and unexplained, unconventional problems." Radiation from US Military weapons is not something that happens overseas "somewhere". It is a personal affair that affects Americans right here at home. As Michael Ignatieff said, "We can't achieve the humanitarian goals we set out to because achieving humanitarian goals means getting up close and personal." The clock is ticking. With each new detonation of yet another radioactive "test", increased amounts of radiation remain here with us inside the United States for all eternity. The issue of radioactive explosive "tests" inside the United States affects each and every one of us and those we love. It affects all future generations of Americans. It is a critical matter for the ecosystem. Our environment and wildlife are suffering due to the increasingly destructive and cumulative effects of radioactivity in our air, water, soil, and vegetation. Bob Sarvey, one of the leading voices against the continued testing of radioactive substances at Site 300, summed up what appears to be the sentiment of many residents in the Livermore area by saying, "If you want to just explode regular ordinance, I'm okay with you doing it on the hill. But if you are going to put U-238, tritium, other radioactive elements in it? Please go... somewhere else. Somewhere where you're not wiping out people". Unfortunately, no matter where that "somewhere else" is? Depleted Uranium and other radioactive substances are "tested", it will wipe out people. So the solution actually is not to move the weapons "testing" to a less populated area, but rather, to stop the use of radioactive materials, period. As long as radioactive weapons are used, those who manufacture and use them will continue to maintain that they must be "tested" - somewhere. And with such a tremendously far atmospheric "reach"? These invisible aerosol particles will be carried through the wind and precipitation thousands of miles away - somewhere - wherever people live. All points within 2,500 miles of Site 300 at Livermore, CA are a good place to begin to stop the poison gassing of Americans. The appeals against large radioactive explosions on Site 300 at Livermore, California begin on February 7 in Modesto. Your help is needed with the appeal process. A campaign is being mounted to put an end to these radioactive explosions that affect the health of our loved ones. The question we must now ponder in our heart of hearts is this one: What have the use of these radioactive and nuclear weapons truly cost us in collective terms of Americans' lost moments of healthy, happy, productive living? What do we say to future children who are born with genetic mutations and birth defect deformities who want to know why they are missing a limb or an ear? What will the use of these weapons mean to us in terms of green spaces and fields, native wildflowers and forests lost? How will this permanent radiation in our atmosphere and environment play out for our children's grandchildren's future in terms of being subject to a nation with permanently contaminated brooks and streams, lakes, ponds, rivers and oceans? How can we ever even begin to calculate what our great grandchildren will miss in terms of healthy fish swimming in our streams and frogs, chipmunks, and endangered birds? In the words of Dr. Keith Baverstock, formerly of the World Health Organization, "Politics has poisoned the well from which democracy must drink." It is incumbent upon American citizens to take personal responsibility now, once and for all. We must work together at once to put an end to this poisoning forever of our nation - and our world. Like never before, we need to rise to the occasion and step up to the plate. Together we must work to stop these purposeful explosions of radioactive poison dust right here in our country, inside America. Can there be any doubt that Americans need to put a stop to this insane Uranium Madness being exploded into our air - once and for all? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. And the question is, what are you willing to do about it? Learn how you can participate in the growing effort to halt radioactive weapons "testing". To take action or to receive more information, please visit: http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com . Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, antiwar activist, and a certified personal coach. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week. Cathy can be contacted at savorsuccessla... at yahoo.com . http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23826.shtml From DNorth at Lifespan.org Fri Jan 26 10:25:17 2007 From: DNorth at Lifespan.org (North, David) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:25:17 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] KI tablets for persons doing radioiodinations with I-125 In-Reply-To: <00c401c74098$d8556430$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Message-ID: <4AFD287104F71D48A958EFCB1DCC1184B6359F@LSRIEXCH1.lsmaster.lifespan.org> You have to be careful. Administration of KI may require a physician's prescription where you are. A good, simple, effective alternative for thyroid blocking is to wash your hands with a iodinated surgical scrub such as Betadine, if it's available. It has worked for me personally. Such surgical scrubs are notorious for interfering with nuclear medicine thyroid studies. David L. North, Sc.M., DABR Associate Physicist Medical Physics Main Bldg. Rm 317 Rhode Island Hospital 593 Eddy St. Providence, RI 02903 (401)444-5961 fax: (401)444-4446 dnorth at lifespan.org > ---------- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Wes > Reply To: WesVanPelt at Verizon.net > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:52 > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] KI tablets for persons doing radioiodinations with I-125 > > Radsafers, > > I am curious to know if any radiation safety programs make use of potassium > iodide (KI) in the event of an accidental (or routine?) uptake of I-125 when > handled in the lab. This would be most likely when performing > radioiodination reactions to label proteins or antigens. > > Issues I am thinking about include: > Possible adverse side effects from KI in some individuals. > Is a physician's prescription needed? > Would a "patient consent" form be advisable or required? > At what action level (intake or radiation dose) would KI be > administered? > Would blocking thyroid uptake with cold KI invalidate thyroid > bioassay measurements? > > Thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > Wes > Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP > Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 26 14:38:31 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Message-ID: <20070126203831.55508.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Pollycove thoroghly debunked the claim of "healthy worker effect" in NSWS in a DDP presentation 10 years ago. You can get the tape at www.oism.org/ddp or 520-325-2680 Howard Long Keith Welch wrote: Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab _______________________________________________ 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Fri Jan 26 15:21:40 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:21:40 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070126131731.039d84f0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 10:36 AM 1/25/2007, you wrote: I find this very difficult to believe: *************************************** My responses have been clear and accurate. I have nothing more to add. I am sorry that you don't understand them. ********************************************** 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 radmax at earthlink.net Sat Jan 27 00:12:47 2007 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:12:47 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: <25487990.1169878367960.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Some more definitions for ya' sweets... "A confidence trick or confidence game, also known as a con, scam, grift, bunko or flim flam, is an attempt to intentionally mislead a person or persons (known as the "mark") usually with the goal of financial or other gain".... ..."The Paranoia Scam is a scam that involves the con man telling the mark various lies about the different scams and instigating false attempts so that the mark (feeling worried and with no place to hide their money from fraud) turns to the con man for help".... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick Above are OTHERWISE KNOWN AS DOUG ROKKE, Leuren Moret, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, et al... Your ignorance, gullibility and just plain naivety are so far fetched as to not even warrant further discussion. Try to educate yourself with just the lies in Rokke's background, then tell me how believable he is. Do me a personal favor, just in case ANY of this is true, move to San Fran, so when some extremist blows up the lab you can be taken out with the rest of the ignorant ANTI-Everything (except immoral behaviour-can you say NAMBLA?) crowd! Richard Urban Yuma, AZ From BLHamrick at aol.com Sat Jan 27 09:47:05 2007 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:47:05 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: In the United States the required tasks will depend upon what State you are working in. PET/CT is currently regulated by the individual States. The PET portion will be regulated by NRC in some States in the near future. It is best to contact the responsible regulatory agency in the State or Country in which you will be working to learn the requirments. Barbara L. Hamrick In a message dated 1/25/2007 7:35:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sergio at bgu.ac.il writes: Dear colleagues As we are going to install our first PET/CT I would like to know what are the tasks of a medical physicist and if a full position is justified.The Nuclear Medicine Institute has 2 working gamma-cameras. Thanking you in advance Sergio Faermann, Ph.D. From john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com Sat Jan 27 09:57:47 2007 From: john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com (john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:57:47 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: <3BD30088EA142D4C88DD56036F248D046B80ED@CCCMSXCH03.energy.power.corp> Totally unprofessional and inappropriate to RADSAFE. I'm embarassed for you. JG -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:13 AM To: savorsuccessla at yahoo.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Some more definitions for ya' sweets... "A confidence trick or confidence game, also known as a con, scam, grift, bunko or flim flam, is an attempt to intentionally mislead a person or persons (known as the "mark") usually with the goal of financial or other gain".... ..."The Paranoia Scam is a scam that involves the con man telling the mark various lies about the different scams and instigating false attempts so that the mark (feeling worried and with no place to hide their money from fraud) turns to the con man for help".... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick Above are OTHERWISE KNOWN AS DOUG ROKKE, Leuren Moret, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, et al... Your ignorance, gullibility and just plain naivety are so far fetched as to not even warrant further discussion. Try to educate yourself with just the lies in Rokke's background, then tell me how believable he is. Do me a personal favor, just in case ANY of this is true, move to San Fran, so when some extremist blows up the lab you can be taken out with the rest of the ignorant ANTI-Everything (except immoral behaviour-can you say NAMBLA?) crowd! Richard Urban Yuma, AZ _______________________________________________ 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/ ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You. ************************************************** From radproject at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 27 10:25:33 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:25:33 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Message-ID: <000a01c7422f$c499ac10$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,6243493.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jan 27 11:50:45 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:50:45 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article In-Reply-To: <000a01c7422f$c499ac10$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: <000001c7423b$b1e2c140$49197254@pc1> Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 12:51:12 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:51:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article In-Reply-To: <000001c7423b$b1e2c140$49197254@pc1> References: <000a01c7422f$c499ac10$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> <000001c7423b$b1e2c140$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <005f01c74244$1ea556f0$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Lieber Franz, Stewart, RADSAFErs: OK! Here's the skeptic in me! I once tracked these types of stories in detail, and found that the media almost always had it wrong. There was an article some years back about an Indian smuggling operation of so called "weapons grade" material that was being hidden in "Yellow Cakes" to cross the border. I laughed so hard that I cried! In the event that there are a couple of you on the list that doesn't know what "yellowcake" is, then perhaps you should find another occupation. For a period of one year while in Leoben (that's in Austria, by the way), I followed in detail all environmental and nuclear stories in 6 newspapers in Europe including: Deutche Zeitung, Die Presse, Der Standard, S?ddeutche Zeitung, Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, and the Herald Tribune. (Note to Franz: I did not include the Kronen Zeitung!) Only the Z?rcher had systematically accurate initial reports, and their retractions of incorrect stories were easy to find. I cannot say that for any of the other papers who were clearly driving an editorial agenda and bias. I'm not saying that the report from Georgia is wrong, but I have no way to "verify" the report. From past experience, I'd give it a 5% chance or less of being materially correct. Unfortunately, that 5% could potentially kill. Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque (Formerly Vienna and Leoben) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:51 To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.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/ From gary at pageturners.com Sat Jan 27 13:01:19 2007 From: gary at pageturners.com (Gary Damschen) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:01:19 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: <000a01c74245$87c4d970$974e8c50$@com> Roger, Please don't fill my mailbox with the full text of these diatribes. The link the post would have been sufficient. A short comment about the link would have allowed me to see that you were posting this because you do not believe in its content and were providing list members an opportunity to see just how far removed from reality some of the rhetoric online about DU, radiation, and radiation safety matters is. At first, I thought you were another hysteric. Thanks, Gary From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jan 27 13:27:15 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:27:15 +0100 Subject: AW: RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article In-Reply-To: <005f01c74244$1ea556f0$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Message-ID: <000001c74249$2cb25900$49197254@pc1> Dear Dan, Thank you for your well founded message on this topic! You remind me that I had intended to contact you for a long time, especially because of your "leoben" e-mail address which was surprising. I may ask you to forgive me for not having done it until now, but my excuses are: I have been last year away from Vienna for more than half of the year, mostly in Poland, but as well in Lithuania, in Oxford, at NPL in London, Bratislava and most recently in Lund, Sweden. Another excuse is that just before the turn of the year my computer refused to follow my commands and a very large number of data, including RADSAFE-messages was lost. Believe me, I burst into laughter, when I read that you did not consult "Kronen-Zeitung"! This is a proof of your knowledge about Austria! I have not time enough to follow the most "important" newspapers, but I sometimes question the scientific credibility of both "Presse" and "Standard", because they usually simply reprint what has come in from press agencies. Regarding the probability of the story being correct: Maybe the attempt of somebody to sell "nuclear grade uranium" has a 5% of being correct. The probability that those 100 g or whatsoever were really nuclear grade, not to talk about the chemical form, because metallic uranium is pyrophore and will incinerate on contact with air have to be questioned!!!!! The story is getting into more and more unbelievable speculations and therefore it should be regarded more than 90% as unconfirmed speculations. On a personal question I will contact you separately. Best wishes, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 19:51 An: 'Franz Sch?nhofer' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Lieber Franz, Stewart, RADSAFErs: OK! Here's the skeptic in me! I once tracked these types of stories in detail, and found that the media almost always had it wrong. There was an article some years back about an Indian smuggling operation of so called "weapons grade" material that was being hidden in "Yellow Cakes" to cross the border. I laughed so hard that I cried! In the event that there are a couple of you on the list that doesn't know what "yellowcake" is, then perhaps you should find another occupation. For a period of one year while in Leoben (that's in Austria, by the way), I followed in detail all environmental and nuclear stories in 6 newspapers in Europe including: Deutche Zeitung, Die Presse, Der Standard, S?ddeutche Zeitung, Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, and the Herald Tribune. (Note to Franz: I did not include the Kronen Zeitung!) Only the Z?rcher had systematically accurate initial reports, and their retractions of incorrect stories were easy to find. I cannot say that for any of the other papers who were clearly driving an editorial agenda and bias. I'm not saying that the report from Georgia is wrong, but I have no way to "verify" the report. From past experience, I'd give it a 5% chance or less of being materially correct. Unfortunately, that 5% could potentially kill. Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque (Formerly Vienna and Leoben) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:51 To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.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/ From daleboyce at charter.net Sat Jan 27 14:20:47 2007 From: daleboyce at charter.net (Dale Boyce) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:20:47 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics of UO3 gas References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu><6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <00c201c74250$a18edda0$930bbf42@TheGateway> To get atoms (I think you mean molecules) bouncing into things you have to form them first. In order for UO3 gas to exist you first have to input enough energy to vaporize it. Let me set up the calculation, and hopefully a couple of other physicists will do the calculation independently to see if we get the same result. I'll let them look up the inputs. You have two available energy sources. The kinetic energy of the bullet, and the heat of formation from the burning uranium. You have several energy sinks. You have the heat capacity of the uranium and/or oxide. This soaks up a little energy raising the temperature. to the melting point. Then you have to supply a lot energy to melt the material. This is known as the heat of fusion. Note that you also have to replicate these energy sinks for the steel/whatever that gets zapped in the collision. You then have to heat the liquid to the vaporization point (more heat capacity). After that you have to supply the heat of vaporization to form the gas. Now when I plugged in the numbers from my CRC Handbook. I ran out of energy before the UO3 even melted, much less became a gas. Moreover, I believe I used conservative numbers. I overestimated the heat of formation and underestimated the heat of fusion. The heat of fusion of uranium metal is about an order of magnitude greater than the heat of formation of UO3. The heat of formation is as large or larger than the kintic energy of the bullet. Moreover, the heat of fusion of UO3 should be a few times that of uranium metal. I picked 1000 m/sec as the velocity of the round. Probably not too far off. BTW a long time ago I saw a small uranium fire. You get a nice bright sparkel somewhat white,but that still has a noticible yellow cast. The smoke falls instead of rises. This indicates two things. Because of the color the temperature is probably around 1000C. Consistent with it being at or near its melting point temperature. BTW A substance will remain at its melting point temperature until enough energy is added to go through the transition to liquid. Again this energy is substantial. Second the falling smoke indicates cooled particulates. If it was in a vapor phase there would be a glowing plume well up into the blue or hotter color range. Bottom line is the stuff is going to be very hot and hold a lot of energy as heat, but gas isn't physically plausible. Noises Off! Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: "Otto Raabe" Cc: "radsafelist" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof > Dr. Raabe, > > I find this very difficult to believe: > >> Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and >> results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide >> particles. > > How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and > head toward a surface? > > Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart > supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and > Stewart contains no such mass measurements. > > What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, > and where are they documented? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jan 27 15:31:01 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:31:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group In-Reply-To: <000a01c74245$87c4d970$974e8c50$@com> Message-ID: <000001c7425a$73fe8b60$49197254@pc1> Gary, Thanks for this comment. After having read the original comment I was close to send a very similar response, but since I had been recently "flamed" (of course none of the senders would accept this bad word) for questioning the opinions of "non-SI" US-hardliners I have refrained from doing it. Imagine if I had done it...... I think we know all the nonsense distributed by those "celebrities" in the anti-nuclear world mentioned in this nonsensical origianal message. I am surprised that for this purpose 130 kB were available on Radsafe. I tried to forward a message, which contained a pdf-file regarding a radiochemical societies newsletter and was slightly larger and it was refused and I was asked to restrict it to 40 kB. O.k., I fully respect the decision of the list owner and will try to forward is by links, but then 130 kB should be rejected as well, even more when considering the content of the message. I think that a link would have been sufficient for all those at RADSAFE who like to read Rokke, Bertell,...... Are there any ones? Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Gary Damschen Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 20:01 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Roger, Please don't fill my mailbox with the full text of these diatribes. The link the post would have been sufficient. A short comment about the link would have allowed me to see that you were posting this because you do not believe in its content and were providing list members an opportunity to see just how far removed from reality some of the rhetoric online about DU, radiation, and radiation safety matters is. At first, I thought you were another hysteric. Thanks, Gary _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Sat Jan 27 16:28:03 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:28:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics of UO3 gas In-Reply-To: <00c201c74250$a18edda0$930bbf42@TheGateway> Message-ID: Dale Thanks for this. Unfortunately I never learnt much chemistry when I studied physics so I coundn't be one of the "other physicists". Also, I would have "ran out of energy" long before the UO3 melted-:). 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 Dale Boyce Sent: January 27, 2007 12:21 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics of UO3 gas To get atoms (I think you mean molecules) bouncing into things you have to form them first. In order for UO3 gas to exist you first have to input enough energy to vaporize it. Let me set up the calculation, and hopefully a couple of other physicists will do the calculation independently to see if we get the same result. I'll let them look up the inputs. You have two available energy sources. The kinetic energy of the bullet, and the heat of formation from the burning uranium. You have several energy sinks. You have the heat capacity of the uranium and/or oxide. This soaks up a little energy raising the temperature. to the melting point. Then you have to supply a lot energy to melt the material. This is known as the heat of fusion. Note that you also have to replicate these energy sinks for the steel/whatever that gets zapped in the collision. You then have to heat the liquid to the vaporization point (more heat capacity). After that you have to supply the heat of vaporization to form the gas. Now when I plugged in the numbers from my CRC Handbook. I ran out of energy before the UO3 even melted, much less became a gas. Moreover, I believe I used conservative numbers. I overestimated the heat of formation and underestimated the heat of fusion. The heat of fusion of uranium metal is about an order of magnitude greater than the heat of formation of UO3. The heat of formation is as large or larger than the kintic energy of the bullet. Moreover, the heat of fusion of UO3 should be a few times that of uranium metal. I picked 1000 m/sec as the velocity of the round. Probably not too far off. BTW a long time ago I saw a small uranium fire. You get a nice bright sparkel somewhat white,but that still has a noticible yellow cast. The smoke falls instead of rises. This indicates two things. Because of the color the temperature is probably around 1000C. Consistent with it being at or near its melting point temperature. BTW A substance will remain at its melting point temperature until enough energy is added to go through the transition to liquid. Again this energy is substantial. Second the falling smoke indicates cooled particulates. If it was in a vapor phase there would be a glowing plume well up into the blue or hotter color range. Bottom line is the stuff is going to be very hot and hold a lot of energy as heat, but gas isn't physically plausible. Noises Off! Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: "Otto Raabe" Cc: "radsafelist" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof > Dr. Raabe, > > I find this very difficult to believe: > >> Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and >> results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide >> particles. > > How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and > head toward a surface? > > Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart > supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and > Stewart contains no such mass measurements. > > What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, > and where are they documented? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 LNMolino at aol.com Sat Jan 27 17:34:15 2007 From: LNMolino at aol.com (LNMolino at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:34:15 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Message-ID: In a message dated 1/27/2007 10:28:23 A.M. Central Standard Time, radproject at sbcglobal.net writes: NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Was the report otherwise accurate? Was the only reason you refer to it as "sensationalistic" was their omission of the weight in question? Do you really think that john Q has any clue as to the 5-20 pounds you refer to (I'll admit my ignorance as a First Responder as to what would be needed to create a Nuke). Did the "former sausage broker"have the Enriched U regardless of weight? If he did and let's say it was 1 pound and he sold it to the "right" "Bad Guy's" would they not be 1 pound closer to the 5-20 pounds you cite? Is the threat real or not is the ultimate question? Oh, and on top of this you are also dealing with a general public that gets it's nuclear terrorism training from Jack Bauer on "24". Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large 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 rhelbig at california.com Sat Jan 27 18:02:20 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:02:20 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread References: <20070125034548.EVKR20530.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> <45BA5479.9000904@cpeo.org> <01c301c74266$516947a0$48425142@roger1> <45BBDD0A.6080208@cpeo.org> Message-ID: <004301c7426f$d75abe80$48425142@roger1> Can any of you comment upon the following statement I received in a reply today I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources. Thank you. Roger Helbig From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Sat Jan 27 18:23:13 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:23:13 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread In-Reply-To: <004301c7426f$d75abe80$48425142@roger1> Message-ID: Roger When the DU aerosol is formed it will attach to any particles that are in the air. These will then be distributed "around the world". 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 Roger Helbig Sent: January 27, 2007 4:02 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread Can any of you comment upon the following statement I received in a reply today I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources. Thank you. Roger Helbig _______________________________________________ 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 Efforrer at aol.com Sat Jan 27 20:26:16 2007 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:26:16 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: Something to take into consideration is that the FDG used for PET scans is very hot but decays away quickly (2 hr t1/2). Proper use of syringe shields and shielded containers is vital in such a facility. From lars.ingeman at telia.com Sat Jan 27 20:33:13 2007 From: lars.ingeman at telia.com (Lars Persson) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:33:13 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Chronology of Nuclear physics, nuclear techniques and nuclea energy Message-ID: If anyone knows of a good reference pls tell me. If you have a chronology in electronic form or on a website even better. It is intended for the website of the Swedish environmentalist for Nuclear Energy - www.mfk.se. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 From lars.ingeman at telia.com Sat Jan 27 20:38:58 2007 From: lars.ingeman at telia.com (Lars Persson) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:38:58 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Chronology of Nuclear physics, nuclear techniques and nuclea energy Message-ID: If anyone knows of a good reference pls tell me. If you have a chronology in electronic form or on a website even better. It is intended for the website of the Swedish environmentalist for Nuclear Energy - www.mfk.nu. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 _______________________________________________ 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 royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 03:23:07 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:23:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk Message-ID: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into the country. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the following article is true, how would one with limited means, such as the researchers you quoted, working under both the embargo and Sadam's regime, sort out the results of human birth defects caused by malnutrition (lack of Folic acid) from the birth defects cased by a potential myriad of environmental pollutants? The short answer is that they couldn't sort one cause of birth defects from the other, and more likely "if" there really was a statistically significant increase in birth defects it most certainly would have been the result of something that effected the greatest number of people, i.e. malnutrition. Roy Herren ============================================================= Folic acid reduces cleft lip riskBy ANTHONY ROTUNNO WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- Women in their first trimester of pregnancy can significantly reduce their baby's risk of developing a cleft lip by taking regular folic acid supplements, according to a study released Friday by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Senior NIEHS investigator Dr. Allen J. Wilcox, who designed and wrote the population-based study, said his results showed that taking .4 milligrams of folic acid a day can reduce the risk of isolated cleft lip by 40 percent. "We already know that (taking) folic acid helps prevent neural tube defects," Wilcox said. "Now cleft lip is the second major birth defect that can be prevented." Wilcox said that a cleft lip forms prior to a cleft palate, and although the two defects may both emerge, they develop independent of one another. His study did not conclude if folic acid was effective in reducing the risk of a cleft palate in infants. Folic acid -- a B vitamin found in green leafy vegetables, citrus fruits and certain dairy products -- was first recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1992 to effectively reduce the rate of babies born with neural tube defects like spina bifida and anencephaly. According to the NIEHS study, women with a folate-rich diet who also took daily vitamin supplements were also those with the least risk of having a baby with a cleft lip. "There is evidence that a good diet is generally beneficial," Wilcox said. "Many young women's diets may not be nutritious. They could benefit the most from taking multivitamins with folic acid in them." Janis Biermann, senior vice president of education and health promotion at the March of Dimes -- a not for profit organization that works to prevent birth defects and premature births in infants -- said that many women don't like to hear information on how to have a healthy baby until they are ready to have one themselves. In a March of Dimes-Gallup poll conducted in the fall of 2006, only three in 10 women ages 18-34 reported taking a multivitamin on a daily basis. Biermann said that this statistic is discouraging knowing how beneficial folic acid can be during pregnancy. "One of the simplest things for a woman to do is take a multivitamin with folic acid every day," she said. "Why not do it?" According to a study released earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the folate levels in U.S. women of childbearing age decreased by 16 percent between 1999 and 2004. Wilcox said that recent dietary fads and poor eating habits probably contributed to this decline. He said that women who have a chance of getting pregnant need to be especially attentive to what they are eating. "What your mother says is actually true," Wilcox said. "You should always eat your vegetables." Wilcox conducted his study in Norway, which has one of the highest rates of babies born with lip clefts and does not fortify its food with folic acid. He said that although food fortification can increase a person's source of the B vitamin, it is not a cure-all when it comes to providing the recommended amounts of folic acid. "The problem with food fortification is that it doesn't reach everybody," Wilcox said, citing the CDC study to show the decline in folate levels in the United States, which has been fortifying its food with folic acid for almost 10 years. Wilcox said that the rate of babies born with lip clefts tends to be higher in European populations, but that it really doesn't vary significantly around the world. According to the March of Dimes, 4,200 American babies are born with a cleft lip each year. Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved. --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 28 07:23:15 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:23:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a.. Uranium in India In-Reply-To: <000001c74249$2cb25900$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <312192.87101.qm@web25705.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Friends, In India, we had a few newsstories related to uranium, some of them led to serious dicussion in the media.All except two cases finally turned out to be depleted uranium in the form of shielding from old medical equipment such as linear accelerators and cobalt-60 machines;later the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board initiated a procedure to keep track of such material. In one instance, a hospital in Mumbai imported used medical accelerators (available cheap in som countries). They decided not to install them possibly because of stringent regulatory requirements. They did not know that their equipment contained DU. ( Some models of accelerators contain about 125 kg of DU). They sold it as scrap. The buyers were impressed by the weight of a few pieces on which there were clear inscriptions stating that they are made up of DU. The problem started when they tried to sell it clandestinely Police who shadowed them arrested them. To many, any material ending with "ium" is radioactive and dangerous!. Police got the material analyzed. The story got more coverage in the media as the" thieves" were arrested near Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), the premier nuclear reearch labs in India.Press went to town with the idea that the uranium must have come from BARC. Police hoped to get some mileage; but were disheartened when the mateial turned out to be after all not that harmful! A local TV channel aired the story several times, I was interviewed on two occasions. The reporter was very unhappy when her story turned out to be less spicy! On another occasion, a person was arrested for trying to sell some metallic powder which contained some traces of uranium. The amount was too trivial but the fact that the sample containd a few ppm of uranium gave the story some news value. Again the police was not amused when they were told that any material may contain some uranium! Stories on illicit trafficking of radioactive material/uranium have very interesting possibilities! Regards K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D (Formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, India) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy GN 18, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094, INDIA 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 2 5486081(O) 91+22 2 7706048(R) 9869016206 ( Mobile) Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: Dear Dan, Thank you for your well founded message on this topic! You remind me that I had intended to contact you for a long time, especially because of your "leoben" e-mail address which was surprising. I may ask you to forgive me for not having done it until now, but my excuses are: I have been last year away from Vienna for more than half of the year, mostly in Poland, but as well in Lithuania, in Oxford, at NPL in London, Bratislava and most recently in Lund, Sweden. Another excuse is that just before the turn of the year my computer refused to follow my commands and a very large number of data, including RADSAFE-messages was lost. Believe me, I burst into laughter, when I read that you did not consult "Kronen-Zeitung"! This is a proof of your knowledge about Austria! I have not time enough to follow the most "important" newspapers, but I sometimes question the scientific credibility of both "Presse" and "Standard", because they usually simply reprint what has come in from press agencies. Regarding the probability of the story being correct: Maybe the attempt of somebody to sell "nuclear grade uranium" has a 5% of being correct. The probability that those 100 g or whatsoever were really nuclear grade, not to talk about the chemical form, because metallic uranium is pyrophore and will incinerate on contact with air have to be questioned!!!!! The story is getting into more and more unbelievable speculations and therefore it should be regarded more than 90% as unconfirmed speculations. On a personal question I will contact you separately. Best wishes, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 19:51 An: 'Franz Sch?nhofer' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Lieber Franz, Stewart, RADSAFErs: OK! Here's the skeptic in me! I once tracked these types of stories in detail, and found that the media almost always had it wrong. There was an article some years back about an Indian smuggling operation of so called "weapons grade" material that was being hidden in "Yellow Cakes" to cross the border. I laughed so hard that I cried! In the event that there are a couple of you on the list that doesn't know what "yellowcake" is, then perhaps you should find another occupation. For a period of one year while in Leoben (that's in Austria, by the way), I followed in detail all environmental and nuclear stories in 6 newspapers in Europe including: Deutche Zeitung, Die Presse, Der Standard, S?ddeutche Zeitung, Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, and the Herald Tribune. (Note to Franz: I did not include the Kronen Zeitung!) Only the Z?rcher had systematically accurate initial reports, and their retractions of incorrect stories were easy to find. I cannot say that for any of the other papers who were clearly driving an editorial agenda and bias. I'm not saying that the report from Georgia is wrong, but I have no way to "verify" the report. From past experience, I'd give it a 5% chance or less of being materially correct. Unfortunately, that 5% could potentially kill. Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque (Formerly Vienna and Leoben) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:51 To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- Now you can have your favourite RSS headlines come to you with the all new Yahoo! Mail. From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 10:55:54 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:55:54 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough folate in their diet. Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > James, > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > the country.... From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 12:01:28 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:01:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pilgrim nuclear plant's risks, benefits debated Message-ID: <45BC9EA8.26524.5A55BB@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Pilgrim nuclear plant's risks, benefits debated With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look Nuclear plant faces action after worker contaminated Russia committed to Iran nuclear plant launch Siberian city poses nuclear black-market threat Britian University students to be screened amid nuclear fears Nuclear power may get boost - Power providers want federal backing Downwinders mark nuclear test day ================================= Pilgrim nuclear plant's risks, benefits debated Boston Globe Jan 28 - At a public forum Wednesday in Plymouth, critics told federal regulators that the Pilgrim nuclear power plant poses health and safety risks that must be considered in deciding whether to let the plant operate an additional 20 years. Supporters emphasized what they called the important role Pilgrim plays in meeting the region's energy needs. Beyond security concerns, critics of relicensing also contended that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 's environmental impact study minimizes the health risks of radioactive releases from the plant. A draft of the study -- prepared by NRC professional staff and reviewed by a private consultant -- concluded that environmental impacts from Pilgrim were minimal, and that replacing Pilgrim's energy by alternate means such as coal-burning electric generations would be much worse for the environment. The study said the only impacts that rose to the level of "moderate" were on winter flounder and rainbow smelt. It also said warm water released by Pilgrim's cooling system would have a "small to moderate" effect on other maritime species. Pine duBois of the Kingston-based Jones River Watershed Association said local fisheries were in "severe decline" and that Pilgrim needs to modify its water intake structure to reduce the number of flounder, smelt, and other fish it kills. DuBois also said the plant's "continued daily discharge of superheated water" is causing a general rise in the bay's temperature and needs attention. "We can't delay that attention." But Ben Morgan , a Chatham fish hatchery owner, backed a mitigation effort by Pilgrim. He said an ongoing program to release hatchery- spawned flounder into the bay is succeeding in replacing lost winter flounder. Supporters of relicensing praised Pilgrim's "clean, low-cost reliable energy," in the words of Joyce McMahon , spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance , and contended that Pilgrim's continued operation was necessary to meet the region's growing energy needs. Peter Forman , president of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce and a former state legislator, described Pilgrim "as an economic pillar for the South Shore" in a statement released by McMahon. Forman said that without Pilgrim, the high cost of energy would discourage investment in the region. Supporters also praised Pilgrim's safety record. Arthur Gast , a former member of the Plymouth Nuclear Matters Committee , said Pilgrim operates "quietly and safely" and has regularly received NRC's highest safety rating in annual safety reviews. But Rebecca Chin of Duxbury's Nuclear Matters Advisory Committee , a town-appointed panel, said NRC staff "mischaracterized" a study of increased cancer incidences in Southeast Massachusetts published by the state Department of Public Health in 1990 . Chin said more recent studies established the increased risks of an aging population's susceptibility to radiation. In its environmental impact statement, NRC staff cited the conclusions of a peer review board that evaluated the state's cancer study and concluded there was no causal relationship between Pilgrim and area cancer rates. NRC staff said they will accept written comments from the public on the environmental study e-mailed to PilgrimEIS at nrc.gov until Feb. 28. The final report is due in July . The NRC will be in Plymouth again Tuesday to present the results of a safety inspection of Pilgrim. The public meeting takes place at 6:30 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn at 4 Home Depot Drive , off Long Pond Road . --------------- With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look Virginia May/Associated Press Jan 28 - FEW subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum?s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular, and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well intentioned, who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort. And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda - and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe?s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland. At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: unlike coal, oil, natural gas, or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings. "It has put nuclear back into the mix," said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. "We?re seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits." But being in the mix does not mean nuclear energy will shove aside fossil fuels any time soon. In a way, the revival of interest in nuclear power illustrates the lack of palatable choices to combat global warming. Renewable energy, while growing steadily, has limitations. Windmills don?t turn when the wind isn?t blowing; solar power and geothermal energy are not yet economical enough; hydroelectric dams can be disruptive themselves. That leaves nuclear power as a "clean" alternative to fossil fuels. It already generates one-sixth of the world?s electricity, but it fell out of favor in the West two decades ago after the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents. The previous German government, in fact, pledged to shut down its last nuclear power station by 2022. But now Germany has also committed to deep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the next decade, and its new chancellor, Angela Merkel, rekindled the debate over nuclear energy by saying, "We should consider what consequences it will have if we shut off our nuclear power plants." That comment was a reference to Europe?s increasing vulnerability as an importer of foreign fossil fuels. Just as the United States worries about disruptions in the supply of Middle East oil, Europe worries about Russia?s penchant for using its gas and oil pipelines as a political weapon. In a recent report, Deutsche Bank declared that Germany?s energy policy was untenable. "Far from reducing carbon emissions and securing future energy supplies," it concluded, "current policies would increase both emissions and Germany?s dependence on foreign gas imports." Even in the United States, which has not ordered cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, there are more voices in favor of building nuclear plants. "The question is, how do we produce enough electricity?" said James E. Rogers, the chief executive of Duke Energy Corporation, a major energy supplier. "We need to put our money on nuclear." Critics point out that nuclear reactors are astronomically expensive, and take a decade or more to build, even if environmental groups fail to block construction altogether. Given the entrenched opposition in parts of Western Europe and America, some experts say that if the world does turn to nuclear power, most of the new plants will be in China, India and other developing countries. They also point out that the issue of security cuts both ways. Building more plants may reduce a country?s reliance on imported oil and gas, but it also creates more targets for terrorist attacks. And there is the nuclear fuel cycle: North Korea and other countries are already suspected of diverting enriched uranium to try to make nuclear weapons. Those dangers would only multiply with an increase in the global demand for nuclear power. John P. Holdren, the director of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that if current economic predictions held, nuclear energy would have to generate one-third of the world?s electricity by 2100 to curb the rise in carbon dioxide emissions. That would require a tenfold increase in the number of plants, to more than 3,000. To manage such a risk, Mr. Holdren said, the world would need a radically new regime for policing nuclear technology. One option would be international supervision of all nuclear plants. But is that realistic? Could all countries be treated equally? Right now, the United Nations is demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium, to forestall the possibility that it might be used for a weapons program. It would be, at the least, awkward for European countries to plunge back into nuclear energy at the same time that European diplomats are demanding that the Iranians scale back their nuclear ambitions. With so many downsides, even advocates acknowledge that nuclear power should play only a partial role in the energy mix - and then only for an interim period, until it is replaced by newer technologies. Of course, there is another alternative: energy efficiency. But under the snow-capped peaks of Davos, the idea of simply turning down the thermostat has not yet caught on. ------------------- Nuclear plant faces action after worker contaminated Sunday Herald Jan 28 - THE DOUNREAY nuclear complex is facing legal action for failing to store radioactive waste safely after an incident in which a worker was contaminated with plutonium. The government's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate(NII)hasservedtwo improvement notices on the plant's operator, the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), obliging it to remedy the problem. Inspectors are also considering sending a report to the procurator fiscal. A worker was found to have accidentally inhaled plutonium while decommissioninganoldfuel-processing laboratoryonJanuary 12 last year. Subsequentinvestigationsuncovered half a dozen contaminated lead bricks left on a shelf nearby. According to one of the notices issued by the NII, the bricks were stored "withoutadequate levels of containment". They also lacked "adequate means of physicalprotection"and"anyidentification by means of marking or labelling". The other legal notice alleges that inadequate safety records were kept. Dounreay has been given until April 6 to comply with both notices and could be fined if it fails to do so. According to Dounreay's spokesman, Colin Punler, the plan had been to reuse the bricks but the project for which they were intended had been shelved. "We have very good procedures for dealing with items with significant amounts of radioactivity," he said. "But this revealed gaps in the way we dealt with items with small amounts of radioactivity. We are now fixing those gaps and confident of complying with the requirements laid down by the regulator." News of the latest legal action comes after it was confirmed that Dounreay is to be prosecuted for allowing hundreds of thousands of radioactive particles to leak into the sea and on to local beaches before 1984. The UKAEA has been cited to appear in court in Wick on February 6. Meanwhile, theSundayHerald revealed last week that decommissioning work at Dounreay was threatened with delaysandjob losses because of a government financial crisis. The plant could suffer major cuts in its budget for 2007-08 because of losses made by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the state agency that funds Dounreay. --------------- Russia committed to Iran nuclear plant launch TEHRAN (AFP) - Visiting Russian security chief Igor Ivanov said that Moscow is committed to launching Iran's first nuclear power plant on schedule in September, the official IRNA news agency reported. "Russia is determined and serious in fulfilling its obligation to finish Bushehr plant on the scheduled date," Ivanov was quoted as saying Sunday after meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. In September 2006, Russia and Iran signed an agreement setting September this year as the deadline for the launch of the Russian- built Bushehr nuclear power station which lies on the Gulf coast in southwestern Iran. The plant will actually produce electricity from November 2007, and the nuclear fuel for the plant is to be delivered no later than March. Ivanov, the Russian Security Council secretary, is also due to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and national security chief and top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. He is expected to hold a press conference with his Iranian counterpart later. Russia supports Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology but voted for a UN Security Council resolution in December that imposes sanctions on Tehran over its repeated refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. ---------------- Siberian city poses nuclear black-market threat MOSCOW (AP) Jan 28 -- Novosibirsk is located in the depths of Siberia, but despite the remoteness it's one of Russia's main areas for nuclear activity and a cause of concern for those worried about nuclear materials falling into terrorists' hands. The concerns about Russia's third-largest city rose to the forefront last week after officials in the former Soviet republic of Georgia announced the arrest of a Russian for allegedly trying to sell weapons-grade uranium to an undercover agent. The man, who was arrested last year, initially told his interrogators the uranium came from Novosibirsk, 1,600 miles east of Moscow, Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili told The Associated Press on Saturday. He later recanted his statement, but Georgian authorities sent a letter to Russia's Federal Security Service inquiring about the possible link to Novosibirsk, Utiashvili said. The agency declined to comment Saturday. A top Russian science official has said the sample of the alleged contraband uranium provided by Georgia was too small for analysis that could determine its origin. The episode appeared to cast doubt on Russia's ability to halt the black-market trade in nuclear materials and renewed concern about security at Russia's array of nuclear facilities. The Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant is one of Russia's main facilities for producing enriched uranium both for use in nuclear reactors and in the higher concentration that could be used to make an atomic bomb. In addition, highly enriched uranium has been shipped into Novosibirsk in recent years from former Soviet bloc countries, including Poland and Romania. Under a program backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the uranium is to be blended down into lower concentrations. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration funded a program to improve security at the Novosibirsk plant as part of a wider initiative to boost security at facilities throughout Russia. The NNSA says the Novosibirsk plant completed its upgrade in late 2004. However, security apparently was lax in Novosibirsk for years before that. In 2002, the head of the agency that was then responsible for security at nuclear facilities admitted that weapons-grade nuclear material had disappeared from Russian facilities. "Most often, these instances are connected with factories preparing fuel" including Novosibirsk's, the official, Yuri Vishnyevsky, said at the time. Novosibirsk was also the site of the 1997 arrest of two men who officials said intended to smuggle some 11 pounds of enriched uranium to Pakistan or China. That uranium reportedly was stolen from a plant in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Security at Russia's nuclear facilities was seen as deteriorating rapidly in the early years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when economic hardships made black-market activities increasingly widespread and as political chaos left official lines of command and supervision shaky. The U.S.-based organization Nuclear Threat Initiative said in a report last year that Russia remains the prime country of concern for contraband nuclear material. "Russia has the world's largest stockpiles of both nuclear weapons and the materials to make them, scattered among hundreds of buildings and bunkers at scores of sites. Over the past 15 years security for those stockpiles has improved from poor to moderate, but there remain immense threats those security systems must confront," the NTI said. ------------------ Britian University students to be screened amid nuclear fears BRITAIN may force foreign postgraduates studying nuclear physics or biochemistry to undergo tough new security checks amid fears they could use their knowledge to make nuclear weapons. Students from outside the European Union face screening, regardless of their home country, under a government plan revealed in The Observer newspaper. An unnamed Foreign Office source said students' visa applications would be blocked if they were thought to be risky following security checks into why they were coming to Britain and what they studied before. "We do not want students who come to the UK to gain knowledge going home and using it as part of a nuclear weapons program," the official told the paper. "Overseas students from outside the EU who are pursuing courses will have to go through proper security vetting to check their credentials." Subjects to be targeted include physics, metallurgy, microbiology, biophysics and electrical, chemical and mechanical engineering in an overhaul of the present voluntary vetting scheme, where some universities agree to report students who arouse suspicion. Association of Heads of University Administration chairman David Allen welcomed the proposal but warned British Universities could lose students to other countries as a result. "We don't want students to go to the US or Australia while they are waiting to hear from the UK," he told the Research Fortnight newspaper. -------------- Nuclear power may get boost - Power providers want federal backing WASHINGTON - The Dallas Morning News Jan 28 - To kick-start the U.S. nuclear power industry, the federal government is preparing to spend billions of dollars to prove a point to Wall Street. Proponents of nuclear power are banking on federal support to show investors that revamped licensing procedures and new technology won't result in mammoth cost overruns that defined the last era of nuclear plant construction. Whether that support materializes may make the difference between a future of growth or stagnation for nuclear power, which now provides 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. Energy companies have announced their interest in building as many as 30 new reactors, including at least six in Texas. Dallas-based TXU Corp. alone says it may construct six new reactors at three sites. But most energy executives remain cautious publicly about their prospects. Bond agencies have already warned that companies taking on the multibillion-dollar risk of a new plant could put their credit ratings at risk. Investors generally are interested in shorter-term projects. Even the strongest supporters of nuclear power agree that the industry's goals hinge on the government's financial support to show that new plants can get built on time and on budget. "The industry has been dormant for so many years," said Keith McCoy, vice presi dent of resources and environmental policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "In order to move nuclear energy back to a level of where we should be, you're going to need some incentives." Once promoted as a limitless source of low-cost electricity, nuclear plants would be derided as boondoggles on the backs of taxpayers and consumers. Numerous plants went off schedule and over budget. TXU's Comanche Peak power plant took two decades to build. Its original estimate: less than $1 billion. The final: $11 billion. Dozens of nuclear construction projects were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s. No new reactors have been ordered since before the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island that raised government scrutiny and scared off much of the public. But as other nations moved forward with new construction, U.S. lawmakers reawakened to the idea of new plants. Environmental concerns throughout the 1990s helped give the industry new momentum. Soaring oil and gas prices in recent years, along with worries about global warming, have allowed the nuclear industry to market itself as a stable source of emissions-free power. The federal government has already committed $6 billion in tax credits for the first companies to build new plants. The Department of Energy has also promised $260 million to offset plant design and application costs with NuStart, a consortium of nuclear operators aiming to build new plants. Critics and supporters agree that two of the most critical issues have yet to be resolved. Storing the radioactive waste produced at nuclear plants has shown few signs of resolution, as Nevada lawmakers block development of the Yucca Mountain Repository. Spent fuel remains at nuclear reactor sites across the country. "The industry and investors need to see progress on waste," said Christine Tezak, a policy analyst at Stanford Group Co. in Washington. With Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada as the new Senate majority leader, "we may need to adjust our definition of progress." Companies are also waiting to see how the Bush administration proposes to fund the $2 billion in loan guarantees that the 2005 energy bill has authorized. --------------- Downwinders mark nuclear test day Idaho Statesman Jan 28 - On Friday afternoon, Tona Henderson and J Truman wandered through the rows of the Emmett cemetery, stopping at one headstone: that of Paul Cooper, an Army veteran who died in 1978 from leukemia he said was caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear tests. Then Henderson turned and looked a few rows down and found another familiar name: Sheri Garmon, her friend and fellow activist who brought national attention to the plight of Idaho's downwinders before succumbing to cancer herself in September 2005. "She wouldn't have necessarily been dead if we had listened to what Paul Cooper had said in 1977," a tearful Henderson said. On Saturday, she and dozens of other Idaho downwinders gathered at the Idaho Historical Museum to share their stories and to try to make sure the past's lessons aren't forgotten as the U.S. government pushes to test new weapons at the Nevada Test Site. The conference of downwinders marked the 56th anniversary of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, whose fallout has been linked to cancer and other illnesses in thousands of Americans living downwind of the site. Twenty-one counties in Utah, Nevada and Arizona are covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which makes cancer victims and their survivors from those counties eligible for $50,000 in "compassionate payments." Four Idaho counties were among the top five counties in the country for fallout from radioactive iodine-131, according to a 1997 National Cancer Institute study. Iodine-131 can cause thyroid cancer. The 50 people who gathered Saturday also came to voice their opposition to the Divine Strake test - what many fear is the beginning of another round of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site. The U.S. government wants to test a 700-ton underground explosive later this year that would reportedly be able to destroy underground military compounds. But activists fear Divine Strake could send fallout still lingering at the site back into the air. "We are not going to allow another generation of us to be created," Truman said. A public meeting in Boise about Divine Strake is set for today. On Saturday, Gov. Butch Otter issued a proclamation designating Saturday as Downwinders Day of Remembrance. Those attending Saturday's event said they are hopeful they will see support for their cause from local and state officials. Boise's Charlie Smith, an activist for awareness about the environmental causes of cancer, funded the conference. Her son Trevor, 17, was diagnosed with a medulablastoma brain tumor on Nov. 15, 2002 when the family was living in McCall. Through her own research, Smith is convinced that her son's cancer could have been caused by cyanide mining or even fallout from the Hanford Site nuclear reactors. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 12:01:39 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:01:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Blair Backs Nuclear Power to Tackle Climate, Energy Security Message-ID: <45BC9EB3.13282.5A7CDB@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Blair Backs Nuclear Power to Tackle Climate, Energy Security Nuclear energy is back on Davos agenda Nuclear agency studies options for KC plant "Hot" patients setting off radiation alarms Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms Radiation board reviews plan for recycling Oklahoma waste =========================================== Blair Backs Nuclear Power to Tackle Climate, Energy Security Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. needs nuclear power to meet its twin challenges of securing energy supplies and reducing emissions of gases that cause global warming, Prime Minister Tony Blair said. ``I don't think we will tackle climate change'' and energy security ``effectively unless nuclear power is part of it,'' Blair said in Davos, Switzerland, where he's attending the World Economic Forum. The U.K. government is likely to approve a new generation of nuclear power stations in coming months as the country attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and secure alternatives to fading North Sea oil and gas reserves. ``We are going to move from self sufficiency in gas to importing 90 percent of it,'' he said. Faced with that reality and the need to reduce carbon emissions he said, ``how are we going to do that without nuclear being part of this mix?'' Blair said a new ``climate change bill in the next few weeks'' will allow ``individuals and businesses to help'' reduce emissions. New technology would help improve nuclear power, he said. In a reference to non-government organizations that say nuclear power is unsafe, he said ``pressure groups have an important role to play but leaders'' must take decisions. ------------------ Nuclear energy is back on Davos agenda DAVOS, Switzerland Int. Herald Tribune Jan 26: Few subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum's annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well- intentioned who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort. And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda here - and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe's leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland. At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb emissions of carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: Unlike coal, oil, natural gas or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings. "It has put nuclear back into the mix," said Daniel Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. "We're seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits." But being in the mix does not mean nuclear energy will shove aside fossil fuels any time soon. Today in Europe Russians work on their image at Davos Officials change tactics on trade negotiations Small screens, new programs Renewable energy, while growing steadily, has limitations: Windmills don't turn when the wind isn't blowing, geothermal energy is not yet economical enough, and hydroelectric dams can be disruptive themselves. That leaves nuclear power as a "clean" alternative to fossil fuels. It already generates one-sixth of the world's electricity, but it fell out of favor in the West two decades ago after accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The previous German government, in fact, pledged to shut down its last nuclear power station by 2022. But now Germany has also committed itself to deep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decade, and its new chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently rekindled the debate over nuclear energy when she said, "We should consider what consequences it will have if we shut off our nuclear power plants." That comment was a reference to Europe's increasing vulnerability as an importer of foreign fossil fuels. Just as the United States worries about disruptions in the supply of Middle East oil, Europe worries about Rssia's penchant for using its gas and oil pipelines as a political weapon. Even in the United States, which has not ordered cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, there are more voices in favor of building nuclear plants. Critics point out that nuclear reactors are astronomically expensive, and take a decade or more to build, even if environmental groups fail to block construction. Given the entrenched opposition in parts of Western Europe and America, some experts say that if the world does turn to nuclear power, most of the new plants will be in China, India and other developing countries. They also point out that the issue of security cuts both ways. Building more plants may reduce a country's reliance on imported oil and gas, but it also creates more targets for terrorist attacks. And there is the nuclear fuel cycle: North Korea and other countries are already suspected of diverting enriched uranium to try to make nuclear weapons. Those dangers would only multiply with an increase in the global demand for nuclear power. John Holdren, the director of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that if current economic predictions held, nuclear energy would have to generate one-third of the world's electricity by 2100 if it were used to curb the rise in carbon dioxide emissions. That would require a tenfold increase in the number of plants, to more than 3,000. To manage such a risk, Holdren said, the world would need a radically new regime for policing nuclear technology. One option would be international supervision of all nuclear plants. But is that realistic? Could all countries be treated equally? The United Nations is now demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium to forestall the possibility that it might be used for weapons. It would be, at the least, awkward for European countries to plunge back into nuclear energy at the same time that European diplomats are demanding that the Iranians scale back their nuclear ambitions. Of course, there is another alternative: energy efficiency. But under the snow-capped peaks of Davos, the idea of simply turning down the thermostat has not yet caught on. ------------------ Nuclear agency studies options for KC plant The Kansas City Star Jan 27 - The federal agency in charge of the nuclear weapons parts plant at the Bannister Federal Complex has begun searching for a replacement facility. A decision is expected in April. The National Nuclear Security Administration is in the early stages of a "transformation planning process" that is expected to lead to a smaller, more efficient manufacturing plant to be completed by 2010 and fully operational by 2012. "The NNSA is transforming all of its infrastructure, not just here, but at all eight facilities around the country," said Mark Holocek, deputy site manager. The new plant is expected to be located on either the existing Bannister property in south Kansas City or a greenfield site somewhere in the metropolitan area. The current Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies plant employs about 2,600 people and manufactures nonradioactive parts for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new facility is expected to employ about 2,000 people and save the NNSA $100 million. Local NNSA officials recently received permission to continue planning for a new facility in the area. There had been some concern the operation might be relocated to one of the seven other nuclear weapons facilities the NNSA operates around the country. The plant contributes significantly to the local economy. It had a $193 million payroll last year and purchased $41.9 million in goods from Missouri businesses and $15 million from Kansas businesses, according to the NNSA. The bulk of the employees, 1,792, lived in Missouri. The NNSA is now working to determine which options to pursue for the plant?s future, Holocek said. The building options are renovating the west side of the existing Bannister Federal Complex, building a new facility on the Bannister property, or a greenfield lease in the Kansas City area. The agency must also determine whether it wants to seek funding to build the plant itself or have the General Services Administration build a plant and lease it to the NNSA. Should the GSA be chosen to manage the project, congressional approval would be expected in October and a development contract would be awarded in spring 2008. --------------- "Hot" patients setting off radiation alarms MIAMI (Reuters) - When 75,000 football fans pack into Dolphin Stadium in Miami for the Super Bowl on February 4, at least a few may want to carry notes from their doctors explaining why they're radioactive enough to set off "dirty bomb" alarms. With the rising use of radioisotopes in medicine and the growing use of radiation detectors in a security-conscious nation, patients are triggering alarms in places where they may not even realize they're being scanned, doctors and security officials say. Nearly 60,000 people a day in the United States undergo treatment or tests that leave tiny amounts of radioactive material in their bodies, according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. It is not enough to hurt them or anyone else, but it is enough to trigger radiation alarms for up to three months. Since the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has distributed more than 12,000 hand-held radiation detectors, mainly to Customs and Border Protection agents at airports, seaports and border crossings. Sensors are also used at government buildings and at large public events like the Super Bowl that are considered potential terrorist targets. At the annual Christmas tree-lighting party in New York City's Rockefeller Center in November, police pulled six people aside in the crowd and asked them why they had tripped sensors. "All six had recently had medical treatments with radioisotopes in their bodies," Richard Falkenrath, the city's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, told a Republican governors' meeting in Miami recently. "That happens all the time." Radioisotopes are commonly used to diagnose and treat certain cancers and thyroid disorders, to analyze heart function, or to scan bones and lungs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission first recommended in 2003 that doctors warn patients they may set off alarms after being injected or implanted with radioisotopes. That came after police stopped a bus that set off a radiation detector in a New York City tunnel. They found one of the passengers had recently undergone thyroid treatment with radioiodine. In August, the British Medical Journal described the case of a very embarrassed 46-year-old Briton who set off the sensors at Orlando airport in Florida six weeks after having radioiodine treatment for a thyroid condition. He was detained, strip-searched and sniffed by police dogs before eventually being released, the journal said in its "Lesson of the Week" section. "I'M HOT!" Workers in the nuclear industry have dealt with the problem for years. Ken Clark, a spokesman in Atlanta for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has had a treadmill stress test every two years since undergoing bypass surgery 23 years ago. His doctor injects him with a tiny amount of radioactive thallium, makes him run on a treadmill and then uses a gamma ray camera to monitor blood flow in his heart. That can leave him slightly radioactive for up to 30 days and Clark knows to carry a note from his doctor during that time, especially if he visits nuclear power plants. "I have in the past had one of the health physicists bring a little hand-held survey meter and hold it up to my chest and lo and behold, I'm hot!" Clark said. "You just don't let people in and out of places when they're emitting some sort of radioactivity," he added. The length of time patients give off enough radiation to set off alarms varies. For some scans, like the FDG-PET scans often used to screen for cancer, it's less than 24 hours. For thyroid treatment with radioiodine, it can be as long as 95 days, the Society of Nuclear Medicine said. Dr. Henry Royal, a past president of the society who practices at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, gives patients who plan to travel cards detailing what radionuclides were used and how much was given. The cards have a 24-hour phone number police can call to confirm the treatment, "so if they're stopped, hopefully they can get the problem solved more efficiently," Royal said. Nobody keeps good data on how often patients get stopped. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Zachary Mann said it's relatively infrequent at airports, and that passengers who set off hand-held sensors are typically escorted to a private office for questioning that clears up the matter. If there's doubt, a more sophisticated device is used to identify the type of radiation, said Mann, who once set off another agent's portable detector after a treadmill test. There were nearly 20 million nuclear medical procedures performed in the United States in 2005, up 15 percent from four years earlier, so the number of people who could potentially be mistaken for terrorists is enormous. "We hope that people who have radiation detectors are aware of the problem ... and that they treat people with respect," Royal said. ----------------- Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms The Port Of Palm Beach was evacuated for a little over an hour Friday after a woman accidently set off radiation detection alarms, Riviera Beach spokeswoman Rossanne Brown said. Brown told WPBF-TV that sensors at the port had detected trace amounts of radiation emitting from the woman around 12:40 p.m. Friday. Officials said the woman is an employee at the port and when she came onto the property, she set off radiation alarms customs officers wear. According to Brown, the woman was isolated, interviewed and deemed not to be a threat. Brown told WPBF that the woman was released after port officials deemed the cause of the alarm triggering was due to the her recently having undergone radiation treatments for cancer. The port was reopened around 2 p.m. Friday. --------------- Radiation board reviews plan for recycling Oklahoma waste The Sierra Club has appealed the project, but others insist it poses no danger to people BLANDING The Salt Lake Tribune Jan 27 - A southeastern Utah uranium plant adapted to hard times for more than a decade by eking yellowcake out of the waste produced by other metal mills. But International Uranium Corp.'s (IUC) latest request to use tailings as raw materials came under fire Friday as the Utah Radiation Control Board reviewed a request to recycle 32,000 tons of waste from an Oklahoma metals plant cleanup. The yellowcake uranium would be recycled from the Oklahoma waste at IUC's controversial White Mesa mill, just south of Blanding. State regulators OK'd the plan in June, but the Glen Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club appealed, triggering the radiation board's review. In a daylong hearing, attorneys for the Sierra Club said the Oklahoma waste belongs in a landfill for hazardous or radioactive waste. The high concentration of contaminants like radium and heavy metals that would be dumped in tailings ponds behind the Blanding mill would pose a threat, they said. Their arguments go to a longtime criticism of the White Mesa plant - that recycling yellowcake from waste is "sham disposal," a cheap way to get rid of waste, as opposed to a method for selling the uranium extracted from the waste. The radiation board decided to delay a decision on the Oklahoma waste. They want to be confident the waste won't contaminate the environment and put people at risk. "Even though there's no evidence of contamination right now, it's something we need to pay attention to," said Joette Langianese, a Grand County commissioner and member of the board. Past tests have showed chemicals have leaked from the site, but it is not clear if IUC was responsible. There also is no proof that putting the Oklahoma waste in the tailings pond will contaminate the environment. Some board members described a dilemma: There's no proof of groundwater contamination now, but because the tailings ponds are 27 years old and built with outdated technology, problems might occur. "There is no evidence that anybody has ever been harmed by the activity at the White Mesa mill in 27 years," said Michael Zody, an attorney for IUC. This is the first time the board has been asked to consider a shipment of these "alternative feed materials" since the state assumed oversight of mills from the federal government more than two years ago 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jan 28 12:22:24 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:22:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Causes of neural tube defects and their possible prevention In-Reply-To: References: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070128101206.009f0b70@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 28 James Salsman wrote: "Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough folate in their diet." Yes: "presumably". This qualifier undercuts everything else you said, James. It is common knowledge that at least in the United States people in general do not eat a proper diet, and in particular they do not eat enough fruits and vegetables. "The exact cause of spina bifida remains a mystery. No one knows what disrupts complete closure of the neural tube, causing a malformation to develop. Scientists suspect genetic, nutritional, and environmental factors play a role. Research studies indicate that insufficient intake of folic acid - a common B vitamin - in the mother's diet is a key factor in causing spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Prenatal vitamins that are prescribed for the pregnant mother typically contain folic acid as well as other vitamins." This is from a Spina Bifida Fact Sheet available at . The fact sheet recommends foods high in folic acid such as dark green vegetables, egg yolks, and some fruits. It does not specify which fruits. In a culture (the US) where most people seem to survive on fast food, TV dinners, and steak and french fries, how likely are women to get their folic acid? (NINDS is National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes.) According to another website, "Anencephaly is the single most common neural tube defect. The incidence of anencephaly is 1 per 1500 births in North America, with a higher incidence in the United Kingdom." Also: "The causes of neural tube defects are multiple. They may be part of a syndrome resulting from a single gene defect (Meckel-Grueber syndrome), or occur with a chromosomal abnormality, or by a teratogenic insult, or by maternal diabetes mellitus. Other causes include the amniotic band syndrome, dietary deficiencies, teratogenic levels of zinc, and hyperthermia, which affects the closure of the neural tube. "Anencephaly, for instance, is a neural tube defect usually considered to result from multifactorial influences. Anencephaly may occur as part of a monogenic syndrome, chromosome anomaly, teratogenic insult (e.g., hyperthermia, folate deficiency), or secondary to amniotic bands." Note the listing of diabetes, an increasingly serious public health problem, as a possible cause. This is from . According to , some FDA regulations about food labeling,: "Prevalence rates for neural tube defects have been reported to vary with a wide range of factors including genetics, geography, socioeconomic status, maternal birth cohort, month of conception, race, nutrition, and maternal health, including maternal age and reproductive history. Women with a close relative (i.e., sibling, niece, nephew) with a neural tube defect, those with insulin- dependent diabetes mellitus, and women with seizure disorders who are being treated with valproic acid or carbamazepine are at significantly increased risk compared with women without these characteristics. Rates for neural tube defects vary within the United States, with lower rates observed on the west coast than on the east coast." Also: "It is expected that consumption of adequate folate will avert some, but not all, neural tube defects. The underlying causes of neural tube defects are not known." And: "Adequate amounts of folate can be obtained from diets rich in fruits, including citrus fruits and juices, vegetables, including dark green leafy vegetables, legumes, whole grain products, including breads, rice, and pasta, fortified cereals, or a dietary supplement." In summary, neural tube defects (NTDs) have many apparent causes but the specific causes are not known. Folic acid and a better diet may help prevent NTDs. The anti-DU partisans have invoked DU as the cause of NTDs and birth defects in general in Iraq. What is the typical Iraqi diet? I don't know, however my guess is it is not rich in citrus fruits and dark green leafy vegetables, especially in the rural areas and in the smaller towns. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From maurysis at peoplepc.com Sun Jan 28 15:07:37 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: References: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45BD1099.20909@peoplepc.com> James, I'm profoundly puzzled why you might make such a presumption about any (middle eastern) nation ....??? Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) =================== James Salsman wrote: > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > folate in their diet. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > ____________________________ > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > >> James, >> >> Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of >> birth defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country >> in which the >> leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do >> come into the country.... > > From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 17:05:53 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:05:53 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... Message-ID: The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be bombing recruiting stations. Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/28/07, Roger Helbig wrote: > Of course that is not true, by the way, my wife and I lost three by miscarriage; that is the ultimate birth defect, and there was no cause .. NONE .. that was found and it sure as hell was not Uranium oxide. All of you people who chant your DU mantras are flat out politically nuts and scientifically ignorant! All of you ignore those scientific facts which do not fit with your scheme. > You have no facts, just articles that float around the net, none of which can be verified by revisiting the data. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Salsman" > To: "ROY HERREN" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:55 AM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk > > > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > folate in their diet. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > > > James, > > > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > > the country.... > _______________________________________________ > 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 didi at tgi-sci.com Sun Jan 28 17:32:57 2007 From: didi at tgi-sci.com (=?windows-1251?Q?Dimiter=20Popoff?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:32:57 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... Message-ID: <20070128233257.12156.qmail@server318.com> > The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of > combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been > rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same > era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Combat stress effect? Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ > -------Original Message------- > From: James Salsman > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... > Sent: Jan 29 '07 02:05 > > The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of > combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been > rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same > era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes > of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. > > People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only > giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from > agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or > telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. > > People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of > the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be > bombing recruiting stations. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > On 1/28/07, Roger Helbig wrote: > > Of course that is not true, by the way, my wife and I lost three by miscarriage; that is the ultimate birth defect, and there was no cause .. NONE .. that was found and it sure as hell was not Uranium oxide. All of you people who chant your DU mantras are flat out politically nuts and scientifically ignorant! All of you ignore those scientific facts which do not fit with your scheme. > > You have no facts, just articles that float around the net, none of which can be verified by revisiting the data. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "James Salsman" > > To: "ROY HERREN" > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:55 AM > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk > > > > > > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > > folate in their diet. > > > > Sincerely, > > James Salsman > > > > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > > > > > James, > > > > > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > > > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > > > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > > > the country.... > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 sjd at swcp.com Sun Jan 28 18:00:54 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:00:54 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070128164434.009eddb0@mail.swcp.com> Jan 28 What is the primary source material for your 180% and 220% figures? Not Power Point or slide shows, PRIMARY source material. We know nutritional deficiencies affect mothers, not fathers. There is no need to tell us or to remind us. You are the one who is refusing to face the truth that DU is not causing these birth defects. The only P.R. problems the armed services had with Agent Orange was with certain parties who refused to accept the truth that Agent Orange was not causing the problems attributed to it. If a "cause" is not a cause (of disease or defect), what should we do but ignore it? You and your fellow-travelers seem to be making a mountain of diseases out of a molehill of DU. Speaking only for myself, I am not going to "defend depleted uranium weaponry". All I am saying is that DU does not cause these diseases, etc. that you say it does. I denounce your sleazy insinuation that DU 'defenders' are --- in effect --- bombing recruiting stations. Why would you care anyway? You are a peacenik, aren't you? Why do you care if the services can't recruit enough soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines? Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com At 03:05 PM 1/28/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote: >The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of >combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been >rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same >era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes >of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. > >People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only >giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from >agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or >telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. > >People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of >the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be >bombing recruiting stations. > >Sincerely, >James Salsman From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 18:07:30 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:07:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> On 28 Jan 2007 at 15:05, James Salsman wrote: > People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of > the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be > bombing recruiting stations. Where do these statistics come from? What other studies have been evaluated to account for these statistical variance you continue to quote. What rules them out? Let's assume that your assertions are correct. What would the alternative be, and, what would you have the military do? Your philosophy would have any individual who puts troops in harm's way, under any condition, deemed to be evil men. Many fine citizens who also happen to have been in the military, or involved in the creation of these weapons, or defending these weapons, have seen their names, credibility and honour, dragged through the mud in this forum. I repeat, many fine men. Anyone who really believes that our military and civilian leaders find happiness in the misfortunes of others, especially troops who do this for any country, has to be a little misguided. War is hell. Soldiers are injured and do die. Their deaths and/or serious injuries have a severe adverse effect on their families and other loved ones. Soldiers know what they are getting into when they volunteer. There are many causes of injury, such as the bombs that you refer to above, IEDs, and other sources of significant inflicted misery. I respect your fight for what you obviously believe in. I also respect those who disagree with your opinions. What do they gain by "lying" as you so often state? Is this just a financial aversion? I can't buy that. Men do what they believe to be valid. Nobody likes war. Personally I wish there were not one now, but that is another discussion for another venue. But there is, there will be more, and that doesn't mean that all of those involved are evil men. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 18:44:20 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:44:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20070128172909.009f5a00@mail.swcp.com> References: , <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net>, <5.2.1.1.1.20070128172909.009f5a00@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <45BCFD14.18183.1CB76CD@sandyfl.cox.net> Mr. Salsman quotes many publications supporting his contentions. Perhaps I've missed them, but where are the on-going focused protests, lobbying efforts, conventions and other gatherings, where the "victims and victim families" make their claims? I remember Vietnam and the agent orange controversy. Why isn't there more of an outcry from all of those who are supposedly harmed from this one and only one purported source? 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 20:13:55 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:13:55 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEBCUA References: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEBCUA Message-ID: <000601c7434b$212d17c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Salsman wrote: >>The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. << These are not the facts. This is how urban legends are started. Again I would refer all interested to the most recent review of birth defects and Gulf War has just been published by the Institute of Medicine, 2006. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/030910176X/html/index.htmlhttp://www.nap.edu/ope nbook/030910176X/html/index.html The conclusion was: "This the committee concludes that there is no consistent pattern of higher prevalence of birth defects among the off spring of male or female Gulf War veterans and no single defect, except urinary tract abnormalities, has been found in more than one well-designed study." Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP From maurysis at peoplepc.com Sun Jan 28 21:39:08 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:39:08 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The DU fairy tales continue Message-ID: <45BD6C5C.4010009@peoplepc.com> James, your hand-waving is more than adequate ... I wonder if or when you will cease. One can mention all sorts of disclaimers -- e.g., we may all be proven ultimately mistaken. It seems clear, however, that the preponderance of evidence now (after a great deal of good faith lab and field research) shows essentially none of the DU effects you promote. There has been shell shock, combat fatigue, agent orange, post traumatic stress syndrome, and so on. You know as well as I that in many instances, the Congress and other so-called authorities simply caved in to the protesters and paid many of them in order to quiet the fruitless controversy ... a sad truth. Please don't bother attempting to substantiate your claim that, "... they might as well be bombing recruiting stations." There is no reality-based justification for your promotion of such a PR conflict. I hope you might finally recognize the benefits to all of letting it rest instead of promoting false hopes. Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) _________________ "Demagoguery beats data in the making of public policy" ====================== Salsman wrote: "... People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be bombing recruiting stations. Sincerely, James Salsman " From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:42:42 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:42:42 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: The DU fairy tales continue In-Reply-To: <45BD6C5C.4010009@peoplepc.com> References: <45BD6C5C.4010009@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: Maury, Thank you for your message: >... we may all be > proven ultimately mistaken. It seems clear, however, that the preponderance > of evidence now (after a great deal of good faith lab and field research) > shows essentially none of the DU effects you promote.... You already have been. Face facts. Sincerely, James Salsman From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:45:54 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:45:54 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: On 1/28/07, Sandy Perle wrote: > >...What would the alternative be, and, what would you have the military do? Tungsten, STAT! >.... Men do what they believe to be valid. Nobody likes war.... And diplomacy by last Wednesday. Sincerely, James Salsman From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 22:13:33 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:13:33 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread - An early red-herring In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEASUA References: <004301c7426f$d75abe80$48425142@roger1> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEASUA Message-ID: <000001c7435b$d772d320$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Rodger Helbig wrote: >>I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources.<< This is one of the early "red-herrings" that was pursued by the anti-DU crowd. The issue as always is dose. As these particles spread their concentration rapidly diminishes as does the dose. The fact that they can be measured is more a testament to the rapid advances in technology than it is of any hazard that might exist. Just think of all of the other trace elements we can measure. I followed the Dietz work and all that was determined was that it could be measured. Like many of the other papers published by the activists, the science behind the measurement techniques is usually solid but it is used as a smoke-screen to get outlandish claims published either in the introduction or in the discussion. For those of you who are peer reviewers or editors, I would request that you pay very close attention to what is usually considered the throw-away part of a paper - the introduction. Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 28 22:34:54 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:34:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Patients setting off alarms request for such news items Message-ID: <444703.22962.qm@web25701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Mr Perle, Thank you very much for continuing to post news items. It has been of great use to me over the years. I used to mine little bits of information from them. They are handy while giving lectures to interested and indifferent audiences. The recent stories about patients setting of alarms at various locations are instances. In this context, I request you and members of the group to send me in private (unless the item is of interest to the entire group) such news items. With warm regards K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group, Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy Room No 18 Ground Floor, North Wing Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094 E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 25486081 (O) 91+22 27706048 (R) 9869016206 (mobile) - ___________________________________________________________ What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 23:07:15 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:07:15 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFUEByUA References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFUEByUA Message-ID: <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Mr. Salsman wrote: >> Tungsten, STAT!<<< You have not been following the literature on tungsten. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 23:27:17 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:27:17 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Colonel Daxon wrote: > You have not been following the literature on tungsten. Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? Sincerely, James Salsman From maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jan 29 01:48:49 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:48:49 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <45BDA6E1.6080006@peoplepc.com> If you were a soldier, then you would recognize from the outset that you and your family are at risk -- there is no so-called instead of. Obviously as has been the case throughout history, the offspring do not have a choice, but the parents do have and make choices as they see fit -- as do we all including the many soldiers I've known most of my life Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) ================== James Salsman wrote: > Colonel Daxon wrote: > >> You have not been following the literature on tungsten. > > Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself > in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders > you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman From radiation at cox.net Sun Jan 28 15:22:12 2007 From: radiation at cox.net (Mitchell W. Davis) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:22:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: <45BD1099.20909@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: <20070128212220.LMC4144.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> What type of birth defects are we talking about? It is my understanding the Folic Acid (i.e. folate) is only useful in minimizing neural tube defects (i.e. Spinabifida). Perhaps MD's on here can clarify that. Mitchell W. Davis, RN, RRPT Midland, TX (Information provided for Franz's benefit) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Maury Siskel Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:08 PM To: James Salsman Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk James, I'm profoundly puzzled why you might make such a presumption about any (middle eastern) nation ....??? Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) =================== James Salsman wrote: > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > folate in their diet. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > ____________________________ > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > >> James, >> >> Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of >> birth defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country >> in which the >> leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do >> come into the country.... > > _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Jan 29 04:15:29 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:15:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Blog Resulting from Livermore Lab Proposed Testing Message-ID: <004101c7438e$aacb0f80$c6435142@roger1> Of course they are raising money .. wonder where it all goes? This is another Cathy Garger blog .. she is quite prolific and even ecstatic that she made the http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m30005&hd=&size=1&l=e http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com/ Too bad that she really doesn't have a clue what she is talking about and her version of reality began with her interest in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement that believes drones flew into the Twin Towers and some sort of DU tipped weapon hit the Pentagon. She has a lot of followers. Roger Helbig From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Mon Jan 29 05:52:09 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:52:09 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT faci Message-ID: OPn the contrary, we found that due to the extra time involved the syringe shields contributed to the dose to the administering nurse. ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT faci... Author: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl Date: 1/27/2007 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility --------------------------------- Something to take into consideration is that the FDG used for PET scans is very hot but decays away quickly (2 hr t1/2). Proper use of syringe shields and shielded containers is vital in such a facility. _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Mon Jan 29 09:01:17 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:01:17 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread - An early red-herring In-Reply-To: <000001c7435b$d772d320$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Eric Was Dietz's method "of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources" based on the ratio of U-234 to U-238? 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: Eric D [mailto:edaxon at satx.rr.com] Sent: January 28, 2007 8:14 PM To: 'John R Johnson'; 'Roger Helbig'; 'radsafelist' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread - An early red-herring Rodger Helbig wrote: >>I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources.<< This is one of the early "red-herrings" that was pursued by the anti-DU crowd. The issue as always is dose. As these particles spread their concentration rapidly diminishes as does the dose. The fact that they can be measured is more a testament to the rapid advances in technology than it is of any hazard that might exist. Just think of all of the other trace elements we can measure. I followed the Dietz work and all that was determined was that it could be measured. Like many of the other papers published by the activists, the science behind the measurement techniques is usually solid but it is used as a smoke-screen to get outlandish claims published either in the introduction or in the discussion. For those of you who are peer reviewers or editors, I would request that you pay very close attention to what is usually considered the throw-away part of a paper - the introduction. Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP From loc at icx.net Mon Jan 29 15:57:05 2007 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:57:05 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Three articles in the Chicago Tribune on HEU Message-ID: <45BE6DB1.6000709@icx.net> The two articles in a series (linked to below) are quite interesting; at the website there are more related stories. I thought RadSafe readers would appreciate knowing of them. This material is certainly a much bigger threat than DU. --Susan Gawarecki -------------------- An atomic threat made in America -------------------- How the U.S. spread bomb-grade fuel worldwide -- and failed to get it back. First of two parts. By Sam Roe Tribune staff reporter January 28, 2007 The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-061209atoms-day1-story,1,7163234.htmlstory?coll=chi-news-hed -------------------- The search for a magic fuel -------------------- Former Cold War rivals face scientific riddle in race to spare world from nuclear peril. Last of a two-part series. By Sam Roe Tribune staff reporter January 29, 2007 The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-061209atoms-day2-story,1,5401825.htmlstory From sjd at swcp.com Mon Jan 29 19:57:58 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:57:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten; birth defects In-Reply-To: References: <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070129184452.009fedf0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 29 You have not been following the literature on tungsten. If you had you would know that it is not nearly as effective a weapon as is depleted uranium. When tungsten goes through armor (or tries to go through it) it forms a mushroom head and doesn't travel very far. DU is self-sharpening --- it maintains a point --- and it is pyrophoric as well. Have you been following the literature on birth defects? Yesterday you wrote, "The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003." I asked you, "What is the primary source material for your 180% and 220% figures? Not Power Point or slide shows, PRIMARY source material." Instead of telling us how much you allegedly know about tungsten, why don't you substantiate your claim about alleged increases in birth defects? Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com At 09:27 PM 1/28/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote: >Colonel Daxon wrote: > >>You have not been following the literature on tungsten. > >Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself >in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders >you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? > >Sincerely, >James Salsman From jjcohen at prodigy.net Mon Jan 29 20:13:00 2007 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen at prodigy.net) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:13:00 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Global warming & nuclear waste References: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: <003c01c74414$2baf6c60$0b33e345@domainnotset.invalid> >*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those >on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, >the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always >follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The >Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on >climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. >Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the >motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For >many, global warming is a big cash grab." Unfortunately, a similar motivation among "scientists" involved in research on nuclear waste management has agravated and perpetuated this multi-billion dollar "problem" for several decades. In a message on radsafe a few years ago I envisioned that if anyone should ever develop an acceptable method for managing nucleaar waste, they would likely be lynched by a mob of crazed geologists. From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 21:26:10 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:26:10 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Global warming & nuclear waste In-Reply-To: <003c01c74414$2baf6c60$0b33e345@domainnotset.invalid> References: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> <003c01c74414$2baf6c60$0b33e345@domainnotset.invalid> Message-ID: <00c201c7441e$644e9e10$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Sorry, but I can't let this go unanswered! >From J.J.Cohen: "Unfortunately, a similar motivation among "scientists" involved in research on nuclear waste management has aggravated and perpetuated this multi-billion dollar "problem" for several decades. In a message on radsafe a few years ago I envisioned that if anyone should ever develop an acceptable method for managing nuclear waste, they would likely be lynched by a mob of crazed geologists." [Dan W McCarn] (lol) Perhaps this is a conclusion based on crystal ball gazing for too many years. This appears to be a very "unique" conclusion that is not very well attended by facts, that is, the part about being lynched by a mob of crazed geologists... At this particular point in time, there are many jobs available to geologists that pay quite a bit more than suckling on the nuclear waste teat, including oil & gas, coal, unconventional energy, uranium and other minerals. The majors are all involved in multi-billion dollar investments, and "us geologists" are simply too busy making money searching for new energy resources to form a crazed mob. Sorry to disappoint you! Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 21:38:00 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:38:00 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXkByUA References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXkByUA Message-ID: <000701c74420$0a5d2ff0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> The soldiers I know are exceptionally brave and intelligent - intelligent enough to know that it is the dose that matters regardless of the compound; intelligent enough to understand the real data on birth defects and the real data on DU risks. The soldier's families that I know are just as brave and intelligent and they want their soldiers to win and to come home. As do I. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:27 PM To: radsafelist; Eric D Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... Colonel Daxon wrote: > You have not been following the literature on tungsten. Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? Sincerely, James Salsman From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 29 04:47:26 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:47:26 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mohammed Daud Miraki - Con Man in the DU Movement Message-ID: <000001c74423$dde58860$15425142@roger1> Here is Miraki's proposal for what he will do with the money he raises on this website. His earlier "charity" was shut down by the State of Illinois Secretary of State's Office for failure to file its annual report. Now, he is just winging it and has started a new website with a book. The fact that his photos of allegedly DU caused birth defects has made the Tate Gallery in London in the exhibit which faithfully recreates "peace activist" Brian Haws encampment will increase Miraki's credibility. The Tate refuses to interfere with the artist's faithful recreation despite the probable falsity of the Miraki photos which are even recognized by the Tate in the credits for the exhibit. http://www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com/page9.html From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 01:57:02 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:57:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <501137.93960.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, Congratulations on a great effort on your behalf to change the subject. Now lets get back on track. I wrote my e-mail in response to your claims about an increase in birth defect rates in Iraq. You haven't responded to the possibility that if there ever was an increase in the birth defect rate in Iraq that it may well have been due to something much less exotic than what you and Saddam's researchers from the late 1990's suggested. James, don't you feel just the least bit uncomfortable quoting work from Saddam's regime as the Gospel? Have you given any consideration to the possibility that the Saddam era research you so freely quote is or was nothing more than propaganda? If it is indeed nothing more than propaganda, and you are repeating it as the truth, what does that say about the quality of your judgment? James, it's well past time for you to consider moving on to tilting at new windmills... Roy Herren James Salsman wrote: Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough folate in their diet. Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > James, > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > the country.... --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. From theo at richel.org Tue Jan 30 13:39:35 2007 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:39:35 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pet-scan hormesis In-Reply-To: <501137.93960.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b001c744a6$5fa0c4a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> I have been diagnosed having Arteritis Temporalis and so far it has made me half blind (the Prednison will stop further blinding I hope). Now I have received a pet-scan to ascertain the diagnosis. Can anyone inform me on the possible hormetic effects of such a scan? Thanks 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 From neildm at id.doe.gov Tue Jan 30 15:36:58 2007 From: neildm at id.doe.gov (neildm at id.doe.gov) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:36:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy In-Reply-To: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7@BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> References: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7@BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> Message-ID: The Snoopy's official name is the AN/PDR-70. The active component is a proportional tube filled with boron trifluoride The neutrons activate boron to an unstable isotope of lithium. It decays, with release of an alpha. The alpha triggers an electron cascade which is sensed by the proportional counter. The outer shield mimics the thermalization of a human torso so it reads out in REM. (Polyethylene for soft tissue and borated poly for bone) Not affected by gamma until the field is high enough to create coincidence cascades (500 R/hr gamma or so) Dave Neil DOE-ID Ex-105 tech -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of ROMANOWICH Larry(L) - BRUCE POWER Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:38 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy Hi: Does anyone have a good working description of how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons? Thanks. Larry Romanowich Bruce Power (519) 361-2673 ext 1565 ************************************************************************ ************************** *** The contents of this email and any attachments *** are confidential and may be privileged. *** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. *** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the *** sender to that effect, don't forward the message to anyone *** and delete the message from your computer. *** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience. ************************************************************************ ************************** _______________________________________________ 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 neildm at id.doe.gov Tue Jan 30 16:21:21 2007 From: neildm at id.doe.gov (neildm at id.doe.gov) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:21:21 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> References: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Message-ID: I do not recall any screening for (1), and can state certainly that (2) was not the case in at least two cases of my knowledge. Dave Neil Ex-105 nuclear shipyard worker -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Keith Welch Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:01 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 30 16:22:06 2007 From: pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:22:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reuters Article - "Hot" patients setting off U.S. radiation alarms Message-ID: <45BF629E020000360000EA19@dphe.state.co.us> Nice little article on Yahoo today. PVE By Jane Sutton Tue Jan 30, 8:35 AM ET MIAMI (Reuters) - When 75,000 football fans pack into Dolphin Stadium in Miami for the Super Bowl on February 4, at least a few may want to carry notes from their doctors explaining why they're radioactive enough to set off "dirty bomb" alarms. With the rising use of radioisotopes in medicine and the growing use of radiation detectors in a security-conscious nation, patients are triggering alarms in places where they may not even realize they're being scanned, doctors and security officials say. Nearly 60,000 people a day in the United States undergo treatment or tests that leave tiny amounts of radioactive material in their bodies, according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. It is not enough to hurt them or anyone else, but it is enough to trigger radiation alarms for up to three months. Since the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has distributed more than 12,000 hand-held radiation detectors, mainly to Customs and Border Protection agents at airports, seaports and border crossings. Sensors are also used at government buildings and at large public events like the Super Bowl that are considered potential terrorist targets. At the annual Christmas tree-lighting party in New York City's Rockefeller Center in November, police pulled six people aside in the crowd and asked them why they had tripped sensors. "All six had recently had medical treatments with radioisotopes in their bodies," Richard Falkenrath, the city's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, told a Republican governors' meeting in Miami recently. "That happens all the time." Radioisotopes are commonly used to diagnose and treat certain cancers and thyroid disorders, to analyze heart function, or to scan bones and lungs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission first recommended in 2003 that doctors warn patients they may set off alarms after being injected or implanted with radioisotopes. That came after police stopped a bus that set off a radiation detector in a New York City tunnel. They found one of the passengers had recently undergone thyroid treatment with radioiodine. In August, the British Medical Journal described the case of a very embarrassed 46-year-old Briton who set off the sensors at Orlando airport in Florida six weeks after having radioiodine treatment for a thyroid condition. He was detained, strip-searched and sniffed by police dogs before eventually being released, the journal said in its "Lesson of the Week" section. "I'M HOT!" Workers in the nuclear industry have dealt with the problem for years. Ken Clark, a spokesman in Atlanta for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has had a treadmill stress test every two years since undergoing bypass surgery 23 years ago. His doctor injects him with a tiny amount of radioactive thallium, makes him run on a treadmill and then uses a gamma ray camera to monitor blood flow in his heart. That can leave him slightly radioactive for up to 30 days and Clark knows to carry a note from his doctor during that time, especially if he visits nuclear power plants. "I have in the past had one of the health physicists bring a little hand-held survey meter and hold it up to my chest and lo and behold, I'm hot!" Clark said. "You just don't let people in and out of places when they're emitting some sort of radioactivity," he added. The length of time patients give off enough radiation to set off alarms varies. For some scans, like the FDG-PET scans often used to screen for cancer, it's less than 24 hours. For thyroid treatment with radioiodine, it can be as long as 95 days, the Society of Nuclear Medicine said. Dr. Henry Royal, a past president of the society who practices at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, gives patients who plan to travel cards detailing what radionuclides were used and how much was given. The cards have a 24-hour phone number police can call to confirm the treatment, "so if they're stopped, hopefully they can get the problem solved more efficiently," Royal said. Nobody keeps good data on how often patients get stopped. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Zachary Mann said it's relatively infrequent at airports, and that passengers who set off hand-held sensors are typically escorted to a private office for questioning that clears up the matter. If there's doubt, a more sophisticated device is used to identify the type of radiation, said Mann, who once set off another agent's portable detector after a treadmill test. There were nearly 20 million nuclear medical procedures performed in the United States in 2005, up 15 percent from four years earlier, so the number of people who could potentially be mistaken for terrorists is enormous. "We hope that people who have radiation detectors are aware of the problem ... and that they treat people with respect," Royal said. From Efforrer at aol.com Tue Jan 30 18:27:33 2007 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:27:33 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: - On the contrary, we found that due to the extra time involved the syringe - shields contributed to the dose to the administering nurse. I find that interesting since the material I shipped out from the cyclotron was mainly handled in a hot cell. As a Texas regulator the proper use of syringe shields was mandatory. Possibly with Tc-99 the added handling time using a shield might add to the dose but FDG is so hot I can't imagine anyone not using a shield. Gene Forrer From jsalsman at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 19:56:06 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:56:06 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Facts from Dr. Kang Message-ID: Colonel Daxon wrote: > Salsman wrote: > > >>The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of > combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising > sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to > 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect > mothers, not fathers. << > > These are not the facts.... They are the facts, from Dr. Han Kang's Annals of Epidemiology report, and from the his summary of research which I have posted to the Radsafe list before and cited here on multiple occasions: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003768.html http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003776.html It not stress-related for male veterans to suffer increased incidences of brith defects, because it hasn't happened before, execpt with agent orange. Sincerely, James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jan 30 21:32:16 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:32:16 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Facts from Dr. Kang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070130202724.009fedb0@mail.swcp.com> January 30, 2007 On 1-28-07 James Salsman wrote: "The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003." On July 25, 2006, James Salsman wrote: "I spoke with Dr. Kang by telephone today. He confirmed that the total number of "moderate to severe" birth defects in children of male Gulf War veterans INCREASED from an odds ratio of 1.8 from survey data to 2.2 after the pediatric medical records were examined." Note the differences. On Jan. 28 it's "birth defects." On July 25, it's "moderate to severe" birth defects. On Jan. 28 it's "combat-deployed" male veterans. On July 25 it's "Gulf War veterans." (A veteran is someone who was or may have been deployed in the theater. A mere veteran did not necessarily see combat. Some Vietnam era veterans never got near Vietnam.) On July 25 Salsman also wrote, "Dr. Kang refuses to release that draft or cite it in his bibliography because of his concerns about its accuracy brought about by that reviewer's request. Dr. Kang is no longer seeking publication of the pediatric evaluation until considerably more data is obtained by the V.A., in hopes that the odds ratios for the specific types of birth defects can be shown with enough accuracy to be considered statistically significant. The process of collecting such data is going slowly, Dr. Kang said, because of the difficulty of having veteran parents come in with their kids." An unreleased draft that the author won't cite, and the author has stopped seeking publication of it because he needs "considerably more data." Do you really expect us to believe this? On July 25, James, you also alluded to a paper by Doyle and Ryan. What is this? Was their paper published, and if so what is the citation? You invocation of Dr. Kang (whoever he may be) proves nothing. Give us the citation to a primary source that proves --- or at least suggests --- that birth defects have increased from 180% to 220%. Everyone who is following this can see you are being evasive, so knock it off and give us a citation. While you're at it, you can also give us a citation to Dr. Kang's Annals of Epidemiology report that you mentioned. (And leave agent orange out of this.) Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com At 05:56 PM 1/30/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote: >Colonel Daxon wrote: > >>Salsman wrote: >> >> >>The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of >>combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising >>sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to >>220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect >>mothers, not fathers. << >> >>These are not the facts.... > >They are the facts, from Dr. Han Kang's Annals of Epidemiology report, >and from the his summary of research which I have posted to the >Radsafe list before and cited here on multiple occasions: >http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003768.html >http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003776.html > >It not stress-related for male veterans to suffer increased incidences >of brith defects, because it hasn't happened before, execpt with agent >orange. > >Sincerely, >James Salsman From radsafe at painahawaii.com Wed Jan 31 13:04:28 2007 From: radsafe at painahawaii.com (Andrew Buchan) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:04:28 -1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pa'ina Hawaii Update References: <00b001c744a6$5fa0c4a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> Message-ID: <000701c7456a$a1ee08d0$ae00a8c0@altres.local> For those of you interested. The Enironmental Assessment (agreed to in a joint stipulation between the NRC and Earthjustice) was completed and filed 12/21/06, the Topical Safety Report associated with the EA was published a few days later. We had three contentions last year, two we dismissed because we remedied the "deficiencies" and the EA took care of the last one. The Judge said he would be dismissing the final one sometime after 2/9. That is also the date when Earthjustice needs to file any late filed contentions. You can be there will be some and that terrorism will some how figure into them. Tomorrow night is the public meeting (also part of the stipulation) or as I like to call it circus. It will be interesting to see how it goes. Our first one was pretty low key, but I am sure the ringleaders at Earthjustice will do their best to turn it into a nut house. Comment period is open for a little while longer, so if anyone would like to send the NRC an email saying why irradiators and irradiation aren't the devil, feel free. So we are see the edge of the woods, but we aren't there yet. Andrew Buchan RSO Pa'ina Hawai'i From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 12:01:33 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:01:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Polonium-210's quiet trail of death Message-ID: <416271.25515.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-polonium1jan01,1,5516887,full.story?coll=la-news-science Polonium-210's quiet trail of death The radioactive substance had killed long before the unsolved poisoning of a former Russian spy. By Karen Kaplan and Thomas H. Maugh II Times Staff Writers January 1, 2007 The poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko in November caused by the radioactive isotope polonium-210 sparked a sharp interest in the exotic material, but the onetime Russian spy was not the first to swallow the lethal element. At the height of World War II, in an isolated medical ward at the University of Rochester in New York, Dr. Robert M. Fink gave water laced with polonium-210 to a terminal cancer patient and injected four others with the isotope. None of the five apparently died from the minute doses, though one succumbed to his cancer six days later. The ethically dubious experiment, prompted by concern for the safety of workers in the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, yielded the first solid information about the isotope's health effects on humans. It also underscores the mystery and intrigue that have marked the history of the element since it was discovered by Marie and Pierre Curie a century ago. The isotope has left a distinctive trail of deaths, most of them a consequence of ignorance. Although scientists suspected polonium-210 was dangerous, they failed to appreciate how easily it could spread ? escaping laboratory confinement like a genie from a bottle and spreading its lethal radiation on faint currents of air. Engineers have struggled to find a use for the isotope, incorporating it for a time in spark plugs, nuclear warhead triggers and spacecraft power supplies. It plays a small role today as an antistatic agent for printing presses. Assassins may have finally hit on its most effective use. "The scientific community is intrigued" by Litvinenko's slaying, said radiation biologist David A. Dooley, who studied exposure levels in workers who produced polonium for the Manhattan Project. "It's pretty clever they came up with this." In many ways, polonium-210 is an ideal poison for espionage ? deadly, and undetectable until it's too late. A dose of the white powder smaller than a grain of salt could have been dropped into Litvinenko's drink at the Millennium Hotel's Pine Bar in London without altering the taste, according to chemist John Emsley of Cambridge University. Within minutes of ingestion, the energetic particles shooting off the polonium-210 molecules began killing the cells lining Litvinenko's gastrointestinal tract. As the cells sloughed off, they caused nausea, severe internal bleeding and enormous pain. "It was as if his internal organs received a severe sunburn and peeled," said Peter Zimmerman, a physicist at King's College London. Pound for pound, polonium-210 is at least a million times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide, the poison used to execute prisoners in gas chambers, according to medical toxicology books. Radiation safety experts calculate that a single gram of polonium could kill 50 million people and sicken another 50 million. But it is extremely hard to get. About 100 grams ? or 3 1/2 ounces ? are produced each year, primarily by Russia. It is also elusive. Whereas most radioactive elements emit gamma rays, which register on radiation detectors, polonium-210 instead emits alpha particles. "There was no way that forensic scientists could detect it" until it had done its damage, Emsley said. Unlike other radioactive elements, polonium-210 is relatively safe to transport. Highly lethal gamma rays pass through most substances, but alpha particles ? each composed of two protons and two neutrons ? can be blocked by a sheet of paper or the thin layer of dead cells on the surface of the skin. To kill, polonium must be inhaled or ingested so that it is in direct contact with healthy tissue. "I could put it in a tiny Ziploc bag, and I would be fine," said Dooley, president and chief executive of MJW Corp., a consulting firm in Amherst, N.Y., that specializes in radiological and health physics services. But that doesn't mean it's easy to handle. Polonium-210 is a determined escape artist. The energy produced as it naturally disintegrates is so great that "small chunks, perhaps a few hundred atoms in size, are blasted out of the surface and then drift around the room," Zimmerman said. "It would tend to creep around the lab," Dooley said. "If you had polonium in an open jar and you left it overnight, the next thing you knew, it would be all over the lab. It would jump on a dust particle and end up on lab benches and floors and things." Since identifying polonium-210 as the poison that killed Litvinenko, investigators have found traces of it in hotel rooms, airplanes, embassy rooms and other sites in the U.S. and Europe visited by Andrei Lugovoy, a former KGB bodyguard who is considered a potential suspect in the case. Lugovoy has said he is being set up by persons unknown. Polonium-210 is found in very low concentrations in Earth's crust. It makes its way into plants, food and water, and occurs in trace amounts in tobacco smoke. Most people's bodies contain about one-millionth the level of a toxic dose, said Vilma Hunt, who studied the health effects of polonium-210 at the Harvard School of Public Health. Of polonium's 25 isotopes, polonium-210 is the most stable. After 138 days, half of it decays into a nonradioactive isotope of lead. It takes 10 half-lives ? about three years ? for all of it to be converted into lead. In the process, it emits a significant amount of heat. A 1-gram lump will reach more than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The first polonium death occurred in 1927. The victim was Nobus Yamada, a Japanese researcher in Marie Curie's lab in France. In 1924, he worked with Curie's daughter Irene Joliot-Curie to prepare polonium sources. After returning home the next year, Yamada fell ill. "There was a poisoning from the emanations," he wrote Irene, according to Susan Quinn, author of "Marie Curie: A Life." Marie and Pierre Curie discovered polonium while they were searching for the cause of excess radiation in a uranium-rich ore called pitchblende. In 1898, they traced the radiation to a substance that they dubbed radium F. When Marie Curie determined that it was a unique element, she named it polonium to bring attention to the plight of her homeland, Poland, which had been partitioned among Russia, Prussia and Austria. The Curies' daughter Irene also fell victim to the isotope. She died of leukemia in 1956, 10 years after a sealed capsule of polonium-210 was accidentally broken in her laboratory at the Radium Institute in Paris. About the same time, scientists developing Israel's nuclear program were exposed to its lethal effects. The first signs of contamination were the traces of radiation on the laboratory desk of Israeli physicist Dror Sadeh. He had taken what he thought were adequate precautions against the hyperactive element. But those precautions weren't enough. Radiation was discovered "in my private home, and on my hands too and on everything that I touched," he wrote in his diary. Within a month, one student who worked in Sadeh's lab at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, was dead from leukemia. The lab's supervisor died a few years later ? contaminated by polonium-210 as well, Sadeh suspected. As a product, polonium-210 has been mediocre at best. Its first use was in automobile spark plugs. The alpha particles emitted during its decay helped produce a stronger spark, claimed a 1929 patent issued to J.H. Dillon of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. The company began marketing the plugs in 1940, but their benefits were never proved. Polonium-210 played a key role in World War II. Manhattan Project engineers alloyed the isotope with beryllium and used it to produce the neutrons that triggered the atomic bomb's chain reaction. Because of polonium's short half-life, the nuclear triggers lost their effectiveness in two years and had to be continually replaced. By the 1970s, engineers abandoned it in favor of the hydrogen isotope tritium, with a half-life of 12.3 years. Polonium was considered as a power source for U.S. satellites, but its short half-life again limited its utility, and plutonium was used instead. The Soviets, however, did employ polonium to keep their Lunokhod moon rovers running in the 1970s. Engineers finally found a viable use for it in printing plants and textile mills, capitalizing on its electron-grabbing ability to neutralize the static electricity generated by moving sheets of paper or fabric. Typically, a small amount of the radioactive material is embedded in a gold foil that is placed near the sources of static electricity. It is also used in photo labs, embedded in the bristles of cleaning brushes to counter the static electricity that causes dust to cling to pictures. Polonium-210 could theoretically be extracted from either the foil or the brushes in a quantity sufficient to poison someone, Emsley said, but it would require a sophisticated knowledge of chemistry and a well-equipped laboratory. Most of the research about polonium-210's health effects stemmed from concerns for the safety of the 2,000 workers who produced the isotope for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. To test its effects, doctors recruited terminal cancer patients who were willing to participate in radiation experiments in 1944, according to reports prepared later by the Department of Energy. Fink and his colleagues determined that most of the polonium went into the gastrointestinal tract and was eliminated in feces. It also collected in the spleen, kidneys and liver. --------------------------------- karen.kaplan at latimes.com thomas.maugh at latimes.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed Jan 3 09:22:53 2007 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:22:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear Nightmares: the long silence Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17026E38B4@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> All, FYI. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Bramhall [mailto:bramhall at llrc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:51 AM To: info llrc Subject: Nuclear Nightmares: the long silence Nuclear Nightmares: the long silence 28th December 2006 update. A response to LLRC's complaint about Nuclear Nightmares is more than two months overdue. Nuclear Nightmares, a programme in the BBC's Horizon series, was broadcast on BBC 2 tv on 13th July - the day before the UK Government announced that a new generation of nuclear power stations would be built. It presented arguments and evidence (much of it relating to Chernobyl) suggesting that the dangers of nuclear power have been over-estimated by the conventional Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation risk. It was far from agnostic on the disputed scientific theories of radiation risk, and it dismissed evidence of adverse health effects as "having no credible scientific support." Nuclear Nightmares attracted a number of complaints. We have no idea how many, as the BBC doesn't release this information. At the beginning of September LLRC sent a substantial complaint about the programme's lack of balance. We outlined the theoretical arguments it had ignored or, in our view, misrepresented and the evidence it had left out or dismissed. The BBC said the complaint would be answered by 24th October. Subsequently they have said it's a complex issue and would take longer. There are indications that the matter is being dealt with thoroughly but, of course, we reserve judgement. We have sent you this email circular because you are on our database of people who are concerned about low level radiation and health. If you do not want to receive information from us please reply, putting "remove from LLRC" in the subject line. LLRC's email briefings are widely copied and forwarded. If you want to receive mailings direct from us, please go to http://www.llrc.org/elist.htm and sign up. Low Level Radiation Campaign www.llrc.org bramhall at llrc.org ============================================== End Message ============================================ 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 DSN: 584-4852 From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Wed Jan 3 09:23:51 2007 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr KADIX) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:23:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: the folly of WISE Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17026E38B8@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> All, Yet another. -----Original Message----- From: Richard Bramhall [mailto:bramhall at llrc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:32 AM To: info llrc Subject: the folly of WISE WISE and NIRS (the World Information Service on Energy and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service) have, for reasons which are far from clear, launched an ignorant and unscientific attack on findings of enriched Uranium in the Lebanon. This is in an article in the current issue of Nuclear Monitor - No. 650. We don't intend to waste lot of time on this - it's a distraction from our main purpose of drawing attention to the fact that dose is now seen to be a meaningless term when applied to internal radioactivity, so that regulators have no language in which to quantify the risks of radioactive discharges. This is likely to prove fatal to the prospects for a new generation of nuclear power stations and adds significance to the illegal status of nuclear weapons and Uranium weaponry. We have to ask why a number of organisations (not only WISE and NIRS) consistently deny evidence of Uranium in armaments. We address aspects of the Nuclear Monitor article on www.llrc.org - click on the Is this WISE? button. We have sent you this email circular because you are on our database of people who are concerned about low level radiation and health. If you do not want to receive information from us please reply, putting "remove from LLRC" in the subject line. Low Level Radiation Campaign www.llrc.org bramhall at llrc.org ======================================== End Message ===================================== 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 DSN: 584-4852 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 10:04:41 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:04:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: [Rad_Sci_Health] Re: New Taiwan Study In-Reply-To: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BB5D@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Message-ID: <441288.25855.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jan 3 10:11:33 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Propagandizing Parents about CT? In-Reply-To: <644202.38777.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <247637.621.qm@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Aren't there toxic effects associated with Vitamins D and A? http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/vitamin_toxicity.jsp --- howard long wrote: > "Errors of the second kind", errors of omission, > damage far more people with vit D or A deficiency, > for example, than excess sun or prescribed Vit A or > D. > Data now suggests that insufficient radiation > damages more often than excess. > About 1 rem (CT dose) seems clearly in the > beneficial range. > > 45 years ago, I placed dental film around my x-ray > room to seein there was scatter. With mirror and > lead-lined door I protected my technician from any > exposure. I still would, just as I would not expose > patient to any dose of vitamin or medicine without > knowledge and consent. More people will see in the > data now, reason to want more "Vit R", which I do > seek a convenient way to take (like measured dose > from uranium ore under the bed). > > See Hiserodt's summary book, "Underexposed: What > if radiation is actually good for you?" > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > > When you dispense or prescribe medication to a > patient, does it not entail some risk? Do you care > about exposing your patients to any additional > risks? > > Have you ever told your children, or told your > children to have their children exposured to more > radiation? If not, why not? Do you and your spouse > get more "Vit R," whatever that is? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > NO Injury is cited to support "RISK!" > > > > This misinformation may be depriving the children > > of "Vit R". > > It certainly gives unsupported fear of actually > > beneficial doses of radiation received in the > course > > of Nuclear Power Installations, with job loss for > > HPs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > At > > > http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=cto&Pag=dis&ItemId=74102&wf=1548&d=1 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Teaching parents about CT risks might pare > > unnecessary > > scans in kids > > 12/28/2006 > > By: Eric Barnes > > > > Doctors rarely tell parents about the radiation > > risks > > associated with CT imaging of pediatric patients, > > and > > understandably so. Time is in short supply. The > > subject is complex, potentially troubling for > > parents, > > and could lead to overconcern -- even to the > > detriment > > of necessary imaging exams. > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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 > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Wed Jan 3 11:11:49 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:11:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <441288.25855.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070103171149.10730.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence not LESS in exposed population. Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 uniqueproducts at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 12:01:51 2007 From: uniqueproducts at comcast.net (Jay Caplan) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 12:01:51 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) References: <20070103171149.10730.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <040801c72f61$3f575650$6400a8c0@JAY> The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study results. This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a collection of results. A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other studies with similar exposures. Jay Caplan ----- Original Message ----- From: howard long To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence not LESS in exposed population. Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk Wed Jan 3 12:02:44 2007 From: mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk (Mark Ramsay) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:02:44 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection Newsletter (UK) Message-ID: Dear All We thought some of you might be interested in our January newsletter (it's a bit ...different). Some of it will be biased towards the UK but we don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. A review of the excellent Rad Pro Calculator is also included which has a nice international flavour. A link to download the PDF is here: http://www.ionactive.co.uk/pdfs/Ionactive_Radiation_Protection_newslette r_January_2007.pdf The PDF is quite large at 1.7MB but its quite graphic intensive and this was the best compromise. If you would like to subscribe to this newsletter on a regular basis then just visit www.ionactive.co.uk and register on the home page (in the newsletter box). There is also a downloadable link in the box so you are not forced to provide an email address before you obtained the PDF. Registration using your email address will comply with our privacy statement available here: http://www.ionactive.co.uk/privacy.html. Apologies to anyone who may have received a similar massage on one of the other list (e.g. the UK SRP or AURPO). This will only happen once. Happy New Year everyone - all the best for 2007 Regards Mark Mark Ramsay MSc, MSRP Radiation Protection Adviser Ionactive Consulting Ltd www.ionactive.co.uk mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk 0118 3759168 07841 435377 (mobile) 0871 7333945 (fax) Ionactive Consulting Ltd 7 Farmers End Charvil Berkshire RG10 9RZ United Kingdom Registered in England & Wales No. 5452329 Radiation Protection Training: RPS Courses in 2007 http://www.ionactive.co.uk/training_services.html From rpo at qu.edu.qa Wed Jan 3 12:34:53 2007 From: rpo at qu.edu.qa (Radiation Protection Office) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:34:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training Message-ID: We are looking for a Professional Training courses (English) in JAPAN in the field of environmental safety and radiation safety in Tokyo or Yokohama. We would appreciate your help in this matter ASAP. From rpo at qu.edu.qa Wed Jan 3 14:35:26 2007 From: rpo at qu.edu.qa (Radiation Protection Office) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:35:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training In-Reply-To: <1A8FD75BC4E45D47BF001408F6B55F12296873@exchange-pitt.cecinc.com> References: <1A8FD75BC4E45D47BF001408F6B55F12296873@exchange-pitt.cecinc.com> Message-ID: Many thanks for all responses. I would like to mention the training should be in JAPAN in Tokyo or Yokohama. Please find below more details regarding our needs. 1. Environmental Health and Safety Management Training Course 2. Advance Radiation Safety Training Course Both of courses should cover the following: ? Advance Safety ? Program Management ? Waste Management ? Monitoring and Analysis ? Emergency Response ? Risk Communication ? Training for the Trainer Radiation Protection Officer Qatar University www.qu.edu.qa ----- Original Message ----- From: "Orthen, Rick" Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2007 6:53 pm Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training To: Radiation Protection Office > We can provide radiological training and would like to learn > more of > your needs at your convenience. Recently we provided nuclear > decommissioning and risk assessment training to engineers from South > Korea. Look forward to discussing this further with you. > > Richard F. Orthen > Senior Project Manager > Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. > Four Triangle Lane, Suite 200 > Export, PA 15632-9255 > 724/327-5200, ext. 231 > www.cecinc.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe- > bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Radiation Protection Office > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 1:35 PM > To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Professional Training > Importance: High > > We are looking for a Professional Training courses (English) in > JAPAN in > the field of environmental safety and radiation safety in Tokyo or > Yokohama. We would appreciate your help in this matter ASAP. > From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 16:15:54 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:15:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Lecture on the WEB: Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Message-ID: <20805.31545.qm@web54308.mail.yahoo.com> Title:? Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism ? EVENT?DATE/TIME Date/Time:? Thursday, January 04, 2007 ? 3:00pm - 4:30pm ??? Videocast:? Event will be videocast LIVE on the Web ? Videocast URL:? http://videocast.nih.gov ? Event will be available in the videocast ARCHIVE Understanding Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Program date and time: Thursday, January 04, 2007, 3:00:00 PM Description: Dr. Ferguson is an internationally recognized authority on nuclear nonproliferation and security. At the Council on Foreign Relations, he focuses on issues involving Iran and North Korea, nuclear energy, and the prevention of nuclear and radiological terrorism. He recently co-authored the book The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (Routledge, 2005) and was lead author of the report Commercial Radioactive Sources: Surveying the Security Risks, which assessed the threat of radiological dispersal devices such as dirty bombs is available at http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op11/index.htm http://tango01.cit.nih.gov/sig/home.taf?_function=main&SIGInfo_SIGID=136 Author: Dr. Charles Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Wed Jan 3 19:12:28 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:12:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <630663.68062.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Allergy desensitization has always been accepted, increasing from tiny doses of pollens or whatever gave wheeze, hives, or even anaphylactic shock collapse [poison] in shots 2x/week. Howard Long Muckerheide wrote: Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, low-dose radiation immune function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI was a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jan 3 19:33:14 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:33:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <040801c72f61$3f575650$6400a8c0@JAY> Message-ID: <20070104013314.67552.qmail@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, Jay, A different way of stating it it is that the dose beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows up in Ramsar, Iran data? Howard Long Jay Caplan wrote: The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study results. This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a collection of results. A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other studies with similar exposures. Jay Caplan ----- Original Message ----- From: howard long To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that solid cancer incidence not LESS in exposed population. Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 years. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in later life? I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you want, but what are the consequences? --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" wrote: > Friends, FYI. > > Regards, Jim > =========== > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of > all cancers for > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > (>50 mSv) over the > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > in the table on page > 885. > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > population, it would be > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > though it ignored > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms > the nuclear > shipyard worker study results. > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > Reduced 40% by Low > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > abstract. > > Jay > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Wed Jan 3 20:16:27 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:16:27 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08F1E6@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph in this report, low-dose radiation stimulates immune functions and damage control: This was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA for the drug companies, then generally referred to as"the drug cartel"). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI has been a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ======================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Wed Jan 3 20:16:52 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:16:52 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08F1E8@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph in this report, low-dose radiation stimulates immune functions and damage control: This was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA for the drug companies, then generally referred to as"the drug cartel"). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI has been a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ======================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jan 3 23:30:10 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:30:10 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Leuren Moret on the Atom Message-ID: While this is supposed to be a 6 part DU series, it starts with false claims about fallout from atomic testing in which Moret claims that most of the tests were atmospheric and that the fallout has caused a lowering of SAT scores and increase in autism. She has also made the claim that DU causes diabetes. I would like to get as many critics as possible to view these videos and make note of the factual inaccuracies. I also see someone in a suit and tie who gives a Moret like speech but who is not Moret, Rokke or Kyne and I wonder who. Go to Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btcVA6-0TaY for the first of the 6 Moret videos where she spoke to Therapists for Social Responsibility on 9/11/06 - how dramatic The suit and tie person should show at the side among the choice of other videos on DU Thanks. Roger Helbig From muckerheide at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 18:32:10 2007 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:32:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology Message-ID: Friends, Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, low-dose radiation immune function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA). This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and research. NCI was a major controller since the late-40s. Regards, Jim Muckerheide ================== Date: January 3, 2007 Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators Determine Risk Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues contend. Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been missed." Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human exposures. In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, exactly what the hormesis model predicts. Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From muckerheide at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 19:54:55 2007 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:54:55 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <20070104013314.67552.qmail@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Friends, Considering the spectrum of biological data, it seems that there is no inherently lesser effect for younger people, except to the extent that younger people have healthier immune functions and damage control systems so they don?t normally have general detriments. A positive response is more readily seen with supplements given to older people. It?s like giving vitamins to people in good health on a normal diet. They don?t seem to do them any good. But for people, young or old, that have significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements are then readily seen as obvious essential nutrients. Regards, Jim on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net wrote: > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose beneficial or harmful to > persons under 30 is less than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > >> >> The "consequences" of looking at different ages' results in this study are >> that we learn that children and those under age 30 should not be exposed to >> gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be exposed to gamma increases. Both of >> these approaches would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study >> results. >> >> >> >> >> This is not cherry picking, just looking at separate results among a >> collection of results. >> >> >> >> A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering of incidence in adults >> over age 30 is big news, but not new news, it has been shown before in other >> studies with similar exposures. >> >> >> >> Jay Caplan >> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> From: howard long >>> >>> To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; >>> radsafe at radlab.nl >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM >>> >>> Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data Confirms Radiation Hormesis >>> (Taiwan Apts) >>> >>> >>> >>> Note "Environmental - " address to respond to establishment release, and >>> abstract inconsistent with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" that >>> solid cancer incidence >>> >>> not LESS in exposed population. >>> >>> >>> >>> Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and mortality rate even there just 2 >>> in 7,000 in 23 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> Howard Long >>> >>> John Jacobus wrote: >>> >>>> Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers are >>>> the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects of >>>> low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient >>>> to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would you >>>> wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever >>>> it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in >>>> later life? >>>> >>>> I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer Rate >>>> Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as >>>> well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you >>>> want, but what are the consequences? >>>> >>>> >>>> --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > Friends, FYI. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, Jim >>>>> > =========== >>>>> > >>>>> > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction of >>>>> > all cancers for >>>>> > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount >>>>> > (>50 mSv) over the >>>>> > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is >>>>> > in the table on page >>>>> > 885. >>>>> > >>>>> > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a >>>>> > population, it would be >>>>> > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even >>>>> > though it ignored >>>>> > mortality, this is a very helpful study and confirms >>>>> > the nuclear >>>>> > shipyard worker study results. >>>>> > >>>>> > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate >>>>> > Reduced 40% by Low >>>>> > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the >>>>> > abstract. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jay >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > 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/ >>>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline >>>> rationing, beginning December 1. >>>> >>>> -- 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 rad_sci_health at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 20:00:16 2007 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Rad Sci Health) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:00:16 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Friends, > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, low-dose radiation immune > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and treat cancer, and applied for > infections and inflammatory conditions, from the 1910s to the late-40s and > beyond. (It is still applied today for specific conditions.) > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits in the 1930s, by FDA). > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing Manhattan Project data and > research. NCI was a major controller since the late-40s. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ================== > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study Challenges How Regulators > Determine Risk > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National Cancer Institute database > provides the strongest evidence yet that a key portion of the traditional > dose-response model used in drug testing and risk assessment for toxins is > wrong when it comes to measuring the effects of very low doses, says Edward J. > Calabrese, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The > findings, based on a review of more than 56,000 tests in 13 strains of yeast > using 2,200 drugs, are published in the journal Toxicological Sciences and > offer strong backing for the theory of hormesis, Calabrese and his colleagues > contend. > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the preponderance of evidence > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in which low doses have the > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough that should help scientists > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants and possibly carcinogens. > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological principle that has been > missed." > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the dose response wrong in the > 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all regulations for low-dose exposures > for toxic chemicals and drugs. These low-dose effects can be beneficial or > harmful, something that the regulations miss because they are currently based > on high-dose testing schemes that differ greatly from the conditions of human > exposures. > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large and highly standardized > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening database, Calabrese says the > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, high doses of anticancer > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low doses they enhance growth, > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the critical public policy > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the major issue is that the risk > assessments models used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the > Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately predict responses in the > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of their daily lives. > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing dose-response model has profound > public policy and health implications. "I believe the hormesis model is the > fundamental dose-response and government testing and risk assessment > procedures should reflect that," Calabrese says. For example, in environmental > regulations, it has been assumed that most carcinogens possess real or > theoretical risks at low levels, and therefore must be nearly completely > removed from the environments to assure public safety. Some would contend that > if hormesis is the correct model for very low levels, that cleanup standards > may have to be significantly changed. Others, however, see the evidence as > insufficient for such radical change and worry about other factors that can > influence the effects of chemicals in low doses. The new study promises to add > fuel to the debate, Calabrese says. > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have important implications for > the pharmaceutical industry and medical practices. He says that hormesis is > likely to identify new life-saving drugs that were missed through traditional > testing and to markedly improve the accuracy of patient dosing, which will not > only improve health outcomes but also reduce adverse side effects. > Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Massachusetts Amherst. From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jan 4 04:52:14 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 02:52:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] High Level Radioactive Waste -- Shortest Half-Lived Isotopes Message-ID: <007e01c72fee$7c502ea0$13425142@roger1> Can any of you point me to a readily available source of information on the shortest half-lived isotopes and what constitutes high level radioactive waste? Seeing the article on Polonium-210 got me thinking about ways to put U-238 (aka Depleted Uranium) more in the proper context .. there is a vet who claims his coffin will be radioactive for 4.5 billion years because he claims to be affected by DU poisoning. I have a feeling he is a bit tetched in the head, especially from the way he shoves his views down your throat because he is a former Green Beret, but I would rather just put DU into context and compare it to the really hot and nasty stuff. Thank you. Roger Helbig From jk5554 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 09:31:44 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 07:31:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] High Level Radioactive Waste -- Shortest Half-Lived Isotopes In-Reply-To: <007e01c72fee$7c502ea0$13425142@roger1> Message-ID: <20070104153144.51968.qmail@web32510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Pages 532-536 of _Introduction to Health Physics_ by Herman Cember have a comprehensive table of fission products and their activities. May be in university libraries or at Amazon or alibris. http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Health-Physics-Herman-Cember/dp/0071054618 One thing I learned from that table is that if you let high-level fission products sit for 5 years, about 1/100 of the original activity is present. Very important to remember with the hysterical "4.5 billion years" claims about DU is that there is plenty of natural U out there *in the ground* that has that 4.5 billion year half-life. It's even a small component in the granite that forms the U.S. Capitol and the beautiful Sierra Nevada and Rocky mountains. Natural U is a part of nature, just like earthworms, butterflies, beetles, diamonds, gold, fill for roadbed, moss, Giant Sequoias, or house flies. The point is that humans have distinct biases about our natural world. For example, damonds, gold, and Giant Sequoias are seen by human beings as more valuable or positive than earthworms, beetles, house flies, and road fill. So it is with biases against the presence of U someplace or other. I think I'll start objecting to feldspar [a common ol' rock that's good for roadbed] because of the 0.012 percent of K-40. :-) ~Ruth http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/ --- Roger Helbig wrote: > Can any of you point me to a readily available > source of information on the shortest half-lived > isotopes and what constitutes high level radioactive > waste? Seeing the article on Polonium-210 got me > thinking about ways to put U-238 (aka Depleted > Uranium) more in the proper context .. there is a > vet who claims his coffin will be radioactive for > 4.5 billion years because he claims to be affected > by DU poisoning. I have a feeling he is a bit > tetched in the head, especially from the way he > shoves his views down your throat because he is a > former Green Beret, but I would rather just put DU > into context and compare it to the really hot and > nasty stuff. > > Thank you. > > Roger Helbig > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at earthlink.net Thu Jan 4 10:33:39 2007 From: sandyfl at earthlink.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:33:39 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Lithuanian nuclear power plant could be built by 2015 Message-ID: <459CBBE3.3958.4A1756A@sandyfl.earthlink.net> Index: New Lithuanian nuclear power plant could be built by 2015 North Qld physicists play down nuclear power fears Malaysia should not rule out nuclear power Britain shuts down nuclear power veterans State regulators close case involving nuclear plant security Neighbors of MN nuclear plants eligible for radiation drug ====================================== New Lithuanian nuclear power plant could be built by 2015 - LithuanianPM Kirkilas VILNIUS. Jan. 4 (Interfax) - The construction of a new nuclear power plant at the site of Lithuania's Ignalina facility may be completed by 2014-1015, according to Lithuanian Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas. "If everything goes well, we can build it even earlier," Kirkilas said in a Thursday interview with Ziniu Radijas radio. All countries involved in the project - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland - are set on its speedy implementation, he added Kirkilas also said that this year participating countries will hold talks on funding, the division of responsibilities and the contribution of each participant. "These will be complicated talks," he added. "Their results will be recorded in a bill on the Ignalina nuclear power plant that will be discussed in Parliament." Kirkilas said there is a tentative understanding regarding equal participation of all countries in the project, although he pointed out that Lithuania will carry most of the load. "But Lithuania will bear greater responsibility," he said. "It will have to be responsible for the burial of radioactive materials, for safety and several other issues, therefore experts and politicians are saying that Lithuania's share in the project should be bigger than [that] of the other parties." At the end of 2004 Lithuania shut down the first of two power units in Ignalina and pledged to stop the station altogether in 2009. In spring 2006 the prime ministers of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia signed a cooperation agreement aimed at building a modern Western-made reactor in Ignalina. Later, Poland joined the project. ---------- North Qld physicists play down nuclear power fears Two north Queensland physicists have labelled the potential effects of radiation from nuclear power sources as 'overstated'. Dr Peter Ridd and Dr Thomas Stieglitz from James Cook University are calling on politicians to investigate in earnest, developing a nuclear power station near Townsville. Dr Ridd says another Chernobyl type accident at a modern nuclear power station would not happen. "You don't have to have it right in the middle of the city, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have," he said. "I certainly would have no difficulty in having one over my back fence. "Modern power stations, nuclear stations are extremely safe devices, certainly nothing like the nuclear power stations such as Chernobyl where they had the bad accident." ----------- Malaysia should not rule out nuclear power Malaysia should not rule out nuclear power as an alternative source of energy for the country, said 2006 International Energy Conference (IEC) for Sustainable Asia organising chairman Hong Lee Pee. "Up till now, its very difficult to provide the (infrastructure) base for renewable energy such as solar and wind. But a lot of countries are moving towards nuclear," he told FinancialDaily after the IEC event in Petaling Jaya recently. The Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Malaysia (ACCCIM), the Asean Academy of Engineering and Technology (AAET) along with five other organisations met at the IEC from Nov 26-28. Hong, who is also ACCCIM treasurer, said moving forward, the country?s current production and consumption of energy would become costlier. "It depends on the oil price. I am not saying that in 10 years? time, our oil wells will run dry. It will just get (more) expensive to extract. "Bakun (hydro energy) on the other hand... transportation cost is very high. Undersea cables for example are very expensive," he added. "We have very good engineers (to explore nuclear energy). We have to pull them back; they are now working outside the country. The capital cost to build a nuclear plant is very high, but operational cost is low," Hong said. He also said the country has a lot of room to explore other renewable and sustainable energy. "It is only in the last two years that there?s been talk on sustainable energy. We are so complacent, probably because we have oil and gas. Even in the Ninth Malaysia Plan, allocation for research and development in this area is relatively small. "We subsidise gas and fuel for producing electricity. Why can?t we subsidise solar power?" he said. At the conference, the organisations consulted with over 670 participants representing policy makers, industrialists, academicians and representatives from Asean and East Asia. The participants also discussed concerns on fast-depleting reserves in fossil fuels, uncertainty in oil prices as well as carbon dioxide emission. ------------------ Britain shuts down nuclear power veterans British Nuclear Group has begun the lengthy process to decommission the world's two oldest commercial nuclear power facilities, Dungeness A in Kent and Sizewell A in Suffolk. The two atomic energy facilities were shut down on January 1, 2007, bringing to an end their 40-year life spans. The plants will now begin a two to three year process of defuelling to remove their radioactive content, The Scotsman has reported. The decommissioning represents the start of a period of shutdowns marking the end of cycle for the UK's first wave of nuclear power plants. All but one of Britain's nuclear energy facilities are due to be decommissioned by 2023. According to reports, Dungeness A and Sizewell A have been closed down because they are now significantly less efficient than other power station in Britain's nuclear portfolio and because the Sellafield reprocessing plant, which is necessary to make their spent fuel safe, is due to close in 2012. -------------------- State regulators close case involving nuclear plant security NEW BRITAIN, Conn.Jan 4 AP -- The state Department of Public Utility Control has closed the case of a worker at the Millstone nuclear power complex who lost his job after raising security concerns at the Waterford plant. The case involved Sham Mehta of East Lyme who last year had alleged that Millstone Power Station owner Dominion retaliated against him by eliminating his job after he raised security concerns. The DPUC formally accepted Mehta's and Dominion's request to withdraw the complaint, following a confidential settlement between the parties approved in December by the U.S. Department of Labor. The agency also rejected Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's arguments to keep the case open. "I strongly disagree with the decision, and we are reviewing it to determine what options remain to be pursued," Blumenthal said Wednesday. The labor department had previously found no evidence of retaliation, but Mehta had appealed, and the DPUC had ordered he be reinstated pending a full investigation. Blumenthal, who had intervened on Mehta's behalf, had argued that the case should proceed before the DPUC anyway to ensure that concerns for all employees who raise safety issues, not just Mehta's concerns, are fully protected, along with public safety, under the law. -------------- Neighbors of MN nuclear plants eligible for radiation drug ST. PAUL (AP) Jan 4 - Neighbors of Minnesota?s two nuclear power plants will soon get some extra protection against radiation poisoning. The state Department of Public Safety said people who live within 10 miles of the Monticello and Prairie Island plants will get vouchers in the mail for free doses of a radiation drug. The drug, potassium iodide, could be taken as a precaution if there?s a release of radiation. It would offer some protection against radiation absorption by the thyroid gland, which is particularly vulnerable to cancer-causing radiation. The vouchers should arrive in the mail this week. They can be redeemed after Feb. 1 for two doses per person at six Target store pharmacies. >>> NOTE Personal E-Mail Change - sandyfl at cox.net <<< 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 15:47:31 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:47:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Calabrese reviews major NCI drug test database, shows hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070104214731.52425.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, Was radiation listed? Oh, that is not a drug. Sorry. But then again, physics is not like biology. --- Muckerheide wrote: > Friends, > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, > low-dose radiation immune > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and > treat cancer, and applied > for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the > 1910s to the late-40s > and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific > conditions.) > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits > in the 1930s, by FDA). > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing > Manhattan Project data and > research. NCI was a major controller since the > late-40s. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ================== > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study > Challenges How Regulators > Determine Risk > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National > Cancer Institute > database provides the strongest evidence yet that a > key portion of the > traditional dose-response model used in drug testing > and risk assessment for > toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the > effects of very low doses, > says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the > University of Massachusetts > Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more > than 56,000 tests in 13 > strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in > the journal > Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for > the theory of hormesis, > Calabrese and his colleagues contend. > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the > preponderance of evidence > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in > which low doses have the > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough > that should help scientists > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants > and possibly carcinogens. > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological > principle that has been > missed." > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the > dose response wrong in > the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all > regulations for low-dose > exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These > low-dose effects can be > beneficial or harmful, something that the > regulations miss because they are > currently based on high-dose testing schemes that > differ greatly from the > conditions of human exposures. > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large > and highly standardized > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening > database, Calabrese says the > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, > high doses of anticancer > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low > doses they enhance growth, > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the > critical public policy > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the > major issue is that the risk > assessments models used by the federal Environmental > Protection Agency and > the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately > predict responses in the > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of > their daily lives. > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing > dose-response model has > profound public policy and health implications. "I > believe the hormesis > model is the fundamental dose-response and > government testing and risk > assessment procedures should reflect that," > Calabrese says. For example, in > environmental regulations, it has been assumed that > most carcinogens possess > real or theoretical risks at low levels, and > therefore must be nearly > completely removed from the environments to assure > public safety. Some would > contend that if hormesis is the correct model for > very low levels, that > cleanup standards may have to be significantly > changed. Others, however, see > the evidence as insufficient for such radical change > and worry about other > factors that can influence the effects of chemicals > in low doses. The new > study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese > says. > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have > important implications > for the pharmaceutical industry and medical > practices. He says that hormesis > is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that > were missed through > traditional testing and to markedly improve the > accuracy of patient dosing, > which will not only improve health outcomes but also > reduce adverse side > effects. > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news > release issued by University > Of Massachusetts Amherst. > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jan 4 15:52:40 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:52:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <20070104013314.67552.qmail@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <273559.35723.qm@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Jan 4 16:00:55 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:00:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <404314.67482.qm@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie And Tribondeau. How does this factor into your postulate? All you provide below is speculation. --- Muckerheide wrote: > Friends, > > Considering the spectrum of biological data, it > seems that there is no > inherently lesser effect for younger people, except > to the extent that > younger people have healthier immune functions and > damage control systems so > they don?t normally have general detriments. A > positive response is more > readily seen with supplements given to older people. > > It?s like giving vitamins to people in good health > on a normal diet. They > don?t seem to do them any good. But for people, > young or old, that have > significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements > are then readily seen as > obvious essential nutrients. > > Regards, Jim > > > on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net > wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to > > persons under 30 is less than that for older > persons. I wonder if that shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > > >> +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Thu Jan 4 16:33:21 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:33:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <273559.35723.qm@web54315.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <911169.33936.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?) Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Thu Jan 4 16:56:59 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:56:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics (heat) treatment - biology! Hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: <20070104214731.52425.qmail@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <741447.96098.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "Heat speeds blood flow and healing when skin red (beware burn!) Microwave 4 lb dry rice knotted in pillowcase for 2 min, apply 3x/d for 20 min." - from my template for patients' record- advice sheet, often circled. I give away about 20 rice packs every 4 months (the record at every patient visit). The heat (physics, John) helps earache, abcess, bursitis, bronchitis, etc! Much more is done by doctors working for patients instead of for government or other insurer. More prevention is used with HSA cash payment, contrary to socialist claims that more prevention would be used with middlemen like government bureaucrats paying the bill (and keeping most of the premium). Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Jim, Was radiation listed? Oh, that is not a drug. Sorry. But then again, physics is not like biology. --- Muckerheide wrote: > Friends, > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, > low-dose radiation immune > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and > treat cancer, and applied > for infections and inflammatory conditions, from the > 1910s to the late-40s > and beyond. (It is still applied today for specific > conditions.) > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug profits > in the 1930s, by FDA). > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing > Manhattan Project data and > research. NCI was a major controller since the > late-40s. > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > ================== > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study > Challenges How Regulators > Determine Risk > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. National > Cancer Institute > database provides the strongest evidence yet that a > key portion of the > traditional dose-response model used in drug testing > and risk assessment for > toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the > effects of very low doses, > says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the > University of Massachusetts > Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more > than 56,000 tests in 13 > strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published in > the journal > Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing for > the theory of hormesis, > Calabrese and his colleagues contend. > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the > preponderance of evidence > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in > which low doses have the > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough > that should help scientists > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants > and possibly carcinogens. > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological > principle that has been > missed." > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got the > dose response wrong in > the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all > regulations for low-dose > exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These > low-dose effects can be > beneficial or harmful, something that the > regulations miss because they are > currently based on high-dose testing schemes that > differ greatly from the > conditions of human exposures. > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large > and highly standardized > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening > database, Calabrese says the > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the study, > high doses of anticancer > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low > doses they enhance growth, > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the > critical public policy > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the > major issue is that the risk > assessments models used by the federal Environmental > Protection Agency and > the Food and Drug Administration fail to accurately > predict responses in the > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of > their daily lives. > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing > dose-response model has > profound public policy and health implications. "I > believe the hormesis > model is the fundamental dose-response and > government testing and risk > assessment procedures should reflect that," > Calabrese says. For example, in > environmental regulations, it has been assumed that > most carcinogens possess > real or theoretical risks at low levels, and > therefore must be nearly > completely removed from the environments to assure > public safety. Some would > contend that if hormesis is the correct model for > very low levels, that > cleanup standards may have to be significantly > changed. Others, however, see > the evidence as insufficient for such radical change > and worry about other > factors that can influence the effects of chemicals > in low doses. The new > study promises to add fuel to the debate, Calabrese > says. > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have > important implications > for the pharmaceutical industry and medical > practices. He says that hormesis > is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that > were missed through > traditional testing and to markedly improve the > accuracy of patient dosing, > which will not only improve health outcomes but also > reduce adverse side > effects. > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news > release issued by University > Of Massachusetts Amherst. > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 hise at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 4 17:43:21 2007 From: hise at sbcglobal.net (Ed Hiserodt) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:43:21 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <911169.33936.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <027001c7305a$1f284070$6420a8c0@pumpconbsflye1> Where do we sign up? Ed Hiserodt -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of howard long Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:33 PM To: John Jacobus; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76mortality rate!) Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?) Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 hacrad at comcast.net Thu Jan 4 19:29:35 2007 From: hacrad at comcast.net (Harold Careway) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:29:35 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: AAAAADL0i1b2emtAupFUaoCFH52EeyMA Message-ID: <000901c73068$f8bd8350$6401a8c0@CFXPS400> Yes, unfortunately age and health is a factor, otherwise all us old cardiac patients who get annual Cardolite tests would make an interesting statistical study as to variances due to annual radiation increases. (Would such a study propose a low level increase over the year, or just a month, or perhaps a week?). Hal Careway -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:53 PM To: howard long; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: From theo at richel.org Fri Jan 5 10:58:35 2007 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:58:35 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Co 60 in home foundations for radiation hormesis!- copy request In-Reply-To: <4237.1412.qm@web54312.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <024301c730ea$bd98d9a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> Can anyone help me to a copy of the article below? I would be most grateful. Thanks, "Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low dose-rate (gamma)-radiation exposure in radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 - 2002," in Int. J. Radiat. Biol., Vol. 82, No. 12, December 2006, pp. 849 - 858. Theo Richel Stationsstraat 43 4421 AK Kapelle theo at richel.org Tel. +31 (0)113330030 Fax +31 (0)113330031 http://www.richel.org/resume http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl http://www.huiselijkgeweld.info From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Fri Jan 5 11:27:35 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:27:35 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Co 60 in home foundations for radiationhormesis!- copy request In-Reply-To: <024301c730ea$bd98d9a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BB6F@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Sent separately. Regards, Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Theo Richel >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:59 AM >To: 'John Jacobus'; 'howard long'; radsafe at radlab.nl >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: Co 60 in home foundations for >radiationhormesis!- copy request > >Can anyone help me to a copy of the article below? I would be >most grateful. > >Thanks, > > >"Cancer risks in a population with prolonged low >dose-rate (gamma)-radiation exposure in >radiocontaminated buildings, 1983 - 2002," in Int. J. >Radiat. Biol., Vol. 82, No. 12, December 2006, pp. 849 >- 858. > >Theo Richel >Stationsstraat 43 >4421 AK Kapelle >theo at richel.org >Tel. +31 (0)113330030 >Fax +31 (0)113330031 > >http://www.richel.org/resume >http://www.groenerekenkamer.nl >http://www.huiselijkgeweld.info > > > >_______________________________________________ >You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list > >Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and >understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: >http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > >For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other >settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > > From hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 5 14:11:03 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:11:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proxy for longevity in radiation supplement trial In-Reply-To: <000901c73068$f8bd8350$6401a8c0@CFXPS400> Message-ID: <898888.48118.qm@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> C reactive protein, blood pressure, and many other proxies for longevity serve to give results sooner, but are less reliable. For example, when stilbesterol was given to patients with prostate cancer, the size of the tumor, blockage of urination and pain were better, but the patients did not live nearly as long as controls because of more coronary thrombosis - heart attacks from clots in the heart blood vessels. Similarly, calcium channel blockers lower blood pressure well but have not shown better longevity yet. Meantime, I sit on thorium welding rods (below a cushion) giving 0.05 mR/hr, up from 0.015. Howard Long Harold Careway wrote: Yes, unfortunately age and health is a factor, otherwise all us old cardiac patients who get annual Cardolite tests would make an interesting statistical study as to variances due to annual radiation increases. (Would such a study propose a low level increase over the year, or just a month, or perhaps a week?). Hal Careway -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John Jacobus Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:53 PM To: howard long; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 5 14:45:43 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:45:43 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Polonium traces found at another UK restaurant Message-ID: <532217.1168029943103.JavaMail.root@fed1wml14.mgt.cox.net> Index: Polonium traces found at another UK restaurant Radiation therapists strike likely to go ahead Environmental activist denied medical treatment ================================== Polonium traces found at another UK restaurant LONDON (Reuters) Jan 5 - Traces of the radioactive poison which killed Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko have been discovered at another London restaurant, British health authorities said on Friday. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) said it had discovered evidence of contamination with polonium 210 at Pescatori restaurant in central London and had offered to test staff there. It said the restaurant was open for business and added there was no public health concern. Litvinenko died on November 23. He accused the Kremlin of assassinating him in a case which has strained relations between London and Moscow. Polonium traces have been discovered at sites visited by two Russian business associates of Litvinenko in London and Hamburg in late October, and on planes on which one of them flew between Moscow and London that month. The men, Andrei Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, met Litvinenko at London's Millennium Hotel on Nov 1, the day he fell ill. A guest and staff at the Millennium are among 12 people the HPA says have tested positive for low levels of polonium, although it says none of them are in any danger. Contamination was also found at a London sushi bar where Litvinenko met an Italian contact on November 1. The manager of Pescatori, Luigi Lavarini, told BBC television: "We have no memory of Mr Litvinenko coming to the restaurant. We really don't know who it could be." Asked about Lugovoy and Kovtun he replied: "This name doesn't mean anything to me. Nobody of this name appears on our reservation list." He said the restaurant had lots of Russian customers. -------------------- Radiation therapists strike likely to go ahead NZcity Jan 5 - There appears to be little chance of last minute negotiations between DHBs and the union for radiation therapists planning strikes from next week. Walkouts are scheduled for Canterbury, Wellington, Auckland and Palmerston North in support of a pay rise. The action will affect treatment for cancer patients. CEO of the MidCentral DHB Murray Georgel says the union's claim for three percent for each of the next two years is difficult. He says the only ones who will be affected by the upcoming action are the patients. Union spokeswoman Dr Deborah Powell says the boards' continuing stubbornness is costing the health sector badly. She says already there are patients planning to go to Australia, where ironically they'll be treated by New Zealanders who have already left to get better pay and conditions. Deborah Powell says it is about time questions were asked of Health Minister Pete Hodgson and what kinds of orders he is giving the DHBs. Dr Powell says if the dispute is not sorted out, more radiation therapists will leave for Australia. ----------------- Environmental activist who exposed radiation pollution in Gansu denied medical treatment Beijing (AsiaNews/Agencies) Jan 4 ? Environmentalist Sun Xiaodi, who exposed radiation poisoning in Gansu province, could die from a potentially life-threatening tumour because the authorities have denied him medical treatment in Beijing, Human Rights in China (HRC) reported yesterday. The activist has been subjected to constant harassment, his home has been raided several times and his family's electricity and water supplies have been regularly cut. Sun Xiaodi received the Nuclear-Free Future Award in November for publicly exposing the dangers of radiation pollution at a uranium mine in Gansu. The activist said people living near the site had a high incidence of cancerous tumours, leukaemia, birth defects, miscarriages and other afflictions because of the pollution. But he was unable to fly to the United States to receive the award because he was not allowed to leave the country, the HRC said. The human rights group explained that the activist has campaigned against illegal mining practices in Gansu for more than a decade. This kind of mining has led to serious pollution problems in the area. For local Tibetan medical workers, nearly half of the deaths in the region are in fact due to some forms of cancer, according to the human rights group. Mr Sun himself has also been diagnosed with an abdominal tumour. He was thrown into jail in April 2005 for eight months after speaking to foreign journalists about the pollution and was again detained and released in 2006. According to HRC, the activist has been the victim of constant harassment and attacks by unidentified persons since winning the award. And police have entered his home several times and cut off power and water supplies. His family asked local authorities last November to allow the activist to go to Beijing for cancer treatment, but the application was turned down. Mr Sun was a former employee of the Gansu No. 792 Uranium Mine in the Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. He repeatedly petitioned provincial and central authorities to look into local mismanagement and illegal mining, but was instead fired in 1994. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From muckerheide at comcast.net Thu Jan 4 20:18:11 2007 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:18:11 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <404314.67482.qm@web54314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John, B & T didn?t get it right in 1905, as mainstream radiobiology has accepted since blaming rad-induced effects (cancer) on DNA damage in the ?50s (also wrongly). The low-dose x-ray stimulation of lymphocytes (and stimulation by heat) in the 1910s - ?20s that showed reduction and curing of induced cancer in mice (see e.g., JB Murphy, PNAS, 1920). As has been established, cell damage doesn?t lead to adverse health effects. As has been said (paraphrasing Sohei Kondo), ?cancer is not a problem of single cells, but of cell society.? Fortunately, my conclusions are founded on the review and synthesis of >5000 papers in the last 12 years, plus comprehensive reviews and documentation by Luckey, Calabrese and many other credible, unbiased science reviewers; plus attending numerous conferences and meetings, and discussing the evidence and biological bases for physiological responses and health with many of the knowledgeable medical and biological researchers (generally NOT physics from which too many are not adequately informed about the underlying biology ? thinking that hitting a cell in vitro can be informative of health, rather than just a reaction that can be informative of some mechanisms). This, or course, rejects simply parroting the disinformation promulgated by NCRP/ICRP/BEIR et al. which is designed and practiced to ?sound good? to the uninformed (especially when crawling the halls of Congress. :-) Regards, Jim ========= on 1/4/07 5:00 PM, John Jacobus at crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote: > Jim, > I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie And > Tribondeau. How does this factor into your postulate? > All you provide below is speculation. > > --- Muckerheide wrote: > >> > Friends, >> > >> > Considering the spectrum of biological data, it >> > seems that there is no >> > inherently lesser effect for younger people, except >> > to the extent that >> > younger people have healthier immune functions and >> > damage control systems so >> > they don?t normally have general detriments. A >> > positive response is more >> > readily seen with supplements given to older people. >> > >> > It?s like giving vitamins to people in good health >> > on a normal diet. They >> > don?t seem to do them any good. But for people, >> > young or old, that have >> > significant dietary deficiencies, the supplements >> > are then readily seen as >> > obvious essential nutrients. >> > >> > Regards, Jim >> > >> > >> > on 1/3/07 8:33 PM, howard long at hflong at pacbell.net >> > wrote: >> > >>> > > Yes, Jay, >>> > > >>> > > A different way of stating it it is that the dose >> > beneficial or harmful to >>> > > persons under 30 is less than that for older >> > persons. I wonder if that shows >>> > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Howard Long >>> > > >>> > > Jay Caplan wrote: >>> > > >>>> > >> > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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 jerrycuttler at rogers.com Thu Jan 4 20:36:53 2007 From: jerrycuttler at rogers.com (Jerry Cuttler) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) References: <911169.33936.qm@web81812.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007c01c73072$5c49bd90$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased life expectancy. I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's calculation to John Cameron. Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: howard long To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of life (p<0.0001?) Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 rad/year. I would participate. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Of course, radiation effects in older people may not be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone enough for the effects to be seen. --- howard long wrote: > Yes, Jay, > A different way of stating it it is that the dose > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is less > than that for older persons. I wonder if that shows > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > Howard Long > > Jay Caplan wrote: > The "consequences" of looking at different > ages' results in this study are that we learn that > children and those under age 30 should not be > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 should be > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these approaches > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the study > results. > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > separate results among a collection of results. > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) lowering > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big news, but > not new news, it has been shown before in other > studies with similar exposures. > > Jay Caplan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > establishment release, and abstract inconsistent > with table 3 data: "highly significant (p<0.01)" > that solid cancer incidence > not LESS in exposed population. > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in 23 > years. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal cancers > are > the only end-points to be evaluated for the effects > of > low-level radiation exposure. It would be convenient > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? Would > you > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin (whatever > it is) that would increase their risk of cancer in > later life? > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood Cancer > Rate > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would play as > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data you > want, but what are the consequences? > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > wrote: > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > Regards, Jim > > =========== > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% reduction > of > > all cancers for > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial amount > > (>50 mSv) over the > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). This is > > in the table on page > > 885. > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to a > > population, it would be > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think that even > > though it ignored > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > confirms > > the nuclear > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult Cancer Rate > > Reduced 40% by Low > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in the > > abstract. > > > > Jay > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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/ > > > +++++++++++++++++++ On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered nationwide gasoline rationing, beginning December 1. -- 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 Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us Fri Jan 5 06:53:19 2007 From: Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us (Myers, Pete) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 06:53:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] An HP Position is Open in Texas Message-ID: <9D016E7E7930A347AE098135FEFCE84301EE1CFE@DSHSEXVS3.dshs.state.tx.us> A Health Physicist I position is posted on the Texas Department of State Health Services web page at a salary range from $4010.58 to $4320.00 per month. To review the position description, Radioactive Material License Reviewer, Industrial Licensing Program, and submit an on-line application click here HP-I ILP License Reviewer Applications must be received no later than the close of business, January 18, 2007. For additional information concerning the specific duties and responsibilities of the position, please contact: Mike Dunn, Chief Industrial Licensing Program Radiation Safety Licensing Branch (512) 834-6688 x 2207 (512) 834-6690 (FAX) mailto:mike.dunn at dshs.state.tx.us From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 18:07:03 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:07:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor Message-ID: When I see posts like this... http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-November/004495.html I wonder why Dr. Johnson is agreeing with someone who has been proven to have lied about epidemiological birth defect research results. To make a long story short, Dr. Kang, a Veterans Administration epidemiologist, has been tracking an increasing trend of birth defects in the children of 1991 Gulf War veterans, and Colonel Daxon claimed that Dr. Kang's unpublished research indicated the trend had decreased. In fact, in is increasing more sharply than ever. (Roger H, did you ever call Dr. Kang to confirm after I gave you his phone number?) The only reason I can think that Dr. Johnson would want to agree with a proven liar is because he was responsible, in the 1990s for proving the "safety" of depleted uranium munitions. In doing so, he never considered the amount of uranium which becomes gas vapor instead of particulates, which settle much more quickly, when it burns. Neither has anyone else in the military or industrial production of DU munitions. Sadly, this state of affairs has caused otherwise-intelligent people to propose using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas. I note that fully half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor, see page 836 of Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38: http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf I suspect that the people who lie about depleted uranium think that they are doing our military a favor. In fact, they are betraying the interests of truth, science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to recruit, upon which they rely. Sincerely, James Salsman From civildefense2002 at aol.com Mon Jan 8 17:31:32 2007 From: civildefense2002 at aol.com (civildefense2002 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:31:32 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Requesting help with locating older Victoreen parts and manuals Message-ID: <8C9019443A52F48-95C-6591@mblk-r32.sysops.aol.com> Hello fellow list members. We have been looking far and wide for the manuals to some older Victoreen portable instruments. Unfortunately, Victoreen/Fluke Biomedical no longer has these available. Any format - electronic, fax, or original - would be perfectly acceptable. 1. Victoreen 490 "Thyac III" low-range survey meter. 2. Victoreen 493 low-range survey meter. 3. Victoreen 692 low-range ion chamber gamma survey meter. We are also looking for a replacement ion chamber to the Victoreen 692 as well. The 692 is very similar to the somewhat older Victoreen 592B pictured at http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/southrad/victoreen-592b.html , if that provides a reference. The ion chambers may be interchangable between the two models, but I am not sure. On a personal note, I have been looking for one of the CD V-718 Model 1 instruments that FEMA issued out back in 1994. This would be for my collection of civil defense instruments. If anyone has a lead, that'd be most appreciated. I really appreciate any assistance provided. Please all have a pleasant week. Nicholas M. Studer, NREMT-P Environmental Intern Florida Department of Health - Bureau of Radiation Control Civil Defense Radiological Instrument Maintenence & Calibration Facility 407-297-2096 x 239 407-297-2096 (fax) 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. (Disclaimer thanks to Louis N. Molino) ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Tue Jan 9 01:28:26 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 07:28:26 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker Message-ID: BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Tue Jan 9 06:05:43 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:05:43 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MSP launches 'anti-nuclear' bill Message-ID: BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6243639.stm MSP launches 'anti-nuclear' bill A Nationalist MSP is to launch a bill which would criminalise Scottish ministers who prepare the way for the use of nuclear weapons. Michael Matheson's bill aims to prevent the replacement of the Trident nuclear submarines at the Faslane nuclear base on the Clyde. Fred Dawsonfwp_dawson at hotmail.com From radproject at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 9 10:12:01 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:12:01 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker References: Message-ID: <002d01c73408$e5366b00$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello colleagues, Regarding the post by Fred Dawson about a US sub hitting an oil tanker. It is difficult to understand how a nuclear sub, with all its navigation equipment and sensors to detect anything near it [supposedly] can run up and hit an oil tanker. A tanker is a fairly large object on the surface that is not running along in a stealth mode like an enemy attack sub --- isn't it? An unfortunate embarassment for the US Navy. Some will certainly paint this story as a new nuclear attack of sorts on the Japanese. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is supposed to be what subs "aim" for. Theoretically, this could have been quite the disaster. If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac & Medical Imaging Equipment [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release Date: 1/9/2007 From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 10:23:25 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:23:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Physics (heat) treatment - biology! Hormesis, as normal biology In-Reply-To: <741447.96098.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <365313.74506.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Your point? --- howard long wrote: > "Heat speeds blood flow and healing when skin red > (beware burn!) > Microwave 4 lb dry rice knotted in pillowcase for > 2 min, apply 3x/d for 20 min." > - from my template for patients' record- advice > sheet, often circled. > > I give away about 20 rice packs every 4 months > (the record at every patient visit). > The heat (physics, John) helps earache, abcess, > bursitis, bronchitis, etc! > > Much more is done by doctors working for patients > instead of for government or other insurer. More > prevention is used with HSA cash payment, contrary > to socialist claims that more prevention would be > used with middlemen like government bureaucrats > paying the bill (and keeping most of the premium). > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Jim, > Was radiation listed? Oh, that is not a drug. Sorry. > But then again, physics is not like biology. > > --- Muckerheide wrote: > > > Friends, > > > > Re the medical applications in the last paragraph, > > low-dose radiation immune > > function stimulation: Was shown to prevent and > > treat cancer, and applied > > for infections and inflammatory conditions, from > the > > 1910s to the late-40s > > and beyond. (It is still applied today for > specific > > conditions.) > > > > It was displaced by wonder drugs (serum drug > profits > > in the 1930s, by FDA). > > This was reestablished after WWII by suppressing > > Manhattan Project data and > > research. NCI was a major controller since the > > late-40s. > > > > Regards, Jim Muckerheide > > ================== > > > > Date: January 3, 2007 > > > > Measuring The Effects Of Very Low Doses: New Study > > Challenges How Regulators > > Determine Risk > > > > Science Daily ? A new study of a large U.S. > National > > Cancer Institute > > database provides the strongest evidence yet that > a > > key portion of the > > traditional dose-response model used in drug > testing > > and risk assessment for > > toxins is wrong when it comes to measuring the > > effects of very low doses, > > says Edward J. Calabrese, a scientist at the > > University of Massachusetts > > Amherst. The findings, based on a review of more > > than 56,000 tests in 13 > > strains of yeast using 2,200 drugs, are published > in > > the journal > > Toxicological Sciences and offer strong backing > for > > the theory of hormesis, > > Calabrese and his colleagues contend. > > > > Calabrese says the size of the new study and the > > preponderance of evidence > > supporting hormesis, a dose-response phenomenon in > > which low doses have the > > opposite effect of high doses, is a breakthrough > > that should help scientists > > assess and predict risks from new drugs, toxicants > > and possibly carcinogens. > > Calabrese says, "This is a fundamental biological > > principle that has been > > missed." > > > > Calabrese says that the field of toxicology got > the > > dose response wrong in > > the 1930s and this mistake has infiltrated all > > regulations for low-dose > > exposures for toxic chemicals and drugs. These > > low-dose effects can be > > beneficial or harmful, something that the > > regulations miss because they are > > currently based on high-dose testing schemes that > > differ greatly from the > > conditions of human exposures. > > > > In this latest study, which uses data from a large > > and highly standardized > > National Cancer Institute tumor-drug screening > > database, Calabrese says the > > evidence of hormesis is overwhelming. In the > study, > > high doses of anticancer > > drugs frequently inhibit yeast growth, but at low > > doses they enhance growth, > > exactly what the hormesis model predicts. > > > > Whether one accepts the hormesis theory is not the > > critical public policy > > issue, according to Calabrese. He says that the > > major issue is that the risk > > assessments models used by the federal > Environmental > > Protection Agency and > > the Food and Drug Administration fail to > accurately > > predict responses in the > > low-dose zone, that is, where people live most of > > their daily lives. > > > > Calabrese also says challenging the existing > > dose-response model has > > profound public policy and health implications. "I > > believe the hormesis > > model is the fundamental dose-response and > > government testing and risk > > assessment procedures should reflect that," > > Calabrese says. For example, in > > environmental regulations, it has been assumed > that > > most carcinogens possess > > real or theoretical risks at low levels, and > > therefore must be nearly > > completely removed from the environments to assure > > public safety. Some would > > contend that if hormesis is the correct model for > > very low levels, that > > cleanup standards may have to be significantly > > changed. Others, however, see > > the evidence as insufficient for such radical > change > > and worry about other > > factors that can influence the effects of > chemicals > > in low doses. The new > > study promises to add fuel to the debate, > Calabrese > > says. > > > > Calabrese also suggests that the findings may have > > important implications > > for the pharmaceutical industry and medical > > practices. He says that hormesis > > is likely to identify new life-saving drugs that > > were missed through > > traditional testing and to markedly improve the > > accuracy of patient dosing, > > which will not only improve health outcomes but > also > > reduce adverse side > > effects. > > > > Note: This story has been adapted from a news > > release issued by University > > Of Massachusetts Amherst. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > nationwide gasoline > rationing, beginning December 1. > > -- 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 === 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Tue Jan 9 10:40:01 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:40:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: <000901c73068$f8bd8350$6401a8c0@CFXPS400> Message-ID: <20070109164001.57155.qmail@web54311.mail.yahoo.com> Harold, If you are wondering about your dose, see http://www.nuclearonline.org/PI/Cardiolite.pdf --- Harold Careway wrote: > Yes, unfortunately age and health is a factor, > otherwise all us old cardiac > patients who get annual Cardolite tests would make > an interesting > statistical study as to variances due to annual > radiation increases. > (Would such a study propose a low level increase > over the year, or just a > month, or perhaps a week?). > > Hal Careway > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of John Jacobus > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:53 PM > To: howard long; Jay Caplan; Muckerheide > Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; Rad Science List > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) > > Of course, radiation effects in older people may not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Tue Jan 9 10:51:26 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:51:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <932933.19482.qm@web54305.mail.yahoo.com> Jim, I guess it is a shame that no laws have been changed, no scientific group has validated your hypoteses, no medical treatments have changed. You have refuted every study that was every made. I guess that everyone must be conspiring against you. Maybe you should find a more productive activity. --- Muckerheide wrote: > John, > > B & T didn?t get it right in 1905, as mainstream > radiobiology has accepted > since blaming rad-induced effects (cancer) on DNA > damage in the ?50s (also > wrongly). The low-dose x-ray stimulation of > lymphocytes (and stimulation by > heat) in the 1910s - ?20s that showed reduction and > curing of induced cancer > in mice (see e.g., JB Murphy, PNAS, 1920). > > As has been established, cell damage doesn?t lead to > adverse health effects. > As has been said (paraphrasing Sohei Kondo), ?cancer > is not a problem of > single cells, but of cell society.? > > Fortunately, my conclusions are founded on the > review and synthesis of >5000 > papers in the last 12 years, plus comprehensive > reviews and documentation by > Luckey, Calabrese and many other credible, unbiased > science reviewers; plus > attending numerous conferences and meetings, and > discussing the evidence and > biological bases for physiological responses and > health with many of the > knowledgeable medical and biological researchers > (generally NOT physics from > which too many are not adequately informed about the > underlying biology ? > thinking that hitting a cell in vitro can be > informative of health, rather > than just a reaction that can be informative of some > mechanisms). > > This, or course, rejects simply parroting the > disinformation promulgated by > NCRP/ICRP/BEIR et al. which is designed and > practiced to ?sound good? to the > uninformed (especially when crawling the halls of > Congress. :-) > > Regards, Jim > ========= > > on 1/4/07 5:00 PM, John Jacobus at > crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote: > > > Jim, > > I assume you have heard about the Law Of Bergonie > And > > Tribondeau. How does this factor into your > postulate? > > All you provide below is speculation. > > > > --- Muckerheide wrote: > > > >> > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Tue Jan 9 10:55:11 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 08:55:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <007c01c73072$5c49bd90$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> Message-ID: <999440.90795.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > life expectancy. > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > calculation to John Cameron. > Jerry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > life (p<0.0001?) > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > rad/year. I would participate. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Of course, radiation effects in older people may > not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live > lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the > dose > > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is > less > > than that for older persons. I wonder if that > shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > The "consequences" of looking at different > > ages' results in this study are that we learn > that > > children and those under age 30 should not be > > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 > should be > > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these > approaches > > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the > study > > results. > > > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > > separate results among a collection of > results. > > > > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) > lowering > > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big > news, but > > not new news, it has been shown before in > other > > studies with similar exposures. > > > > Jay Caplan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > > radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > > establishment release, and abstract > inconsistent > > with table 3 data: "highly significant > (p<0.01)" > > that solid cancer incidence > > not LESS in exposed population. > > > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in > 23 > > years. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal > cancers > > are > > the only end-points to be evaluated for the > effects > > of > > low-level radiation exposure. It would be > convenient > > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? > Would > > you > > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin > (whatever > > it is) that would increase their risk of > cancer in > > later life? > > > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood > Cancer > > Rate > > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would > play as > > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data > you > > want, but what are the consequences? > > > > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > > wrote: > > > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > > > Regards, Jim > > > =========== > > > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% > reduction > > of > > > all cancers for > > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial > amount > > > (>50 mSv) over the > > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). > This is > > > in the table on page > > > 885. > > > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to > a > > > population, it would be > > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think > that even > > > though it ignored > > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > > confirms > > > the nuclear > > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult > Cancer Rate > > > Reduced 40% by Low > > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in > the > > > abstract. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > > nationwide gasoline > > rationing, beginning December 1. > > > > -- 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 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 ProRadCon at aol.com Tue Jan 9 12:23:44 2007 From: ProRadCon at aol.com (ProRadCon at aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:23:44 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Request for Information on SDMP Sites Message-ID: Greetings, I am researching some of the requirements for SDMP Sites decommissioned within the past 8 or so years. I would appreciate any assistance. I am looking for the following information: ? SDMP/Complex Sites that were closed under the SDMP Action Plan Criteria, especially those that ?grandfathered? the License Termination Rule Criteria (i.e., closed under Action after LTR was in effect). The Molycorp York Site in PA is an example of which I have information. Did any of these sites perform retrospective dose- or risk-based assessments? If so, were they required or performed by the governing agency(ies), or performed voluntarily by the licensee? ? Useful web sites and applicable licensee, contractor, or governing agency contact information. I have looked through some of the NRC Papers (SECY Annual Updates on Decommissioning) and found them to be of use, but I was hoping that someone out there could help me hit the mother lode. You can reply to me directly, or to the list if this information is of general interest... Thank you in advance, Shane Brightwell, MS, CHP President Professional Radiation Consulting, Inc. 7 Balmoral Drive Pittstown, NJ 08867 Office: (908) 730-9224 Fax: (720) 294-1153 Mobile: (631) 278-0610 E-mail: proradcon at aol.com Web Site: _www.proradcon.com_ (http://www.proradcon.com/) From Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Tue Jan 9 13:16:35 2007 From: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:35 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide--The First 1 Message-ID: Distributed at the request of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). Jim Hardeman -- Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us =============================== PRESS RELEASE RDD (Dirty Bomb) First Responder's Guide-The First 12 HoursNow Available! The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. announces publication of theHandbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours. This handbook was developed as a training and reference tool for first responders with various degrees of radiological experience. The RDD Handbook expands on the concepts presented in the RDD Pocket Guide published by CRCPD in March 2006. The RDD Handbook provides guidance in a number of areas, including a flow chart of actions when responding to an RDD, rules of thumb, determination of various radiation zones, use of radiation instrumentation, decontamination guidelines, and multiple forms that can be tailored for specific needs. The RDD Handbook also includes lists of state, local and federal radiation control contacts that can provide assistance. This handbook will be useful for training, exercise and response activities. Many of the concepts introduced in the handbook can be applied to a variety of radiation incidents, and do not apply exclusively to dirty bombs. The RDD Handbook consists of the bound document, a CD containing forms and handouts, and one RDD Pocket Guide. Ordering information is available at or call (502) 227-4543, Ext. 2229. Price: $30, including shipping. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's mission is to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education. CRCPD's headquarters is located at 205 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601. From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 9 13:32:03 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:32:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] First Announcement: The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium Message-ID: <45A37D33.6339.13962A86@sandyfl.cox.net> The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium -- co sponsored by Global Dosimetry Solutions ; Landauerand Panasonic - cordially invites you to the 26th International Dosimetry & Records Symposium AGENDA and other details: http://www.dosimetryresources.com from there, click on the tab for the 2007 Symposium As in 2006, this will be a joint symposium for Dosimetry and Records - with common plus parallel track sessions Topics planned are "Nuclear Renaissance" ; Nuclear Cycle ; Homeland Security ; Emergency Response ; Regulatory changes and updates ;Litigation ; Environmental ; Confidentiality ; Dose Reconstruction ; EPD ; Establishing a Program for Accreditation etc Special sessions are also planned for " Hands On" equipment training and panel discussions on open issues REGISTRATION: Attendees $350 Guests ( over12) $175 We will shortly post an On Line Registration Link -and also advice you by email DATES: Arrival on Sunday, June 3, 2007 Sessions from Monday, June 4 (8:00am) to Friday, June 8, 2007 (5:00pm) Depart on Saturday, June 9 at your leisure VENUE: Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks 200 Sable Oaks Drive South Portland Maine 04106 USA (207) 871 8000 (800) 752 8810 http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/PWMAP HOTEL ROOM RESERVATION Please contact the Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks directly at (800) 752 8810 and identify yourself as an attendee of the "Dosimetry & Records Symposium June 3 -9; 2007 " to avail yourself of the special negotiated rates: Single or Double Guestroom @ $ 149 plus 7% tax Gov?t Rate @ $ 82 plus 7% tax (Applicable only to active U.S. Gov?t/DOD/DOE employees - Valid ID required) AIRPORT: Portland ; Maine(PWM) http://www.portlandjetport.org/ Other nearby aiports are Boston Logan (BOS) approx 2 hours by car and Manchester (MHT) approx 1 1/2 hours by car. GROUND TRANSPORTATION: Hotel provides complimentary transportation from and to Portland , Maine (PWM) airport Looking forward to your participation Thank you, 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium Task Force Inid Deneau Landauer Chairperson Sandy Perle Global Dosimetry Solutions Co-Chairperson Bruce Dicey Consultant Dante Wells Savannah River Company Deborah O?Connor TXU/Comanche Peak Isabelle McCabe Radiation Safety and Control Services Pam Heckman Energy Solutions Richard Cadogan Argonne National Labs Ash Chabra Panasonic ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From hflong at pacbell.net Tue Jan 9 18:24:23 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:24:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <999440.90795.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070110002423.18549.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only used a one tail test, showing only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the papers, like the Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > life expectancy. > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > calculation to John Cameron. > Jerry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > life (p<0.0001?) > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > rad/year. I would participate. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Of course, radiation effects in older people may > not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live > lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the > dose > > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is > less > > than that for older persons. I wonder if that > shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > The "consequences" of looking at different > > ages' results in this study are that we learn > that > > children and those under age 30 should not be > > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 > should be > > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these > approaches > > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the > study > > results. > > > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > > separate results among a collection of > results. > > > > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) > lowering > > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big > news, but > > not new news, it has been shown before in > other > > studies with similar exposures. > > > > Jay Caplan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > > radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > > establishment release, and abstract > inconsistent > > with table 3 data: "highly significant > (p<0.01)" > > that solid cancer incidence > > not LESS in exposed population. > > > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in > 23 > > years. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal > cancers > > are > > the only end-points to be evaluated for the > effects > > of > > low-level radiation exposure. It would be > convenient > > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? > Would > > you > > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin > (whatever > > it is) that would increase their risk of > cancer in > > later life? > > > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood > Cancer > > Rate > > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would > play as > > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data > you > > want, but what are the consequences? > > > > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > > wrote: > > > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > > > Regards, Jim > > > =========== > > > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% > reduction > > of > > > all cancers for > > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial > amount > > > (>50 mSv) over the > > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). > This is > > > in the table on page > > > 885. > > > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to > a > > > population, it would be > > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think > that even > > > though it ignored > > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > > confirms > > > the nuclear > > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult > Cancer Rate > > > Reduced 40% by Low > > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in > the > > > abstract. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > > nationwide gasoline > > rationing, beginning December 1. > > > > -- 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 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- 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 Wed Jan 10 09:14:27 2007 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:14:27 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? Message-ID: Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about what they used to manufacture. If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jan 10 09:12:17 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:12:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A50251.9010206@peoplepc.com> J. Marshall Reber wrote: > Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could > access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their > very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that > time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so > that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's > remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about > what they used to manufacture. > > If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could > purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. > > > > J. Marshall Reber, ScD > 165 Berkeley St. > Methuen MA 01844 > > Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 > Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu > ============================== Marshall, will any of this material help you? Best, Maury&Dog =============================== My Saved Results 5340 style (PDF File) ... tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW (Each): $5.-TRANSFER COROTRON ASSEMBLY 5340TCA ... 5855 s of tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/cat5340.pdf ? Save Vintage 1020 (PDF File) ... conserve space in our Catalog, we've compressed a few of the older models ... 45.-FUSER LAMP 1025FL $40.- COROTRON WIRES(Pre-Cut) 4 in ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/catVintage.pdf ? Save More Results from www.partsdrop.com electron Tube Data sheets - Victoreen documents 2002-08-19 Victoreen Tubes Catalog Spark gaps, Corotron Tubes, GM Counter Tube. Thanks to John Atwood 6,032,375 bytes ... frank.pocnet.net/other/Victoreen/index.html ? Save UED.net Catalog - Item Index Page 273 - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP Union Electronic Distributors Catalog - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... UH0515001 COROTRON CASE (R) BLACK HL10V BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... www.unionel.com/catalog/cat_item_idx_273.html ? Save Xerox 5818 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 5818 W5180 5818 N/A CORONA - Precut Corotron ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-5818.html ? Save Xerox 1025 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 1025 W5690 1025 600K15950 CORONA - Wire - ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-1025.html ? Save More Results from www.precisionroller.com ISO Parts - National Stock Number (NSN) Index - Page 1877 - Free ... Free Locator Service for Military and Aviation parts, spares and components. Free online databases of Government Data such as MCRL. We are ... www.iso-parts.com/index/1877 ? Save TarguMures.info - Portalul Judetului Mures - Targu Mures - ... Nostra, CORSA s.r.l., Corotron Service srl, Cornisa, CORIZ S.A., Corbet Transair, COPYTECH SRL ... www.targumures.info/ ? Save Photocopier Hazards and a Conservation Case Study ... a corotron. It is well known in the photocopy industry that corotron charging devices ... gases generated by a corotron in positive ... aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v08/bp08-05.html ? Cached ? Save AnaLog's Electronic Component ID Menu AnaLog Services, Inc. provides services to the oil well, water well, and mineral logging / wireline industries. www.logwell.com/tech/components/component_identification.html From radproject at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 10 11:19:21 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:19:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker References: <002d01c73408$e5366b00$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> <6.0.0.22.2.20070110082331.01dbbd70@nis-mail.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello all, As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such an extent. Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you." Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the wrong field. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Rees To: stewart farber ; Dawson, Fred Mr ; radsafe at radlab.nl ; srp-uk at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker Having spent quite a bit of time submerged on nuclear power, and some of that may have been in the Straits of Hormuz, I'd like to make a few comments. First of all, a submarine can't hear very effectively directly behind it, so when they come up to periscope depth, they turn from side to side, listening in that "cone" for somebody who may be coming up behind you. So if you come up too quickly, and don't do that job well, you can get in trouble. Exciting, to say the least!!! Secondly, the Straits of Hormuz are a "target-rich" environment, and keeping track of who's where, going in which direction, at what speed is very challenging, and the ships can change speed and direction at will. Remember, they aren't on roads. And the ocean and ocean bottom can do funny things to reflect sounds. Submarines don't use active sonar very much (kinda defeats their purpose!). Thirdly, sea state and weather conditions aren't mentioned, so this may have contributed as well, a periscope is a radar target, and isn't put up any farther than required. Any substantial sea will limit your horizon, and although an oil tanker is big tonnage, loaded they can sit fairly low in the water. All that said, yes, it's an embarrassment. The collision between the USS Greeneville and the Japanese Ship Ehime Maru was a combination of some of the factors above, and poor conduct of operations in the control room of the USS Greeneville. It's too bad that the people who claim to know Conduct of Ops don't know more about that accident and apply lessons learned to operations, rather that some of the BS that they do. As far as a radioactive release as a result of a collision, that's extremely remote, a Submarine's hull is quite thick and strong, and there are multiple layers between radioactive materials and the fishes. For more (quite good) reading about submarine life, I highly recommend Andy Karam's (!) book: Rig Ship for Ultra Quiet - available from Amazon Books. Brian Rees At 09:12 AM 1/9/2007, stewart farber wrote: Hello colleagues, Regarding the post by Fred Dawson about a US sub hitting an oil tanker. It is difficult to understand how a nuclear sub, with all its navigation equipment and sensors to detect anything near it [supposedly] can run up and hit an oil tanker. A tanker is a fairly large object on the surface that is not running along in a stealth mode like an enemy attack sub --- isn't it? An unfortunate embarassment for the US Navy. Some will certainly paint this story as a new nuclear attack of sorts on the Japanese. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is supposed to be what subs "aim" for. Theoretically, this could have been quite the disaster. If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac & Medical Imaging Equipment [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007 From joseph.demers at wch-rcc.com Wed Jan 10 12:20:14 2007 From: joseph.demers at wch-rcc.com (DeMers, Joseph W) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:20:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DOE Contractor Looking for LB4100 Message-ID: <6ED9464012BE854ABA07FEBE6EFBBEFA020C6CB6@rccex01.wch-rcc.com> Folks, I am looking for a used or surplus Tennelec LB4100 multi-detector counter. I am particularly interested if another DOE contractor may have one that they are looking to excess or get rid of, where we can work a property transfer. Please respond to me off list if you can help. Regards, Joe DeMers Radiological Control Technical Support Manager Washington Closure Hanford (509) 372-9040 (Desk) (509) 521-0203 (Mobile) From Alan.Remick at nnsa.doe.gov Tue Jan 9 14:53:31 2007 From: Alan.Remick at nnsa.doe.gov (Remick, Alan) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:53:31 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device Fi rst Responder's Guide--The First 12 Hours Message-ID: In addition to this reference document, the DOE/NNSA Emergency Operations Training Academy has just published the "First Responder Guide for Radiological Unknowns". This handy pocket guide will be made available in limited quantities to State and Local responders through the Radiological Assistance Program next week. Please contact your RAP Regional Office for more information... Alan L. Remick NNSA AMS and REAC/TS Program Manager NA-42 202-586-8312 202-586-3859 (fax) "Leading Nuclear Response" _____ From: REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com [mailto:REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:17 PM To: RADSAFE Mailing List; REP Planners Mailing List Subject: [REP Planners] Fwd: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide--The First 1 Distributed at the request of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). Jim Hardeman -- Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us =============================== PRESS RELEASE RDD (Dirty Bomb) First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours Now Available! The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. announces publication of the Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours. This handbook was developed as a training and reference tool for first responders with various degrees of radiological experience. The RDD Handbook expands on the concepts presented in the RDD Pocket Guide published by CRCPD in March 2006. The RDD Handbook provides guidance in a number of areas, including a flow chart of actions when responding to an RDD, rules of thumb, determination of various radiation zones, use of radiation instrumentation, decontamination guidelines, and multiple forms that can be tailored for specific needs. The RDD Handbook also includes lists of state, local and federal radiation control contacts that can provide assistance. This handbook will be useful for training, exercise and response activities. Many of the concepts introduced in the handbook can be applied to a variety of radiation incidents, and do not apply exclusively to dirty bombs. The RDD Handbook consists of the bound document, a CD containing forms and handouts, and one RDD Pocket Guide. Ordering information is available at or call (502) 227-4543, Ext. 2229. Price: $30, including shipping. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's mission is to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education. CRCPD's headquarters is located at 205 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601. __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Emergency preparedness Nh lake region real estate Emergency preparedness supply New hampshire lake region real estate Emergency preparedness kit Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jan 10 14:06:36 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:06:36 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] A brief different sight Message-ID: <45A5474C.2070604@peoplepc.com> Admittedly off topic, no risk and probably no irradiation here. But take a minute from your shop and enjoy this .... You'll work better tomorrow. http://spaceweather.com Comet McNaught has continued to brighten as it approaches the sun and it is now the brightest comet in 30 years. For observers in the northern Hemisphere, tonight is probably the best time to see it: Go outside this evening and face the sunset. A clear view of the western horizon is essential, because the comet hangs very low. As the twilight fades to black, it should become visible to the naked eye. Observers say it's a fantastic sight through binoculars. From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 17:04:43 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:04:43 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker In-Reply-To: <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> References: <002d01c73408$e5366b00$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> <6.0.0.22.2.20070110082331.01dbbd70@nis-mail.lanl.gov> <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: Dear all, I read today two Austrian papers. One was on the internet, which did not mention the incident at all. The other one I read as a paper copy had a short note on approximately page 17, mentioning that a US submarine had collided with a Japanese tanker. There was not a single word on the fact that it was a nuclear-powered submarine. If not even newspapers in Austria, a country which is fiercly antinuclear, mentions this it seems that this fact does not play a big role in public perception worldwide. Best regards, Franz 2007/1/10, stewart farber : > > Hello all, > > As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster > involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely > tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a > radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a > collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such > an extent. > > Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which > was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: > > "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, > there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of > Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. > Coming soon to a theatre near you." > > Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If > the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature > films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the > wrong field. > > Stewart Farber, MS Public Health > Farber Medical Solutions, LLC > Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation > [203] 441-8433 [office] > email: radproject at sbcglobal.net > > > From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 18:05:48 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy Message-ID: <264810.8126.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 10-Jan-2007 Contact: Karen Richardson krchrdsn at wfubmc.edu 336-716-4453 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine are the first to report that in animal studies, a common diabetes drug prevents the memory and learning problems that cancer patients often experience after whole-brain radiation treatments. "These findings offer the promise of improving the quality of life of these patients," said Mike Robbins, Ph.D., senior researcher. "The drug is already prescribed for diabetes and we know the doses that patients can safely take." Whole-brain radiation is widely used to treat recurrent brain tumors as well as to prevent breast cancer, lung cancer and malignant melanoma from spreading to the brain. About 200,000 people receive the treatment annually, and beginning about a year later, up to one-half develop progressive cognitive impairments that can affect memory, language and abstract reasoning. In the current issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology - Biology ?Physics, Robbins and colleagues report that rats receiving the diabetes drug piolitazone (sold under the trade name Actos?) before, during and after radiation treatments did not experience cognitive impairment. The scientists compared whether treatment with Actos for four weeks or for 54 weeks after radiation would be more effective, and found there was not a significant difference. The study involved young adult rats that received either radiation treatment equal to levels received by humans or a "sham" treatment involving no radiation. Animals in both groups received either a normal diet or a diet containing the diabetes drug. Cognitive function was assessed a year after the completion of radiation therapy using an object recognition test. Rats receiving radiation exhibited a significant decrease in cognitive function, unless they received the diabetes drug for either four or 54 weeks after radiation. "This could be easily applied to patients," said Robbins, a professor of radiation biology. "We know the drugs don't promote tumor growth, and in some cases may inhibit it." Currently, there are no known treatments to prevent cognitive impairments, and Robbins said the aging of the American population makes it imperative to solve the problem. "Cancer is a disease of old age, so the number of people getting whole-brain radiation will increase," he said. In essence, radiation causes the cognitive problems because it speeds up the brain's aging process. Recent research suggests that a cause may be chronic inflammation or oxidative stress. Oxidative stress occurs when cells cannot remove free radicals, or structurally unstable cells that can damage healthy cells. The study by Robbins and colleagues was based on evidence that the diabetes drug pioglitazone prevents inflammation. The drug activates a specific type of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) that control fat and glucose metabolism, and may be involved in inflammation. Robbins said because the drug shows promise for preventing cognitive impairment, it may allow doctors to give higher doses of radiation. Currently, while higher doses of radiation have been associated with longer survival, dose is limited because of potential damage to surrounding healthy tissue. ### The research is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Co-researchers were Weiling Zhao, Ph.D., Valerie Payne, B.S., Ellen Tommasi, B.S., Debra Diz, Ph.D., and Fang-Chi Hsu, Ph.D., all with Wake Forest. Media Contact: Shannon Koontz, shkoontz at wfubmc.edu; at 336-716-4587 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is an academic health system comprised of North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences, which operates the university's School of Medicine. U.S. News & World Report ranks Wake Forest University School of Medicine 18th in family medicine, 20th in geriatrics, 25th in primary care and 41st in research among the nation's medical schools. It ranks 35th in research funding by the National Institutes of Health. Almost 150 members of the medical school faculty are listed in Best Doctors in America. --------------------------------- Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 19:16:05 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:16:05 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective In-Reply-To: <264810.8126.qm@web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <025a01c7351e$12260100$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Example of Iranian Press: Comments? http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/11/2007&Cat=4&Num=014 Uranium killing Italian troops ROME (BBC News) -- Italian soldiers are still dying following exposure to depleted uranium in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, their relatives say. Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions. The U.S. says it fired around 40,000 depleted uranium rounds during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. A pressure group says 50 veterans have died and another 200 are seriously ill. Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust. The Italians who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were involved in the clear-up of battlefields and came into close contact with exploded ammunition. ----------Children with disabilities The association representing the soldiers, known as Anavafaf, says many of those who have died or are ill have contracted cancer. In 2002 the Italian defense ministry published a report compiled by independent scientists which found a higher than average number of servicemen were suffering from cancer. It said there was an excessive number of Hodgkin's disease victims among Italian Balkan peacekeepers. A number of children fathered by the soldiers have been born with disabilities. There are similar reports from soldiers' associations in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Wed Jan 10 19:38:19 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:38:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective In-Reply-To: <025a01c7351e$12260100$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Message-ID: Dan and other Radsafers The main risk is "chemical toxicity". I think the consenios is that the radiation risk is not important. But I don't think that the chemical toxicity can account for the "projected" effects. See these Uranium references Radiation Risks and Uranium Toxicity, A Brodsky, RSA Publications, 1996 A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses Harley et al RAND, 1999 Depleted Uranium Sources, Exposure and Heath Effects, World Health Organization, 2001 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 Dan W McCarn Sent: January 10, 2007 5:16 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective Example of Iranian Press: Comments? http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/11/2007&Cat=4&Num=014 Uranium killing Italian troops ROME (BBC News) -- Italian soldiers are still dying following exposure to depleted uranium in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, their relatives say. Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions. The U.S. says it fired around 40,000 depleted uranium rounds during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. A pressure group says 50 veterans have died and another 200 are seriously ill. Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust. The Italians who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were involved in the clear-up of battlefields and came into close contact with exploded ammunition. ----------Children with disabilities The association representing the soldiers, known as Anavafaf, says many of those who have died or are ill have contracted cancer. In 2002 the Italian defense ministry published a report compiled by independent scientists which found a higher than average number of servicemen were suffering from cancer. It said there was an excessive number of Hodgkin's disease victims among Italian Balkan peacekeepers. A number of children fathered by the soldiers have been born with disabilities. There are similar reports from soldiers' associations in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. _______________________________________________ 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 HansenRG at nv.doe.gov Wed Jan 10 19:55:47 2007 From: HansenRG at nv.doe.gov (Hansen, Richard) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:55:47 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <5ie951$vu3h@smtp.nv.doe.gov> Message-ID: Thank you Robert Best Regards, Rick Hansen Senior Scientist Counter Terrorism Operations Support Program Office: (702) 295-7813 Cell: (702) 630-1131 Fax: (702) 295-5555 National Security Technologies (NSTec), PO Box 98521, MS CF 128, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521 http://www.nv.doe.gov/nationalsecurity/homelandsecurity/responder.htm Shipping Address: National Securities Technologies, 2621 Losee Rd MS CF 128, North Las Vegas, NV 89030 "We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire...Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Sir Winston Churchill -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:22 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 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. First Announcement: The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium (Sandy Perle) 2. Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) (howard long) 3. Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? (J. Marshall Reber) 4. Re: Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? (Maury Siskel) 5. Re: nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker (stewart farber) 6. DOE Contractor Looking for LB4100 (DeMers, Joseph W) 7. RE: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device Fi rst Responder's Guide--The First 12 Hours (Remick, Alan) 8. A brief different sight (Maury Siskel) 9. Re: nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker ( Franz Sch?nhofer ) 10. Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy (ROY HERREN) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:32:03 -0800 From: "Sandy Perle" Subject: [ RadSafe ] First Announcement: The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium To: radsafe at radlab.nl, powernet at hps1.org Message-ID: <45A37D33.6339.13962A86 at sandyfl.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium -- co sponsored by Global Dosimetry Solutions ; Landauerand Panasonic - cordially invites you to the 26th International Dosimetry & Records Symposium AGENDA and other details: http://www.dosimetryresources.com from there, click on the tab for the 2007 Symposium As in 2006, this will be a joint symposium for Dosimetry and Records - with common plus parallel track sessions Topics planned are "Nuclear Renaissance" ; Nuclear Cycle ; Homeland Security ; Emergency Response ; Regulatory changes and updates ;Litigation ; Environmental ; Confidentiality ; Dose Reconstruction ; EPD ; Establishing a Program for Accreditation etc Special sessions are also planned for " Hands On" equipment training and panel discussions on open issues REGISTRATION: Attendees $350 Guests ( over12) $175 We will shortly post an On Line Registration Link -and also advice you by email DATES: Arrival on Sunday, June 3, 2007 Sessions from Monday, June 4 (8:00am) to Friday, June 8, 2007 (5:00pm) Depart on Saturday, June 9 at your leisure VENUE: Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks 200 Sable Oaks Drive South Portland Maine 04106 USA (207) 871 8000 (800) 752 8810 http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/PWMAP HOTEL ROOM RESERVATION Please contact the Portland Marriott at Sable Oaks directly at (800) 752 8810 and identify yourself as an attendee of the "Dosimetry & Records Symposium June 3 -9; 2007 " to avail yourself of the special negotiated rates: Single or Double Guestroom @ $ 149 plus 7% tax Gov?t Rate @ $ 82 plus 7% tax (Applicable only to active U.S. Gov?t/DOD/DOE employees - Valid ID required) AIRPORT: Portland ; Maine(PWM) http://www.portlandjetport.org/ Other nearby aiports are Boston Logan (BOS) approx 2 hours by car and Manchester (MHT) approx 1 1/2 hours by car. GROUND TRANSPORTATION: Hotel provides complimentary transportation from and to Portland , Maine (PWM) airport Looking forward to your participation Thank you, 2007 Dosimetry & Records Symposium Task Force Inid Deneau Landauer Chairperson Sandy Perle Global Dosimetry Solutions Co-Chairperson Bruce Dicey Consultant Dante Wells Savannah River Company Deborah O?Connor TXU/Comanche Peak Isabelle McCabe Radiation Safety and Control Services Pam Heckman Energy Solutions Richard Cadogan Argonne National Labs Ash Chabra Panasonic ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:24:23 -0800 (PST) From: howard long Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) To: John Jacobus , Jerry Cuttler , Jay Caplan , Muckerheide Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl, Rad Science List Message-ID: <20070110002423.18549.qmail at web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 John, Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only used a one tail test, showing only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the papers, like the Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > life expectancy. > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > calculation to John Cameron. > Jerry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: howard long > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > life (p<0.0001?) > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > rad/year. I would participate. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Of course, radiation effects in older people may > not > be demonstrated as the individuals do not live > lone > enough for the effects to be seen. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Yes, Jay, > > A different way of stating it it is that the > dose > > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is > less > > than that for older persons. I wonder if that > shows > > up in Ramsar, Iran data? > > > > Howard Long > > > > Jay Caplan wrote: > > The "consequences" of looking at different > > ages' results in this study are that we learn > that > > children and those under age 30 should not be > > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 > should be > > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these > approaches > > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the > study > > results. > > > > This is not cherry picking, just looking at > > separate results among a collection of > results. > > > > > > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) > lowering > > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big > news, but > > not new news, it has been shown before in > other > > studies with similar exposures. > > > > Jay Caplan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; > > radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM > > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data > > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) > > > > > > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to > > establishment release, and abstract > inconsistent > > with table 3 data: "highly significant > (p<0.01)" > > that solid cancer incidence > > not LESS in exposed population. > > > > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and > > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in > 23 > > years. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal > cancers > > are > > the only end-points to be evaluated for the > effects > > of > > low-level radiation exposure. It would be > convenient > > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? > Would > > you > > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin > (whatever > > it is) that would increase their risk of > cancer in > > later life? > > > > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood > Cancer > > Rate > > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would > play as > > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data > you > > want, but what are the consequences? > > > > > > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" > > wrote: > > > > > Friends, FYI. > > > > > > Regards, Jim > > > =========== > > > > > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% > reduction > > of > > > all cancers for > > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial > amount > > > (>50 mSv) over the > > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). > This is > > > in the table on page > > > 885. > > > > > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to > a > > > population, it would be > > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think > that even > > > though it ignored > > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and > > confirms > > > the nuclear > > > shipyard worker study results. > > > > > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult > Cancer Rate > > > Reduced 40% by Low > > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in > the > > > abstract. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered > > nationwide gasoline > > rationing, beginning December 1. > > > > -- 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 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." -- John F. Kennedy -- 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: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:14:27 -0500 From: "J. Marshall Reber" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? To: radsafelist Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about what they used to manufacture. If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:12:17 -0600 From: Maury Siskel Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Victoreen Corotron Regulator Tubes' Catalog? To: "J. Marshall Reber" Cc: radsafelist Message-ID: <45A50251.9010206 at peoplepc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed J. Marshall Reber wrote: > Not too many years ago before Victoreen dispersed itself, one could > access the specifications of their gaseous regulator tubes and their > very high resistance resistors online over the internet. At that > time I neither had a high resolution printer or a big hard drive so > that I, alas, did not download any copies for reference. Victoreen's > remains are now so dispersed that no one seems to know anything about > what they used to manufacture. > > If anyone has a Corotron catalog or specs sheets of which I could > purchase hard or computer copies I would be most grateful. > > > > J. Marshall Reber, ScD > 165 Berkeley St. > Methuen MA 01844 > > Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 > Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu > ============================== Marshall, will any of this material help you? Best, Maury&Dog =============================== My Saved Results 5340 style (PDF File) ... tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW (Each): $5.-TRANSFER COROTRON ASSEMBLY 5340TCA ... 5855 s of tir COROTRON WIRE (Pre-Cut) 5340PCW ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/cat5340.pdf ? Save Vintage 1020 (PDF File) ... conserve space in our Catalog, we've compressed a few of the older models ... 45.-FUSER LAMP 1025FL $40.- COROTRON WIRES(Pre-Cut) 4 in ... www.partsdrop.com/catalog/catVintage.pdf ? Save More Results from www.partsdrop.com electron Tube Data sheets - Victoreen documents 2002-08-19 Victoreen Tubes Catalog Spark gaps, Corotron Tubes, GM Counter Tube. Thanks to John Atwood 6,032,375 bytes ... frank.pocnet.net/other/Victoreen/index.html ? Save UED.net Catalog - Item Index Page 273 - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP Union Electronic Distributors Catalog - BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... UH0515001 COROTRON CASE (R) BLACK HL10V BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORP ... www.unionel.com/catalog/cat_item_idx_273.html ? Save Xerox 5818 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 5818 W5180 5818 N/A CORONA - Precut Corotron ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-5818.html ? Save Xerox 1025 copier fax printer parts and toner Part Manufactures for copiers, fax, printer parts, toner - Free Shipping For Orders Over $75Xerox 1025 W5690 1025 600K15950 CORONA - Wire - ... www.precisionroller.com/manufacturers/xerox-1025.html ? Save More Results from www.precisionroller.com ISO Parts - National Stock Number (NSN) Index - Page 1877 - Free ... Free Locator Service for Military and Aviation parts, spares and components. Free online databases of Government Data such as MCRL. We are ... www.iso-parts.com/index/1877 ? Save TarguMures.info - Portalul Judetului Mures - Targu Mures - ... Nostra, CORSA s.r.l., Corotron Service srl, Cornisa, CORIZ S.A., Corbet Transair, COPYTECH SRL ... www.targumures.info/ ? Save Photocopier Hazards and a Conservation Case Study ... a corotron. It is well known in the photocopy industry that corotron charging devices ... gases generated by a corotron in positive ... aic.stanford.edu/sg/bpg/annual/v08/bp08-05.html ? Cached ? Save AnaLog's Electronic Component ID Menu AnaLog Services, Inc. provides services to the oil well, water well, and mineral logging / wireline industries. www.logwell.com/tech/components/component_identification.html ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:19:21 -0500 From: "stewart farber" Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker To: "Brian Rees" , , , "Dawson, Fred Mr" Message-ID: <007801c734db$77c3c7b0$0302a8c0 at YOUR7C60552B9E> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello all, As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such an extent. Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you." Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the wrong field. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Rees To: stewart farber ; Dawson, Fred Mr ; radsafe at radlab.nl ; srp-uk at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker Having spent quite a bit of time submerged on nuclear power, and some of that may have been in the Straits of Hormuz, I'd like to make a few comments. First of all, a submarine can't hear very effectively directly behind it, so when they come up to periscope depth, they turn from side to side, listening in that "cone" for somebody who may be coming up behind you. So if you come up too quickly, and don't do that job well, you can get in trouble. Exciting, to say the least!!! Secondly, the Straits of Hormuz are a "target-rich" environment, and keeping track of who's where, going in which direction, at what speed is very challenging, and the ships can change speed and direction at will. Remember, they aren't on roads. And the ocean and ocean bottom can do funny things to reflect sounds. Submarines don't use active sonar very much (kinda defeats their purpose!). Thirdly, sea state and weather conditions aren't mentioned, so this may have contributed as well, a periscope is a radar target, and isn't put up any farther than required. Any substantial sea will limit your horizon, and although an oil tanker is big tonnage, loaded they can sit fairly low in the water. All that said, yes, it's an embarrassment. The collision between the USS Greeneville and the Japanese Ship Ehime Maru was a combination of some of the factors above, and poor conduct of operations in the control room of the USS Greeneville. It's too bad that the people who claim to know Conduct of Ops don't know more about that accident and apply lessons learned to operations, rather that some of the BS that they do. As far as a radioactive release as a result of a collision, that's extremely remote, a Submarine's hull is quite thick and strong, and there are multiple layers between radioactive materials and the fishes. For more (quite good) reading about submarine life, I highly recommend Andy Karam's (!) book: Rig Ship for Ultra Quiet - available from Amazon Books. Brian Rees At 09:12 AM 1/9/2007, stewart farber wrote: Hello colleagues, Regarding the post by Fred Dawson about a US sub hitting an oil tanker. It is difficult to understand how a nuclear sub, with all its navigation equipment and sensors to detect anything near it [supposedly] can run up and hit an oil tanker. A tanker is a fairly large object on the surface that is not running along in a stealth mode like an enemy attack sub --- isn't it? An unfortunate embarassment for the US Navy. Some will certainly paint this story as a new nuclear attack of sorts on the Japanese. "Run Silent, Run Deep" is supposed to be what subs "aim" for. Theoretically, this could have been quite the disaster. If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. Coming soon to a theatre near you. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linac & Medical Imaging Equipment [203] 441-8433 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker BBC reports US sub collides with Japan ship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6243395.stm A US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said. The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency. There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said. The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage. The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz. US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision. "I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet. The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127. Fred Dawson Fwp-dawson at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/622 - Release Date: 1/10/2007 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:20:14 -0800 From: "DeMers, Joseph W" Subject: [ RadSafe ] DOE Contractor Looking for LB4100 To: "'radsafe at radlab.nl'" Cc: "DeMers, Joseph W" Message-ID: <6ED9464012BE854ABA07FEBE6EFBBEFA020C6CB6 at rccex01.wch-rcc.com> Content-Type: text/plain Folks, I am looking for a used or surplus Tennelec LB4100 multi-detector counter. I am particularly interested if another DOE contractor may have one that they are looking to excess or get rid of, where we can work a property transfer. Please respond to me off list if you can help. Regards, Joe DeMers Radiological Control Technical Support Manager Washington Closure Hanford (509) 372-9040 (Desk) (509) 521-0203 (Mobile) ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:53:31 -0500 From: "Remick, Alan" Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device Fi rst Responder's Guide--The First 12 Hours To: REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com, "RADSAFE Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain In addition to this reference document, the DOE/NNSA Emergency Operations Training Academy has just published the "First Responder Guide for Radiological Unknowns". This handy pocket guide will be made available in limited quantities to State and Local responders through the Radiological Assistance Program next week. Please contact your RAP Regional Office for more information... Alan L. Remick NNSA AMS and REAC/TS Program Manager NA-42 202-586-8312 202-586-3859 (fax) "Leading Nuclear Response" _____ From: REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com [mailto:REP_Planners at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:17 PM To: RADSAFE Mailing List; REP Planners Mailing List Subject: [REP Planners] Fwd: Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide--The First 1 Distributed at the request of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). Jim Hardeman -- Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us =============================== PRESS RELEASE RDD (Dirty Bomb) First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours Now Available! The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. announces publication of the Handbook for Responding to a Radiological Dispersal Device First Responder's Guide-The First 12 Hours. This handbook was developed as a training and reference tool for first responders with various degrees of radiological experience. The RDD Handbook expands on the concepts presented in the RDD Pocket Guide published by CRCPD in March 2006. The RDD Handbook provides guidance in a number of areas, including a flow chart of actions when responding to an RDD, rules of thumb, determination of various radiation zones, use of radiation instrumentation, decontamination guidelines, and multiple forms that can be tailored for specific needs. The RDD Handbook also includes lists of state, local and federal radiation control contacts that can provide assistance. This handbook will be useful for training, exercise and response activities. Many of the concepts introduced in the handbook can be applied to a variety of radiation incidents, and do not apply exclusively to dirty bombs. The RDD Handbook consists of the bound document, a CD containing forms and handouts, and one RDD Pocket Guide. Ordering information is available at or call (502) 227-4543, Ext. 2229. Price: $30, including shipping. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated to radiation protection. CRCPD's mission is to promote consistency in addressing and resolving radiation protection issues, to encourage high standards of quality in radiation protection programs, and to provide leadership in radiation safety and education. CRCPD's headquarters is located at 205 Capital Avenue, Frankfort, KY 40601. __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Emergency preparedness Nh lake region real estate Emergency preparedness supply New hampshire lake region real estate Emergency preparedness kit Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:06:36 -0600 From: Maury Siskel Subject: [ RadSafe ] A brief different sight To: Mailing List for Risk Professionals , radsafe Message-ID: <45A5474C.2070604 at peoplepc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Admittedly off topic, no risk and probably no irradiation here. But take a minute from your shop and enjoy this .... You'll work better tomorrow. http://spaceweather.com Comet McNaught has continued to brighten as it approaches the sun and it is now the brightest comet in 30 years. For observers in the northern Hemisphere, tonight is probably the best time to see it: Go outside this evening and face the sunset. A clear view of the western horizon is essential, because the comet hangs very low. As the twilight fades to black, it should become visible to the naked eye. Observers say it's a fantastic sight through binoculars. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:04:43 +0100 From: " Franz Sch?nhofer " Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanesetanker To: "stewart farber" Cc: "Dawson, Fred Mr" , srp-uk at yahoogroups.com, radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Dear all, I read today two Austrian papers. One was on the internet, which did not mention the incident at all. The other one I read as a paper copy had a short note on approximately page 17, mentioning that a US submarine had collided with a Japanese tanker. There was not a single word on the fact that it was a nuclear-powered submarine. If not even newspapers in Austria, a country which is fiercly antinuclear, mentions this it seems that this fact does not play a big role in public perception worldwide. Best regards, Franz 2007/1/10, stewart farber : > > Hello all, > > As my original comment indicated [see below], any reference to a disaster > involving radioactivity with the sub/oil tanker bump reported was completely > tongue-in-cheek. There was a "smiley face" emoticon after my mention of a > radioactive oil spill. I can't conceive of any accident involving a > collision between a sub and a surface vessel that could damage a sub to such > an extent. > > Anyone who knows me appreciates that I enjoy the irony and satire which > was evident in my post. Let's keep our sense of humor! I wrote initially: > > "If the sub and oil tanker really got damaged in a situation like this, > there might have been a large radioactive oil spill in the Gulf's Straits of > Hormuz. :-) Talk about a disaster movie plot. What a cleanup problem. > Coming soon to a theatre near you." > > Maybe I should just write a script for the above disaster movie plot. If > the "Poseidon Adventure" story line can end up as two Hollywood feature > films with millions of $ going to the screenwriters, perhaps I'm in the > wrong field. > > Stewart Farber, MS Public Health > Farber Medical Solutions, LLC > Broker for Linac, Medical Imaging Equipment, and Radiation Instrumentation > [203] 441-8433 [office] > email: radproject at sbcglobal.net > > > ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:05:48 -0800 (PST) From: ROY HERREN Subject: [ RadSafe ] Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <264810.8126.qm at web81604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Public release date: 10-Jan-2007 Contact: Karen Richardson krchrdsn at wfubmc.edu 336-716-4453 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Diabetes drug shows promise for preventing brain injury from radiation therapy WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine are the first to report that in animal studies, a common diabetes drug prevents the memory and learning problems that cancer patients often experience after whole-brain radiation treatments. "These findings offer the promise of improving the quality of life of these patients," said Mike Robbins, Ph.D., senior researcher. "The drug is already prescribed for diabetes and we know the doses that patients can safely take." Whole-brain radiation is widely used to treat recurrent brain tumors as well as to prevent breast cancer, lung cancer and malignant melanoma from spreading to the brain. About 200,000 people receive the treatment annually, and beginning about a year later, up to one-half develop progressive cognitive impairments that can affect memory, language and abstract reasoning. In the current issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology - Biology -Physics, Robbins and colleagues report that rats receiving the diabetes drug piolitazone (sold under the trade name Actos?) before, during and after radiation treatments did not experience cognitive impairment. The scientists compared whether treatment with Actos for four weeks or for 54 weeks after radiation would be more effective, and found there was not a significant difference. The study involved young adult rats that received either radiation treatment equal to levels received by humans or a "sham" treatment involving no radiation. Animals in both groups received either a normal diet or a diet containing the diabetes drug. Cognitive function was assessed a year after the completion of radiation therapy using an object recognition test. Rats receiving radiation exhibited a significant decrease in cognitive function, unless they received the diabetes drug for either four or 54 weeks after radiation. "This could be easily applied to patients," said Robbins, a professor of radiation biology. "We know the drugs don't promote tumor growth, and in some cases may inhibit it." Currently, there are no known treatments to prevent cognitive impairments, and Robbins said the aging of the American population makes it imperative to solve the problem. "Cancer is a disease of old age, so the number of people getting whole-brain radiation will increase," he said. In essence, radiation causes the cognitive problems because it speeds up the brain's aging process. Recent research suggests that a cause may be chronic inflammation or oxidative stress. Oxidative stress occurs when cells cannot remove free radicals, or structurally unstable cells that can damage healthy cells. The study by Robbins and colleagues was based on evidence that the diabetes drug pioglitazone prevents inflammation. The drug activates a specific type of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) that control fat and glucose metabolism, and may be involved in inflammation. Robbins said because the drug shows promise for preventing cognitive impairment, it may allow doctors to give higher doses of radiation. Currently, while higher doses of radiation have been associated with longer survival, dose is limited because of potential damage to surrounding healthy tissue. ### The research is supported by the National Cancer Institute. Co-researchers were Weiling Zhao, Ph.D., Valerie Payne, B.S., Ellen Tommasi, B.S., Debra Diz, Ph.D., and Fang-Chi Hsu, Ph.D., all with Wake Forest. Media Contact: Shannon Koontz, shkoontz at wfubmc.edu; at 336-716-4587 Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center is an academic health system comprised of North Carolina Baptist Hospital and Wake Forest University Health Sciences, which operates the university's School of Medicine. U.S. News & World Report ranks Wake Forest University School of Medicine 18th in family medicine, 20th in geriatrics, 25th in primary care and 41st in research among the nation's medical schools. It ranks 35th in research funding by the National Institutes of Health. Almost 150 members of the medical school faculty are listed in Best Doctors in America. --------------------------------- Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 ************************************** From Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us Wed Jan 10 15:55:27 2007 From: Pete.Myers at dshs.state.tx.us (Myers, Pete) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:55:27 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Another HP Position is Open in Texas Message-ID: <9D016E7E7930A347AE098135FEFCE84301EE1D72@DSHSEXVS3.dshs.state.tx.us> Another Health Physicist I position is posted on the Texas Department of State Health Services web page at a salary range from $4010.58 to $4320.00 per month. To review the position description, Chief, Industrial Radiographer Certification Program, and submit an on-line application click here Chief, IRCP Applications must be received no later than the close of business, January 23, 2007. For additional information concerning the specific duties and responsibilities of the position, please contact: Jan Endahl, Chief (Retiring) Industrial Radiographer Certification Program Radiation Safety Licensing Branch 512-834-6688 ext 2229 512-834-6690 (fax) mailto:jan.endahl at dshs.state.tx.us From jerrycuttler at rogers.com Wed Jan 10 22:30:14 2007 From: jerrycuttler at rogers.com (Jerry Cuttler) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:30:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) References: <999440.90795.qm@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015a01c73539$310be6a0$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472. 4 Discussion The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan. So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% reduction). Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jacobus" To: "Jerry Cuttler" ; "howard long" ; "Jay Caplan" ; "Muckerheide" Cc: "Rad Science List" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of > the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good > enough if the results are what you want? > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > >> I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in >> mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased >> life expectancy. >> I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 >> year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's >> calculation to John Cameron. >> Jerry >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: howard long >> To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide >> Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM >> Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived >> longer (0.76 mortality rate!) >> >> >> Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of >> life (p<0.0001?) >> Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 >> rad/year. I would participate. >> >> Howard Long >> >> John Jacobus wrote: >> Of course, radiation effects in older people may >> not >> be demonstrated as the individuals do not live >> lone >> enough for the effects to be seen. >> >> --- howard long wrote: >> >> > Yes, Jay, >> > A different way of stating it it is that the >> dose >> > beneficial or harmful to persons under 30 is >> less >> > than that for older persons. I wonder if that >> shows >> > up in Ramsar, Iran data? >> > >> > Howard Long >> > >> > Jay Caplan wrote: >> > The "consequences" of looking at different >> > ages' results in this study are that we learn >> that >> > children and those under age 30 should not be >> > exposed to gamma excess, and that ages >30 >> should be >> > exposed to gamma increases. Both of these >> approaches >> > would reduce the cancer incidence based on the >> study >> > results. >> > >> > This is not cherry picking, just looking at >> > separate results among a collection of >> results. >> > >> > >> > A 50% (solid cancer) and 40% (all cancer) >> lowering >> > of incidence in adults over age 30 is big >> news, but >> > not new news, it has been shown before in >> other >> > studies with similar exposures. >> > >> > Jay Caplan >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: howard long >> > To: John Jacobus ; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU ; >> > radsafe at radlab.nl >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:11 AM >> > Subject: Antinucs' Reluctantly Released Data >> > Confirms Radiation Hormesis (Taiwan Apts) >> > >> > >> > Note "Environmental - " address to respond to >> > establishment release, and abstract >> inconsistent >> > with table 3 data: "highly significant >> (p<0.01)" >> > that solid cancer incidence >> > not LESS in exposed population. >> > >> > Only leukemia incidence may be higher, and >> > mortality rate even there just 2 in 7,000 in >> 23 >> > years. >> > >> > Howard Long >> > >> > John Jacobus wrote: >> > Apparently, not everyone thinks that fatal >> cancers >> > are >> > the only end-points to be evaluated for the >> effects >> > of >> > low-level radiation exposure. It would be >> convenient >> > to ignore other effects, but is it ethical? >> Would >> > you >> > wish to have your child exposed to a toxin >> (whatever >> > it is) that would increase their risk of >> cancer in >> > later life? >> > >> > I am not sure that the headline "Childhood >> Cancer >> > Rate >> > Increase by 40% by Low Dose Radiation" would >> play as >> > well. You can certainly cherry-pick the data >> you >> > want, but what are the consequences? >> > >> > >> > --- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Friends, FYI. >> > > >> > > Regards, Jim >> > > =========== >> > > >> > > Isn't the most useful statistic the 40% >> reduction >> > of >> > > all cancers for >> > > those over age 30 exposed to a substantial >> amount >> > > (>50 mSv) over the >> > > years? ( 50% reduction for solid cancers). >> This is >> > > in the table on page >> > > 885. >> > > >> > > If radiation prophylaxis is ever applied to >> a >> > > population, it would be >> > > for those over age 30 certainly. I think >> that even >> > > though it ignored >> > > mortality, this is a very helpful study and >> > confirms >> > > the nuclear >> > > shipyard worker study results. >> > > >> > > Newspaper headlines should read "Adult >> Cancer Rate >> > > Reduced 40% by Low >> > > Dose Radiation," but you don't find this in >> the >> > > abstract. >> > > >> > > Jay >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > 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/ >> > > >> > >> > >> > +++++++++++++++++++ >> > On Nov. 26, 1942, President Roosevelt ordered >> > nationwide gasoline >> > rationing, beginning December 1. >> > >> > -- 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 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." > -- John F. Kennedy > > -- 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 Jan 11 01:31:14 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:31:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium killing Italian troops: Iranian Perspective In-Reply-To: <025a01c7351e$12260100$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Message-ID: <20070111073114.3978.qmail@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Comments? How about answering a question with two questions? If the Iranians think that Uranium is so bad why are they working so hard to enrich Uranium? What will the Iranians do with the mountain of Depleted Uranium that will be left behind when and if they acquire all the enriched Uranium that they so desire? Perhaps we should judge them not by their words, but rather by their actions! Roy Herren Dan W McCarn wrote: Example of Iranian Press: Comments? http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=1/11/2007&Cat=4&Num=014 Uranium killing Italian troops ROME (BBC News) -- Italian soldiers are still dying following exposure to depleted uranium in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, their relatives say. Troops who served during the wars in the 1990s believe they have contracted cancer and other serious illnesses from extended exposure to the munitions. The U.S. says it fired around 40,000 depleted uranium rounds during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts. A pressure group says 50 veterans have died and another 200 are seriously ill. Depleted uranium is used on the tips of bullets and shells. But when it explodes it often leaves a footprint of chemically poisonous and radioactive dust. The Italians who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were involved in the clear-up of battlefields and came into close contact with exploded ammunition. ----------Children with disabilities The association representing the soldiers, known as Anavafaf, says many of those who have died or are ill have contracted cancer. In 2002 the Italian defense ministry published a report compiled by independent scientists which found a higher than average number of servicemen were suffering from cancer. It said there was an excessive number of Hodgkin's disease victims among Italian Balkan peacekeepers. A number of children fathered by the soldiers have been born with disabilities. There are similar reports from soldiers' associations in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 01:43:29 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:43:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected Message-ID: <660934.57219.qm@web81613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> bV = parseInt(navigator.appVersion); if (bV >= 4) window.print(); http://www.physorg.com/news87657811.html Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from the University of Cambridge and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported this week in the journal Nature. The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. This could lead to swelling, loss of physical strength and possible cracking of the mineral as soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had decayed to safe levels, said lead author and Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. According to current thinking, highly radioactive substances could be rendered less mobile by combining them, before disposal, with glass or with a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to form a crystal. However, the crystal structure can only hold the radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks down. This may increase the likelihood for radioactive materials to leak, although co-author William J. Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples used in the study, cautioned that this work did not address leakage, and researchers detected no cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing zircon can remain intact for millions of years and is one of the most durable materials on earth. Some earth and materials scientists believe it is possible to create a structure that rebuilds itself after these "alpha events" so that it can contain the radioactive elements for much longer. The tests developed by the Cambridge and PNNL team would enable scientists to screen different mineral and synthetic forms for durability. As well as making the storage of the waste safer, new storage methods guided by the NMR technique could offer significant savings for nations facing disposal of large amounts of radioactive material. Countries including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan are all considering burying their nuclear waste stockpiles hundreds of meters beneath the earth's surface. Doing so necessitates selection of a site with sufficiently stringent geological features to withstand any potential leakage at a cost of billions of dollars. For example, there is an ongoing debate over the safety of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. A figure published in Science in 2005 put that project's cost at $57 billion. "By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions of dollars worth of savings and improve the overall safety," Farnan said. "At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how materials behave over the extremely long timescales we are talking about. Our new research is a step towards that. "We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and before anyone tried to engineer around it. This would have substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view." PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert Herman Cho, who co-wrote the report, said: "When the samples were made in the 1980s, NMR was not in the thinking. NMR has enabled us to quantify and look at changes in the crystal structure as the radiation damage progresses. "This method adds a valuable new perspective to research on radioactive waste forms. It has also raised the question: 'How adequate is our understanding of the long-term behavior of these materials?' Studies of other waste forms, such as glass, could benefit from this technique." Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory This news is brought to you by PhysOrg.com Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jk5554 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 08:55:00 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:55:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <015a01c73539$310be6a0$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> Message-ID: <946993.16694.qm@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All - The 2.8 y figure was from Dr. Cameron. I believe that he obtained it from Bernie Cohen, unless he calculated it himself. Best wishes - Ruth Sponsler --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. > J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found > the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472. > > 4 Discussion > The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the > 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < > 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR > implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan. > > So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life > extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% > reduction). > > Jerry ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From grantjoh at pacbell.net Thu Jan 11 11:13:28 2007 From: grantjoh at pacbell.net (John A Grant) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:13:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materials faster than expected In-Reply-To: <660934.57219.qm@web81613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <312998.44729.qm@web81004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- ROY HERREN wrote: > bV = parseInt(navigator.appVersion); if (bV >= > 4) window.print(); > http://www.physorg.com/news87657811.html > > Radiation degrades nuclear > waste-containing materials faster than expected > Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for > hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to > structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from > the University of Cambridge and the Pacific > Northwest National Laboratory reported this week in > the journal Nature. > The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or > NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from > plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon > rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. > > This could lead to swelling, loss of physical > strength and possible cracking of the mineral as > soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had > decayed to safe levels, said lead author and > Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. > > According to current thinking, highly radioactive > substances could be rendered less mobile by > combining them, before disposal, with glass or with > a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to > form a crystal. > > However, the crystal structure can only hold the > radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal > radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments > called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying > nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types > repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks > down. > > This may increase the likelihood for radioactive > materials to leak, although co-author William J. > Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national > laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples > used in the study, cautioned that this work did not > address leakage, and researchers detected no > cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or > structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing > zircon can remain intact for millions of years and > is one of the most durable materials on earth. The above paragraph disagrees with the rest of the report. John Grant From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Thu Jan 11 11:29:59 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:29:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation degrades nuclear waste-containing materialsfaster than expected In-Reply-To: <312998.44729.qm@web81004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BB92@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of John A Grant >Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:13 PM >To: ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl > >--- ROY HERREN wrote: > >> http://www.physorg.com/news87657811.html >> >> Radiation degrades nuclear >> waste-containing materials faster than expected >> Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for >> hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to >> structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from >> the University of Cambridge and the Pacific >> Northwest National Laboratory reported this week in >> the journal Nature. >> >> The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or >> NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from >> plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon >> rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. >> >> This could lead to swelling, loss of physical >> strength and possible cracking of the mineral as >> soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had >> decayed to safe levels, said lead author and >> Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. >> >> According to current thinking, highly radioactive >> substances could be rendered less mobile by >> combining them, before disposal, with glass or with >> a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to >> form a crystal. >> >> However, the crystal structure can only hold the >> radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal >> radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments >> called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying >> nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types >> repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks >> down. >> >> This may increase the likelihood for radioactive >> materials to leak, although co-author William J. >> Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national >> laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples >> used in the study, cautioned that this work did not >> address leakage, and researchers detected no >> cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or >> structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing >> zircon can remain intact for millions of years and >> is one of the most durable materials on earth. > >The above paragraph disagrees with the rest of the >report. > >John Grant Well, Weber at PNNL makes the stuff, and isn't in the same "fear-monger" business as "the Cambridge team" and "earth scientist" Farnan. He could even be "just an engineer." Regards, Jim PS: He IS "just an engineer." :-) See: http://www.pnl.gov/fsd/people/fellows_lab/weber_william.stm From DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com Thu Jan 11 11:37:59 2007 From: DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com (Landers, Darrell L.) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:37:59 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Introduction to Radiological Shipping Message-ID: I'm interested in suggestions for some Introduction to Radiological Shipping Classes. Course descriptions, websites, etc. are appreciated. Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 From DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com Thu Jan 11 11:42:25 2007 From: DARRELL.L.LANDERS at saic.com (Landers, Darrell L.) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:42:25 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors Message-ID: I'm in need of any information (Calibration or User manuals) for the GSM-110 radiation meters manufactured by William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors. Thanks, Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 From cdillard at labsafety.org Thu Jan 11 12:37:36 2007 From: cdillard at labsafety.org (Christina Dillard) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:37:36 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Introduction to Radiological Shipping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005901c735af$92aa4610$6f01a8c0@PC1> Darrell, I found the course that Global Transport Training puts on to be quite helpful. They hold seminars in cities all across the country. The Radioactive shipping portion is one-day, but they require that you are either already IATA certified or take their IATA course. Anyway, check them out at http://www.gttstraining.com/radioactive.htm Note, the Radioactive shipping portion covers more than IATA regulations, but they certainly stress the "by air" regulations. And please let me know if LSI can help you with any general Radiation Safety consulting or training. Thanks, Christina Dillard Assistant Director cdillard at labsafety.org A Nonprofit International Organization for Safety in Science and Science Education The Laboratory Safety Institute 192 Worcester Road Natick, MA 01760-2252 Phone: 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 www.labsafety.org Making Health, Safety, and the Environment an Integral and Important Part of Education, Work, and Life -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Landers, Darrell L. Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:38 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Introduction to Radiological Shipping I'm interested in suggestions for some Introduction to Radiological Shipping Classes. Course descriptions, websites, etc. are appreciated. Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Jan 11 13:39:53 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:39:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article: NMR finds holes in nuclear waste storage Message-ID: <278104.85413.qm@web54301.mail.yahoo.com> >From http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/1/5 NMR finds holes in nuclear waste storage 10 January 2007 A ceramic material touted for its potential to store radioactive waste is much less resilient to radiation damage than previously thought. Physicists in the UK used a high-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technique to show that alpha-radiation causes too much damage in zircon to ensure safety over long timescales. They now claim the NMR technique will help to assess the long-term durability of other potential ceramics by providing a deeper, atomic-scale understanding of damage events (Nature 445 190). Integrating radioactive material into mineral-based ceramics is a leading contender for the disposal of nuclear waste. Some of these ceramics, such as "zircon" (ZrSiO4), already occur naturally with slowly-decaying radioactive isotopes incorporated into their crystalline structure. Nevertheless, they have remained intact over billions of years despite the damage caused by the onslaught of high-energy alpha particles produced in the decay process. Some scientists had hoped that zircon could withstand much higher doses of the radioactive plutonium isotope 239Pu, which is found in spent nuclear fuel. The risk is that increased exposure to alpha particles would displace too many atoms and damage the crystalline structure irrevocably. But this damage had been difficult to measure and in the past scientists relied on vague empirical calculations based on the assessment of large defects to predict how long the ceramics would last. Mineral physicists Ian Farnan and colleagues at the University of Cambridge may now have the answer, however. They used a technique called "magic-angle spinning" NMR on zircon, showing that each alpha-particle displaces up to 5000 atoms in the crystal lattice, rather than the 1000 to 2000 estimated before. The technique enhances the resolution of the NMR spectrum by spinning a sample at high speeds and at a certain angle to the applied magnetic field. This is the first time individual damage events have been witnessed, and could put an end to the "back of the envelope" calculations that had prevented scientists from accurately determining a material's lifespan. Unfortunately this means that zircon containing 10% of 239Pu (roughly the dose required for radioactive waste storage) would break down after just 1400 years ? nowhere near the 250 000 years that regulation dictates. Although the technique has ruled-out zircon, it could pave the way for characterizing other materials over long timescales. "The main issue with siting a nuclear waste repository is that there are many uncertain factors," said Farnan. "When you extrapolate these into the future you get a very large uncertainty, which can make the idea of a repository intractable. But we feel that by working on the material itself, that's where you are going to get the biggest effect." +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 13:57:53 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:57:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <20070110002423.18549.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070111195753.39118.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message any more than it already it? --- howard long wrote: > John, > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > your own? > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > establishment not only used a one tail test, showing > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > critical review of the data in the papers, like the > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > some of my suggestions to make his language > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > Cameron > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > of > the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good > enough if the results are what you want? > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > > life expectancy. > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > > calculation to John Cameron. > > Jerry > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: howard long > > To: John Jacobus ; Jay Caplan ; Muckerheide > > Cc: Rad Science List ; radsafe at radlab.nl > > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:33 PM > > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived > > longer (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > > > > Cameron showed 0.5 rem extra gave 2.5 mor years of > > life (p<0.0001?) > > Luan now proposes a clinical trial with 5 > > rad/year. I would participate. > > > > Howard Long > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 14:05:02 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:05:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer (0.76 mortality rate!) In-Reply-To: <015a01c73539$310be6a0$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> Message-ID: <823791.45451.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Jerry, You didn't answer my questions: Assuming you sent the information before Dr. Cameron died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good enough if the results are what you want? --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > I looked at the Sponsler and Cameron paper in Int. > J. Low Radiation, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2005, and I found > the following sentence in Section 4 on Page 472. > > 4 Discussion > The Summary of the Final Report did not mention the > 24% lower SMR from all causes of the cohort (p < > 10-16) compared to the controls. A 24% lower SMR > implies a 2.8-year increase in average lifespan. > > So I likely asked Bernie to calculate the life > extension corresponding to 24% lower SMR (not a 40% > reduction). > > Jerry > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jacobus" > To: "Jerry Cuttler" ; > "howard long" ; "Jay Caplan" > ; "Muckerheide" > > Cc: "Rad Science List" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: (Taiwan Apts) NSWS exposed lived longer > (0.76 mortality rate!) > > > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the > results of > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > indicate? > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > >> I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > >> mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > >> life expectancy. > >> I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > >> year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > >> calculation to John Cameron. > >> Jerry > >> +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:13:33 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:13:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <809325.25664.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Loo at: http://www.johnsonnuclear.com/contact.html Questions about our products? Contact us by phone, fax, email or mail: Phone: 304.645.6568 Fax: 304.645.2182 Email: buyjohnson at msn.com Mail/UPS/FEDEX Address: William B. Johnson and Associates 200 AEI Drive Lewisburg, West Virginia 24901 "Landers, Darrell L." wrote: I'm in need of any information (Calibration or User manuals) for the GSM-110 radiation meters manufactured by William B. Johnson Radioisotope Monitors. Thanks, Darrell Landers Environmental Health & Safety Specialist Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Infrastructure Section Off. 314.770.3055 Cell 314.574.7985 _______________________________________________ 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/ Roy Herren __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:48:28 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Message-ID: <771185.37994.qm@web81612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 11-Jan-2007 Contact: Herman Suit hsuit at partners.org Radiation Research Society New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Concerns about the risk of radiation-induced cancer are growing with the increasing number of cancer patients surviving long term. To address these concerns, Herman Suit and his colleagues Saveli Goldberg, Andrzej Niemeierko, Marek Ancukiewicz, Eric Hall, Michael Goitein, Winifed Wong and Harald Paganetti examined data on radiation-induced neoplastic transformation of mammalian cells in vitro and on the risk of an increase in cancer incidence after radiation exposure in mice, dogs, monkeys, the atomic bomb survivors, persons exposed occupationally, and patients treated with radiation. The study appears in the January issue of the journal Radiation Research. The authors found that there is great heterogeneity in the risk of radiation-associated cancer between species, strains of a species, and organs within a species. Currently, the heterogeneity between and within patient populations of virtually every parameter considered in risk estimation results in substantial uncertainty in quantification of a general risk factor. One implication of their review is that reduced risks of secondary cancer should be achieved by any technique that achieves a dose reduction down to ~0.1 Gy (i.e., the dose to tissues distant from the target). Based on their study, they conclude that the proportionate gain should be greatest for dose decrement to less than 2 Gy. ### --------------------------------- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 11 18:59:54 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:59:54 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Former nuclear plant site OK for public use, government says Message-ID: <45A66D0A.5066.258F779@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Former nuclear plant site OK for public use, government says Humanetics to Test Anti-Radiation Drug New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Poisoned spy's contact released from radiation treatment Indian Point nuclear plant seeks extension for new siren system ======================================== Former nuclear plant site OK for public use, government says TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. -- A federal agency Thursday declared the grounds of the former Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant safe for any kind of public use, including housing or recreation. The roughly 435-acre property north of Charlevoix falls below the maximum allowable radiation dosage of 25 millirems per year from residual contamination, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. A millirem is a unit of absorbed radiation. "Our goal was to ensure that the property was well below the very strict standards established by regulations," said Kurt Haas, the Big Rock site's general manager. "This beautiful piece of property is ready to be enjoyed by those who come after us." Consumers Energy, a subsidiary of Jackson-based CMS Energy Corp., operated the plant and owns the land. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources last fall proposed buying the site, which includes mature woodlands and 1.5 miles of undeveloped shoreline, and converting it into a state park or recreation area. The price was under negotiation but expected to be around $20 million. DNR officials withdrew an application to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board for $3 million as an initial payment after critics attacked the plan. Opponents contended the soil was still contaminated, although the nuclear plant shut down in 1997. It was later dismantled, and site restoration was finished last year. Critics also said the property was unsuitable because highly radioactive waste fuel from the plant's 35 years of power generation will be stored nearby until being shipped eventually to a national storage facility. A 100-acre buffer zone separates the concrete casks holding the waste from the larger property. DNR resource management deputy Mindy Koch said last month the DNR considered the land safe and still wanted to buy it but needed time to refine its plan. The Michigan Environmental Council, which fought the purchase, said the nuclear commission's seal of approval for the property was based partly on data supplied by Consumers Energy or its contractors. "If the state is still going to pursue the purchase of this land, we would continue to press for independent third-party assessment of its environmental condition," spokesman Hugh McDiarmid Jr. said. The commission said its surveys verified that the site met federal standards. McDiarmid also described as a "red flag" the commission's requirement that Consumers maintain $44.4 million in liability insurance. "The taxpayers shouldn't assume one cent of that liability," he said. Company spokesman Tim Petrosky said the insurance was required by law for dry-cask nuclear waste storage areas. "It is not in any way related to the unrestricted property," he said. ---------------- Humanetics to Test Anti-Radiation Drug Red Orbit Breaking News - U.S. firm Humanetics said Thursday it has been cleared to begin a phase 1 study of its anti-radiation drug. The privately held company said it would launch a trial of its drug, BIO 300, to test the oral drug for the prevention and prophylactic treatment of Acute Radiation Syndrome. There are currently no drugs approved by the FDA for the prevention or treatment of ARS. Humanetics' drug is designed to ameliorate the effects of ARS- related damage, such as damage to progenitors of blood platelets and infection-fighting white blood cells in bone marrow. FDA clearance to begin human trials under our IND is an important milestone in our commitment to develop BIO 300 as the first practical solution for the protection of mass civilian populations, said Ronald Zenk, president and chief executive officer of Humanetics. ARS is a potentially deadly condition that may be caused by whole- body exposure to radiation resulting from a nuclear or radiological terrorist attack or from an accident at a nuclear facility, the company said. ---------------- New study focuses on radiation-associated cancer risks Concerns about the risk of radiation-induced cancer are growing with the increasing number of cancer patients surviving long term. To address these concerns, Herman Suit and his colleagues Saveli Goldberg, Andrzej Niemeierko, Marek Ancukiewicz, Eric Hall, Michael Goitein, Winifed Wong and Harald Paganetti examined data on radiation- induced neoplastic transformation of mammalian cells in vitro and on the risk of an increase in cancer incidence after radiation exposure in mice, dogs, monkeys, the atomic bomb survivors, persons exposed occupationally, and patients treated with radiation. The study appears in the January issue of the journal Radiation Research. The authors found that there is great heterogeneity in the risk of radiation-associated cancer between species, strains of a species, and organs within a species. Currently, the heterogeneity between and within patient populations of virtually every parameter considered in risk estimation results in substantial uncertainty in quantification of a general risk factor. One implication of their review is that reduced risks of secondary cancer should be achieved by any technique that achieves a dose reduction down to ~0.1 Gy (i.e., the dose to tissues distant from the target). Based on their study, they conclude that the proportionate gain should be greatest for dose decrement to less than 2 Gy. -------------- Poisoned spy's contact released from radiation treatment VANCOUVER (CBC) - A key figure in the poisoning death of a former KGB agent has left the hospital where he was reportedly being treated for radiation exposure. Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB bodyguard questioned by Scotland Yard detectives and Russian authorities last month, told the Associated Press Tuesday he was released from a Moscow hospital and was "resting," but did not elaborate. He said he would make further comment on Sunday. British and Russian investigators have been interested in Lugovoi since it was determined he was one of the last people to have met with former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in London, along with another businessman, Dmitry Kovtun. Following their dinner at a hotel in November, Litvinenko fell ill and died weeks later from the effects of overexposure to the radioactive substance polonium-210. Traces of radiation were since discovered at the London hotel where Litvinenko stayed, and both Lugovoi and Kovtun were reportedly admitted to hospital later to undergo treatment for radiation poisoning. Kovtun's whereabouts were not immediately known. About a dozen sites around London have been tested for traces of polonium-210. On Thursday, Prof. Pat Troop, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, told ITN News that "just over 100 people ... had evidence that they were in contact with this radiation." The number includes customers and staff in the London hotel where Litvinenko stayed. In most cases, the levels of exposure were so low they pose no health risk to people, the Health Protection Agency said. Litvinenko, a critic of the Kremlin, had been living in exile in London and was meeting with contacts before his poisoning in order to investigate the murder of a Russian journalist known for her anti- Kremlin views. Days before he died, Litvinenko blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for ordering his murder -------------- Indian Point nuclear plant seeks extension for new siren system WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. AP - The state-of-the-art system that was supposed to replace Indian Point?s balky emergency sirens this month will not be ready until spring, the owner of the nuclear power station said Thursday. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the twin reactors in Buchanan, asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a deadline extension from Jan. 30 to April 15. It said the new equipment may be too much for an existing 470-foot tower to bear, so it needs time to strengthen the tower. Additional time will be needed to train workers on the new system after the tower is re-engineered, the company said. The sirens, which have occasionally failed during tests in recent years, are meant to warn residents within 10 miles of Indian Point if there is an emergency. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Entergy is permitted to seek delays "if it can show good cause." "The object here is for them to get it right," he added. However, the NRC has not yet ruled on the application for an extension. Entergy promised the new sirens after Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., pushed legislation mandating a backup power system. Entergy decided it would be easier to install a new system rather than retrofit the existing system with backups. Clinton said Thursday she was disappointed to hear of the delay. "The community deserves to know that there are backup systems in place to ensure that the sirens will work, no matter what," she said. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From hflong at pacbell.net Thu Jan 11 19:02:26 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:02:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070111195753.39118.qmail@web54309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070112010226.57205.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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).? More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality data. No answer to, Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health showed, ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years, in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths.? Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with that dose of radiation. Chang?s table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so by the radiation. John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment? Viva hormesis! Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message any more than it already it? --- howard long wrote: > John, > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > your own? > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > establishment not only used a one tail test, showing > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > critical review of the data in the papers, like the > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > some of my suggestions to make his language > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > there) the life expectancy was improved by the extra > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one hidden > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your jobs. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > Cameron > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > of > the NSWS were questioned so what does that indicate? > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided good > enough if the results are what you want? > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of increased > > life expectancy. > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a 2.8 > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent Bernie's > > calculation to John Cameron. > > Jerry From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 11 22:22:24 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:22:24 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question: Does OSHA still reject use of Effecyive Dose Equivalent? Message-ID: <45A69C80.29943.3125AB3@sandyfl.cox.net> The following is a letter from a 1999 OSHA determination that rejected the use of Effective Dose Equivalent dose calculation and reporting. I am inquiring whether or not this position has ever been revised. I find no evidence that it has. If it has not, it appears to be an interesting position for OSHA to continue to pursue, considering that the various methodologies have been routinely accepted by state and other federal agencies (even the NRC now accepts the methodology when a individual who works with RAM also is exposed from radiologic procedures where a protective apron is worn). NCRP 122 provides significant details on all of the methodologies. Any information will be appreciated. Thanks, Sandy -------------------- REFERENCE POSITION August 4, 1999 Charles H. Rose (MA,MSPH,D(ABSNM)) Executive Director American Association for Nuclear Cardiology, Inc. 5660 Airport Boulevard Suite 101 Boulder Colorado 80301 Dear Mr. Rose: This is in response to your January 19, 1999 letter regarding the measurement of employee exposures to ionizing radiation. We apologize for the delay in our reply. You report that some organizations have proposed and implemented a new method of monitoring the occupational radiation exposure of individuals who wear a protective apron. You state that these individuals may be monitored, for example, as follows: One monitoring device is worn under the protective apron and a second one is worn outside the protective apron at the neck. An effective dose equivalent for external radiation is determined by multiplying the reading of the device located at the waist under the protective apron by 1.5 and adding this value to 0.04 of the reading of the device located at the neck. You state that, "The American Association for Nuclear Cardiology (AANC) strongly opposes this "new" method of calculating occupational exposure." The AANC requests that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state its position on this issue. The "new" method of determining occupational exposure to external radiation does not conform with OSHA's standard for ionizing radiation, 29 CFR 1910.1096. As indicated by Table G-18 within 29 CFR 1910.1096(b)(1), OSHA considers the components of the whole body to be the head and trunk, the active blood-forming organs, the lenses of the eyes, and the gonads. The head and trunk includes the neck, thus the neck is part of the whole body. According to 29 CFR 1910.1096(a)(5), a dose to the whole body is the quantity of ionizing radiation absorbed, per unit mass, by any portion of the whole body. Therefore, the actual reading of the monitoring device that is positioned at the individual's neck indicates the whole body dose received by the individual. In point of fact, the whole body dose must be reported as the highest dose received by any region of the whole body. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that OSHA's enforcement guidance is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. Subsequent rulemaking could also affect such guidance. In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact OSHA's Office of Health Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-2190. Sincerely, Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 11 23:32:27 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:32:27 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVknyQA Message-ID: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Mr. Salsman, Your accusation (I am a liar) is unfounded. I provided the information I based my statements upon and this is an old discussion. A recently released National Academy of Sciences report (2006) is in line with my original statement as are the many other independent, published studies cited in this work. Unpublished results are just that. I would suggest you read earlier posts that discuss the topic of lying. I disagree with your connecting Dr. Kang's results as an endorsement of your position that DU is a causal factor. There are no data that support your inference. I would like to see the references for "... people to propose using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas." If anyone on the list has information to corroborate or to disprove the statement, I would appreciate it. I believe it to be incorrect. Once again you are discussing the vapor issue, the uranium trioxide and DoD testing which has already been laid to rest multiple times. I skimmed the 1970 article you provided and saw no mention of uranium trioxide and very little discussion of uranium. The paper focused on Pu. If you read the discussion with an understanding of vapors and the experiment itself, the results are in line with the many articles published since this work was done. Dr. Johnson's statement that you provided in your link was accurate. He agreed with my statement, I am assuming, because of his study and the rest of the scientific community's research into the health effects of DU. Your argument appears to be that if someone disagrees with you they are either a "liar" or "...are betraying the interests of truth, science..." Your post illustrates a previous discussion thread on this web site. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 6:07 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor When I see posts like this... http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-November/004495.html I wonder why Dr. Johnson is agreeing with someone who has been proven to have lied about epidemiological birth defect research results. To make a long story short, Dr. Kang, a Veterans Administration epidemiologist, has been tracking an increasing trend of birth defects in the children of 1991 Gulf War veterans, and Colonel Daxon claimed that Dr. Kang's unpublished research indicated the trend had decreased. In fact, in is increasing more sharply than ever. (Roger H, did you ever call Dr. Kang to confirm after I gave you his phone number?) The only reason I can think that Dr. Johnson would want to agree with a proven liar is because he was responsible, in the 1990s for proving the "safety" of depleted uranium munitions. In doing so, he never considered the amount of uranium which becomes gas vapor instead of particulates, which settle much more quickly, when it burns. Neither has anyone else in the military or industrial production of DU munitions. Sadly, this state of affairs has caused otherwise-intelligent people to propose using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas. I note that fully half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor, see page 836 of Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38: http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf I suspect that the people who lie about depleted uranium think that they are doing our military a favor. In fact, they are betraying the interests of truth, science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to recruit, upon which they rely. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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 Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Fri Jan 12 08:58:57 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:58:57 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Progress report, next ICRP Recommendations and Radiological protection in medicine Message-ID: >From the ICRP http://www.icrp.org/ 1. Progress report, next ICRP Recommendations The second round of public consultation on the draft next Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection met with overwhelming interest, and ICRP has received over 700 pages of written comments and suggestions, which are visible at http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/listcomments.asp .In addition, the process was augmented by several workshops and meetings organised by international and national bodies with an interest in radiological protection. Based on this considerable and very helpful input from the stakeholders, ICRP has now prepared a substantially revised document, which is now being considered by the Main Commission of ICRP with the intention of taking a final decision concerning the Recommendation at its meeting 19-21 March 2007. Thanks to the world-wide scientific exchange of ideas during a process of public and expert participation that began with a journal paper 8 years ago, in 1999, and has since involved numerous international and national meetings and two rounds of full-fledged public consultation on complete draft texts, the main principles are now fairly firmly established. A number of organisations that are using ICRP Recommendations as a basis for their decisions are now keen for ICRP to complete its process so that they can update their system of protection accordingly, and the remaining amendments to the draft Recommendations will be primarily of an editorial nature. We are thus now past the stage of formal consultations. Nevertheless, editorial comments are of course welcome, and may be e-mailed to the Scientific Secretary of ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin (scient.secretary at ircp.org), preferably before the end of February. Any such messages received will be posted for information on this web site after the March 2007 meeting of ICRP. 2. Radiological protection in medicine The work of an ICRP Task Group is nearing completion. The report of the Task Group addresses Radiological Protection in Medicine. This summary constitutes a building block underpinning the imminent next fundamental Recommendations of ICRP, and can also be seen as amending and updating ICRP Publication 73. The draft is posted for consultation on our comments page - on that page, just to the right of the Document drop-down menu, please click 'view document' to download it! We would appreciate your comments no later than Friday 6 April, 2007. Fred Dawson Fwp_dawson at hotmail.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 09:16:28 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:16:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070112010226.57205.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070112151629.33389.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> 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).? > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > of mortality data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis > Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same > population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 > Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org > Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the > Health and Vital Statistics for the population of > Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer > deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, > ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and > solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected > after 20 years, in addition to a number of > spontaneous cancer deaths.? > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences > do seem higher with that dose of radiation. Chang?s > table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The > absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 > years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less > severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so > by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate > these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental > establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a > reliable study, and the recently published study of > the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your > beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to > confuse you message any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > > your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > > establishment not only used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > > critical review of the data in the papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > > some of my suggestions to make his language > > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > > of > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 12 11:16:43 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 9:16:43 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida Message-ID: <21532386.1168622203338.JavaMail.root@fed1wml11.mgt.cox.net> Index: FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida RPT-US utilities look to nuclear, but costs a worry-S&P INTERVIEW -Bulgaria says EU should let nuclear plant run again Africa claims right to nuclear energy California coastal commission sued over nuclear power plant No leaks at Nuclear One plant at Russellville Keng Yaik: No nuclear, hydro preferred Duke CEO joins Nuclear Energy Institute board Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy Namibia to develop nuclear power plant Germany reconsidering nuclear power? Mikisew Cree uneasy about nuclear power ============================================== FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida early this year Jan 12 - Florida Power & Light Co. plans to announce the site for a proposed nuclear power plant in the state during the first quarter of the year, moving it a step ahead in the process that could result in Florida's first new nuclear plant in more than two decades. Juno Beach-based FPL, which operates two nuclear complexes at Turkey Point and St. Lucie, has not committed to building a new nuclear generating facility. But choosing a site represents an early step in the long and complicated process of deciding on the economic merits of building a new plant, which could cost $5 billion to $6 billion, developing the project and obtaining licensing and other approvals from federal, state and local authorities. If a new plant is built, FPL customers could see their bills rise to cover a variety of costs, including preconstruction expenses and operating and maintenance costs. The last time FPL built a nuclear reactor was in the early 1980s. The second unit at its St. Lucie complex went into operation in 1983. The company is still evaluating potential sites and studying different technologies that could be used, said FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott. Last April, the company initiated the approval process when it notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its intention to submit a license application in 2009 for a new nuclear plant. Obtaining a license for a new plant, which would include a reactor design approved by the NRC, takes several years. FPL estimates that it could take 12 years between initial planning for a nuclear complex and putting it into operation. Last month, St. Petersburg-based Progress Energy Florida, which operates a nuclear plant in Crystal River, selected a site in Levy County for another proposed nuclear facility. FPL is considering a nuclear plant as part of its long-term plan to meet increasing demand for electricity and to diversify its fuel sources, Scott said. Currently, the company uses natural gas to generate about 42 percent of its electricity, while nuclear power accounts for 19 percent. High prices for natural gas in past years have driven up electric bills, encouraging the company to study nuclear power as an alternative. The Public Service Commission is looking at ways to reimburse utilities for pre-construction costs on nuclear plants, which can run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Under a current plan, pre-construction costs approved by regulators would be passed along to customers. After a plant goes into operation, base rates would also rise if approved by regulators. While FPL would not comment on sites under consideration, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that choosing a site that has already been approved, for example, the location of an existing plant, could speed up the approval process. There are 103 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, but no new facilities are under construction. Aside from FPL and Progress Energy, 12 companies or consortia are at various stages of planning for new nuclear plants. FPL's parent, FPL Group Inc., operates nuclear, wind, solar, fossil fuel and hydroelectric power facilities outside Florida. ------------------ RPT-US utilities look to nuclear, but costs a worry-S&P LOS ANGELES, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Resurgent interest has U.S. utilities viewing nuclear power more positively but high costs will restrain them from building plants for several years, said a report issued this week by Standard & Poor's. While rust grows on the 1980s protest "No Nukes" buttons, there remains considerable public opposition, which is a factor in nuclear's future, the report said. Even if America embraces nuclear power as a reliable source of no-emissions electricity, hefty costs for obtaining permits and construction of up to $3-$4 billion per plant, will give utilities pause. "Standard & Poor's does not anticipate construction of new nuclear plants to start in the next few years," said the report, whose main author was S&P analyst Dimitri Nikas. "While nuclear generation can provide many benefits, the challenges of successfully completing the next construction cycle will be significant," the report said. New units could be on line by 2014, the industry trade group Nuclear Energy Institute has said. S&P showed that the estimated operating costs of a nuclear power plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build would produce electricity at $55 per megawatt hour (MWh). This is near the $53 per MWh cost of pulverized coal power production and $50 per MWh for an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant that burns coal. Spot uranium prices have also doubled to $72.0/lb in the past 12 months, said Ux Consulting, a publisher of uranium prices and price forecasts, as speculative investors have rushed to take advantage of rising energy costs and a market sharply in deficit. But nuclear power construction costs are expected to decline after a first wave of units to about $1.5 million per MW. At that level, which S&P said makes electricity at about $44 per MWh, "is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectric generation." S&P said these operating cost estimates assume full recovery by utilities of all operating and capital costs. The newer permitting process will help stem cost overruns that plagued the industry during the last nuclear building boom in the 1970s and 1980s, S&P said. ON EXISTING SITES Attaining permits alone will cost a utility aiming to construct a nuclear plant $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Construction costs will be another $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion, S&P said, not including financing costs. The report lists 13 proposed nuclear power plants encompassing at least 22 reactors, culled from public statements by 13 companies. The first license applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency are expected this year. No nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978, the year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. There are now 103 working U.S. reactors with the capacity to produce about 98,560 megawatts, enough to power about 75 million homes. That is 10 percent of U.S. generating capacity. The first nuclear power plant in the world opened in 1957 near Pittsburgh. Companies that have said they are considering building new nuclear power plants -- mainly on sites of existing ones as a way to cut down on public opposition -- include Dominion Resources (D.N: Quote, Profile , Research); the federal Tennessee Valley Authority; Entergy Corp. (ETR.N: Quote, Profile , Research); 11-company consortium NuStart Energy; Southern Co. (SO.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Progress Energy (PGN.N: Quote, Profile , Research); South Carolina public utility Santee Cooper and SCANA (SCG.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Duke Energy Corp. (DUK.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Exelon Corp. (EXC.N: Quote, Profile , Research); Unistar Nuclear, a joint venture of Constellation Energy (CEG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and French-owned energy group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile , Research); FPL Group Inc. (FPL.N: Quote, Profile , Research); NRG Energy (NRG.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and Amarillo Power; and TXU Corp. (TXU.N: Quote, Profile , Research). ---------------------- INTERVIEW -Bulgaria says EU should let nuclear plant run again SOFIA, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Bulgaria will try to push the European Union's executive next month to let it reopen two Soviet-made nuclear reactors closed due to safety concerns or to pay it more in compensation, its energy minister said on Friday. The Balkan country agreed to shut down two 440 megawatt nuclear reactors at its Kozloduy plant at the end of 2006 ahead of its entry into the bloc on Jan. 1. Now, using its new member status and pointing to reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that say upgrades have improved safety levels at the plant, it hopes to overcome concern among older EU members and restart the units. If not, the country will seek to raise the 570 million euros ($738.3 million) offered by Brussels to help pay for mothballing four of Kozloduy's six reactors to 1 billion, Energy Minister Rumen Ovcharov told Reuters in an interview. "There is a heavy power regime in Albania. There are serious power shortages in Macedonia and Kosovo ... The Commission cannot turn a blind eye to that," he said. "I will bring the issue up at the meeting of energy ministers next month ... and only after that will we think about compensation." Bulgaria, until now the leading power exporter in southeastern Europe, has warned of a potential energy crisis in the region, where it covers 80 percent of the power deficit. It exported a record 7.8 billion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006 but plans almost no exports this year because of the shutdowns. Analysts say its chances of re-opening the units are slim, as Brussels has taken a hard line on shutting down Soviet-designed reactors in ex-communist Slovakia and Lithuania, which joined the EU in 2004. But Ovcharov said more compensation was possible. The Socialist-led government estimates total losses to Bulgaria from the shutdowns -- including two older reactors taken off line in 2003 -- could top billions of euros. "One billion (in compensation) is an experts' estimate. It is based on what other countries have managed to arrange, and is in line with the lost capacity and the effect on the economy," he said. Bulgaria is also building a second, 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant at the Danube river town of Belene to compensate for the shutdown. It has contracted Russia's Atomstroyexport to build it and make it operational in 2013. Ovcharov said he expected the state, which would keep a majority stake in the new 4.0 billion euro plant, to choose a strategic investor for the plant in the second half of the year. ------------------- Africa claims right to nuclear energy A coalition of 45 African states has signed a declaration pledging to "promote the safe and accountable use of nuclear energy", reports SciDev.Net. The statement came at a two-day conference on nuclear energy in Algeria on 9-10 January. "Africa is entitled to reap the benefits of atomic energy without any constraints or obstacles being put in its way," said Ramtane Lamamra, secretary-general of the Algerian foreign affairs ministry, prior to the meeting. Industrialised nations have been pushing developing countries to do a better job than they did at controlling greenhouse gas emissions early in their economic development. This rules out conventional fossil fuel sources, and puts the emphasis on cleaner sources of energy, ways of capturing emissions from fossil fuel burning - or nuclear energy. As you can imagine, the world's nuclear powers aren't so keen on a new wave of developing countries joining the atomic club. Some recent events go some way to explain this reticence: in 2004, Brazil, a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, was accused of barring access to IAEA inspectors, fuelling speculation that they might be producing somewhat more that energy. And then of course, there's the concern over Iran's pursuit of a nuclear agenda. But should industrialised nations expect countries with a smaller pot of money for research to develop new sources of "clean" energy? The US has repeatedly said it would help with this, but the offer has been criticised as an excuse to increase US trade. What's more, over the past year, Africa has underlined its desire to drive its own development ------------------ California coastal commission sued over nuclear power plant LOS ANGELES - An environmental group has sued state coastal regulators, alleging they violated state laws by authorizing a project at a nuclear power plant without requiring its operator to follow measures to ease the facility's damaging impacts on the central coast. The Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network is challenging the Coastal Commission's decision to approve the replacement of two steam generators at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant north of San Luis Obispo. The project is intended to extend the life of the plant. Without the new generators, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company would have to shut down the facility by 2014, according to the civil suit filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit said the commission held hearings and considered a staff review of the plant's environmental impact on the coastline. But the commission also approved the project without following a staff recommendation to impose mitigation measures, according to the suit. The lawsuit claimed violations of the California Coastal Act and other environmental and land use laws. The environmental group, based in Playa Del Rey, is asking the court to invalidate the commission's decision. "For the Commission to ignore the staff's recommendations related to mitigation was unconscionable, and is a clear violation of the law," said plaintiff's attorney David Weinsoff. An after hours call Thursday to the Coastal Commission was not immediately returned. ---------------- No leaks at Nuclear One plant at Russellville RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. Jan 12 - A spokesman for the Entergy-owned nuclear power plant at Russellville says there is no indication that radioactive tritium has leaked from the plant. The tests were a precautions. A nuclear industry group has agreed to regular checks of groundwater at all U-S plants. Seven of the 103 U-S nuclear plants have had tritium leaks, and the broad testing was begun in response. Arkansas Nuclear One spokesman Phil Fisher says groundwater pathways under the plant were mapped and test wells were drilled in November. Tests on samples taken in December showed no tritium. Fisher says the tests will be done quarterly. ----------------- Keng Yaik: No nuclear, hydro preferred PUTRAJAYA (Jan 12, 2007): Malaysia has shelved the nuclear option to produce electricity for the time being but will generate more hydro-electric power and reduce gas-powered energy over the next 10 years. Energy, Water and Communications Minister Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik said today the country's dependence on hydro-electric power will be increased from five per cent to 30% over that period. Bernama quoted Lim as saying that the government hopes to reduce its dependence on gas-powered energy from the present 70% to 45%, adding that the option for hydro-electric power was prompted by the fact that it is a renewable, cheap and environment-friendly source of energy. "Malaysia has enough hydro power to generate its electricity until 2030," he told reporters after attending the ministry's monthly assembly here. Lim said the Bakun hydro-electric power project in Sarawak alone would produce between 4,000MW and 5,000MW of electricity, with the bulk of it for use in Peninsular Malaysia. The country's energy source ratio now is gas 70%, coal 21% and hydro five per cent, with the rest made up of power derived from fuel and biomass. In the next 10 years, the government hopes to achieve a ratio of gas 45%, hydropower 30% and coal 25%, he said. "At the moment, we put the possibility of using nuclear as our source of energy at the back of our mind. Not during my time. Probably after 2030, when we would have exhausted our renewable energy," he said. In reducing the country's dependence on gas, the ministry recently rejected applications for the setting up two gas-powered plants. Lim said the country's heavy dependence on gas currently was the result of poor planning in the past and the "Kajang satay mentality" where everybody jumps onto the bandwagon when power producers began producing electricity using gas. On the current negotiation between independent power producers (IPPs) and Tenaga Nasional Berhad on the capacity charges, the minister said he would suggest that IPPs help reduce their charges to TNB on a voluntarily basis and, in return, the ministry would extend their concession period. Lim said the Water Services Industry Act and the National Water Services Commission (Span) Act, which were passed by Parliament last Julyr, would be gazetted by the end of this month. Enforcement and implementation of the two acts would help the federal government to restructure the country's water services industry towards better management of water distribution and assets as well as reducing water loss, he said. In the communications sector, the ministry would focus on promoting domestic roaming by encouraging telecommunications service providers to share their facilities to improve service, especially coverage. He said the registration of pre-paid mobile phone users last year recorded almost 90% success, with 17.8 million out of the 18.5 million users responding to the exercise. The ministry would also encourage the expansion of wireless broadband and fibre optic installation for its Internet protocol services to allow the public more access to the Internet this year, he added. ------------------- Duke CEO joins Nuclear Energy Institute board Charlotte Jan 11 - The Nuclear Energy Institute has added Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Jim Rogers to its executive committee and board of directors. Rogers fills the term that was held by Ruth Shaw, group executive for public policy and president of Duke Nuclear. Shaw is retiring from Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK - News) in the spring. Before the merger of Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp. of Cincinnati in April, Rogers was Cinergy chairman, president and CEO for more than 11 years. All U.S. nuclear power plant licensees and selected representatives of other companies involved in nuclear technologies are members of the NEI board of directors. The NEI, based in Washington, D.C., establishes policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies, and the executive committee sets broad policy for the industry. --------------- Europeans Divided Over Nuclear Energy Angus Reid Global Monitor - Adults who reside in countries that have joined the European Union (EU) hold differing views on nuclear power, according to the Eurobarometer conducted by TNS Opinion & Social. 37 per cent of respondents are opposed to the use of nuclear energy in their countries, while 20 per cent are in favour. In Sweden, Slovakia, Lithuania, Hungary and the Czech Republic, more than a third of respondents express support for nuclear energy. Conversely, more than half of respondents in Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and Austria are opposed. There are 153 active reactors in the EU. Nuclear energy accounts for about a third of the EU?s energy supply. France gets almost 80 per cent of its energy from nuclear reactors. In the EU, safety regulations regarding nuclear energy are outlined on the EURATOM Treaty, which is based on the need to protect "the public and the workforce from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation." British prime minister Tony Blair has said he wants to build more nuclear rectors to produce energy in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Six years ago, Germany committed to shutting down all of its 17 nuclear power plants by 2021. This year, German chancellor Angela Merkel implied that she might be in favour of keeping them open, declaring, "It remains a fact that the phase-out has consequences and that we must not have a ban on thinking, especially those who say ?We don?t want nuclear energy? must take part in finding answers." Governments in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have also taken action in favour of keeping their reactors open?at least for now. Polling Data Are you in favour or opposed to the use of nuclear energy in your country? - Please use a scale from 1 to 7, ?1? would mean that you are "strongly opposed" to this energy source and ?7? would mean that you are "strongly in favour" of it. Codes 1-2 correspond to "opposed", 3-5 "balanced views" and 6-7 "in favour". In favour 20% Balanced views 36% Opposed 37% Not sure 6% Source: TNS Opinion & Social / Eurobarometer Methodology: Interviews with 24,815 people ages 15 and over in the 25 European Union (EU) member nations, two acceding countries, and two candidate countries, conducted from May 5 to Jul. 11, 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent. ------------------ Namibia to develop nuclear power plant Namibia has decided to convert its large uranium resources into electricity in a nuclear power plant because of the unreliable power supply from South Africa. It now depends on SA's Eskom for more than 50% of its power but this supply has often been interrupted because of power cuts in SA. Namibia is the fourth largest uranium producer in the world and Namibia's mines and energy permanent secretary Joseph Iita is reported as saying his government has taken a policy decision to tap into the uranium resources for electricity generation. ----------------- Germany reconsidering nuclear power? BERLIN, Jan. 11 A second senior German official in as many days expressed interest in keeping nuclear power to diversify energy options and curb dependence on Russia. The BBC reports German Economics Minister Michael Glos said the country should rethink its decision to phase out the country's 17 nuclear plants by the early 2020s. He said without nuclear power Germany wouldn't be able to meet goals in reducing greenhouse gas pollution. This comes the day after Chancellor Angela Merkel also endorsed another look at the end of German nuclear energy. Merkel's fragile coalition, however, is deeply entrenched with members of the Greens and Social Democrats who agreed to the policy in 2000; anything beyond words on the issue could spell the end of Merkel's government. Concerns about Germany's dependence on Russia for fuel were first raised last year when Moscow decided to cut off the gas supply to Ukraine, which in turn halted the flow to Germany. More recently, the ongoing Russia and Belarus energy row over how much Belarus had to pay for Russian gas also poses a threat to Germany and other European nation's fuel supply. ------------------ Mikisew Cree uneasy about nuclear power Fort McMurray Today - Jan 12 - An aboriginal group in Fort Chipewyan is leery about the prospect of building nuclear reactors to help power the oilsands. Concerns over the quality of moose meat and other wild game and water quality are big enough concerns to worry about without nuclear talks to add further environmental concerns, said Dale Monaghan, acting chief executive of the Mikisew Cree First Nation. ?Based on a number of industry hearings in the last six months that talked about dangerously high arsenic levels, plus the water quality concerns,? Monaghan said, Chief Roxanne Marcel is uncomfortable going to the next level of talks about nuclear power in the region, he said. ?Nuclear power is so much more potentially dangerous than these other things we?re talking about. She can?t imagine going to something as lethal as nuclear,? Monaghan said. Talks about the use of nuclear power to generate steam and electricity in the oilsands were resurrected after a consortium including a research arm of the Alberta government said this week that a proposal is expected by the end of this month. Four unnamed companies have expressed interest in using energy from nuclear reactors in three Alberta locations -- including two in the oilsands. Husky Energy CEO John Lau said early this week his company is exploring nuclear as an option. Talks about the use of nuclear power sparked in September 2005 after French company Total E&P Canada Ltd. was reported to be willing to explore all alternative power sources, including nuclear, for its Joslyn project. But spokeswoman Christianne Wile said today Total is not interested and has never actively considered nuclear power for oilsands development. The French company is aware of the oilsands? dependence on natural gas and it is actively looking at ways to reduce energy consumption, she said. The Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, disputes the nuclear industry?s claim that nuclear energy is economically and environmentally viable for the oilsands. ?Mining and transporting uranium (from northern Saskatchewan) do not only have significant environmental impact but also a significant amount of greenhouse gas pollution,? Dan Woynillowicz, a policy analyst said. There?s risk associated with nuclear power and radioactive wastes, he noted. The nuclear industry hasn?t been able to address them adequately, the analyst said. Nuclear power has never been an economically viable option in Canada, Woynillowicz stressed, because it requires significant government subsidy. He said when the long term liabilities and insurance rates associated with addressing the radioactive waste are added up, the price tag of building, operating and maintaining a nuclear reactor could be more expensive than natural gas. Instead of going nuclear, the government and energy industry should spend their research dollars on renewable energy, he said. Monaghan said the Mikisew chief and her council want to be directly consulted about the matter. Asking people to come to a meeting where nuclear energy use for the oilsands will be discussed is not a direct consultation, he said. Mikisew Cree members aren?t against progress for industry in the region, but the chief is very leery of the term nuclear, Monaghan said. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jan 12 11:24:11 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:24:11 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070112151629.33389.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> 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 -----Urspr?ngliche 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)." > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality > data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by > Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. & > Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death > Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the > population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > " - only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed." > Chen et al [Luan]comment, "Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia > and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years, > in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths." > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with > that dose of radiation. Chang's table III shows: Observed 39, Expected > 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of > mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable > disease, perhaps made so by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear > results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, > and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do > not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message > any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only > > used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give > > the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the > > papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my > > suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or > > more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were > > questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs > > > meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry > +++++++++++++++++++ "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." -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.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 hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 12 11:39:32 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:39:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070112151629.33389.qmail@web54310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <272596.27084.qm@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line reference to Radsafe readers, John? My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to hear from. As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most significant part of the Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by official records) when 126 would be expected in those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 rem, 40 rad) over 20 years . This confirms amazing evidence for safety and effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds of new nuclear power plants in the USA then. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: 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).? > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > of mortality data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis > Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same > population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 > Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org > Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the > Health and Vital Statistics for the population of > Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer > deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, > ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and > solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected > after 20 years, in addition to a number of > spontaneous cancer deaths.? > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences > do seem higher with that dose of radiation. Chang?s > table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The > absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 > years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less > severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so > by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate > these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental > establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a > reliable study, and the recently published study of > the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your > beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to > confuse you message any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > > your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > > establishment not only used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the > > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > > critical review of the data in the papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > > some of my suggestions to make his language > > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results > > of > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.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 frantaj at aecl.ca Fri Jan 12 12:03:18 2007 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:03:18 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FPL to announce site for new nuclear power plant in Florida Message-ID: <0F8BD87EE693D411A1A500508BAC86F70B4F59F7@sps13.aecl.ca> Sandy Perle wrote: ------------------ Namibia to develop nuclear power plant Namibia has decided to convert its large uranium resources into electricity in a nuclear power plant because of the unreliable power supply from South Africa. It now depends on SA's Eskom for more than 50% of its power but this supply has often been interrupted because of power cuts in SA. Namibia is the fourth largest uranium producer in the world and Namibia's mines and energy permanent secretary Joseph Iita is reported as saying his government has taken a policy decision to tap into the uranium resources for electricity generation. ----------------- .........this seems like an unlikely scenario! ....Sandy, would you mind please indicating where this story originated ? (preferably with a link?) Thanks Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 12 12:08:45 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:08:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Range - "Exposed had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <748319.6977.qm@web81803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Good point. Since the dose varied greatly over time and place, I assume that a few did have an excessive dose ("range <1 to 2,363 mSv"). I would consider the high dose reasonably associated with increased risk of lymphoma and leukemia, even though, as Rainer points out, the numbers are not decisive. Perhaps this helps define a therapeutic optimum range of 5 to 500 mSv (0.5 to 50 c Sv, rem, rad) over 10 years for hormesis benefits. Howard Long 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 -----Urspr?ngliche 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)." > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence of mortality > data. > No answer to, > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? by > Chen, Luan et al on the same population, published in J Am. Phys. & > Surg. 9:1 Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org Therein, Death > Cause Statistics Abstract of the Health and Vital Statistics for the > population of Taiwan published yearly by the Department of Health > showed, > " - only two leukemia and five solid cancer deaths were observed." > Chen et al [Luan]comment, "Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia > and solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected after 20 years, > in addition to a number of spontaneous cancer deaths." > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences do seem higher with > that dose of radiation. Chang's table III shows: Observed 39, Expected > 14.7. The absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 years of > mortality statistics by Chen, suggests less severe and more treatable > disease, perhaps made so by the radiation. > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate these clear > results? Me? You? The Environmental establishment? > > Viva hormesis! > > Howard Long > > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as a reliable study, > and the recently published study of the Taiwan apartment dwellers do > not support your beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to confuse you message > any more than it already it? > > --- howard long wrote: > > > John, > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by your own? > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS establishment not only > > used a one tail test, > showing > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted the abstract to give > > the opposite impression of a critical review of the data in the > > papers, like > the > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used some of my > > suggestions to make his language unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or > > more 0s in > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > extra > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > hidden > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > jobs. > > > > Howard Long > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > Cameron > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the results of the NSWS were > > questioned so what does that > indicate? > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > good > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in mortality of the NSWs > > > meant in terms of > increased > > > life expectancy. > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > 2.8 > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > Bernie's > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > Jerry From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 12 13:03:14 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:03:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links Message-ID: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> Jaro, Here are some links for the news story: http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm 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/ From hflong at pacbell.net Fri Jan 12 13:21:13 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:21:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Over-regulation: Does OSHA still reject use of Effective Dose Equivalent? In-Reply-To: <45A69C80.29943.3125AB3@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <138856.85297.qm@web81808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Coumadin (warfarin sodium, anti-clotting rat poison) is taken by millions of Americans in such precise and individualized dose that half again as much would cause dangerous bleeding. On the other hand, half the dose would cause significant risk of clot and stroke, the reason a doctor prescribes and monitors with clotting time the rat poison dose more carefully than perhaps any other medicine. Diabetics monitor their own, ever-changing insulin dose Government regulators rarely hassle doctors or patients about these. What contrast to the minimal risks but mighty radiation regulation of governments ! Is it time that HPs confront the self-serving bullies? Howard Long Sandy Perle wrote: The following is a letter from a 1999 OSHA determination that rejected the use of Effective Dose Equivalent dose calculation and reporting. I am inquiring whether or not this position has ever been revised. I find no evidence that it has. If it has not, it appears to be an interesting position for OSHA to continue to pursue, considering that the various methodologies have been routinely accepted by state and other federal agencies (even the NRC now accepts the methodology when a individual who works with RAM also is exposed from radiologic procedures where a protective apron is worn). NCRP 122 provides significant details on all of the methodologies. Any information will be appreciated. Thanks, Sandy -------------------- REFERENCE POSITION August 4, 1999 Charles H. Rose (MA,MSPH,D(ABSNM)) Executive Director American Association for Nuclear Cardiology, Inc. 5660 Airport Boulevard Suite 101 Boulder Colorado 80301 Dear Mr. Rose: This is in response to your January 19, 1999 letter regarding the measurement of employee exposures to ionizing radiation. We apologize for the delay in our reply. You report that some organizations have proposed and implemented a new method of monitoring the occupational radiation exposure of individuals who wear a protective apron. You state that these individuals may be monitored, for example, as follows: One monitoring device is worn under the protective apron and a second one is worn outside the protective apron at the neck. An effective dose equivalent for external radiation is determined by multiplying the reading of the device located at the waist under the protective apron by 1.5 and adding this value to 0.04 of the reading of the device located at the neck. You state that, "The American Association for Nuclear Cardiology (AANC) strongly opposes this "new" method of calculating occupational exposure." The AANC requests that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state its position on this issue. The "new" method of determining occupational exposure to external radiation does not conform with OSHA's standard for ionizing radiation, 29 CFR 1910.1096. As indicated by Table G-18 within 29 CFR 1910.1096(b)(1), OSHA considers the components of the whole body to be the head and trunk, the active blood-forming organs, the lenses of the eyes, and the gonads. The head and trunk includes the neck, thus the neck is part of the whole body. According to 29 CFR 1910.1096(a)(5), a dose to the whole body is the quantity of ionizing radiation absorbed, per unit mass, by any portion of the whole body. Therefore, the actual reading of the monitoring device that is positioned at the individual's neck indicates the whole body dose received by the individual. In point of fact, the whole body dose must be reported as the highest dose received by any region of the whole body. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that OSHA's enforcement guidance is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. Subsequent rulemaking could also affect such guidance. In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact OSHA's Office of Health Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-2190. Sincerely, Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 12 16:21:03 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:21:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Looking for Harshaw 8807 Environmental TLD Holders Message-ID: <7727272.1168640463892.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> I am looking for any Harshaw 8807 Environmental TLD Holders. If you have any that you would like to sell, please contact me. Thanks, 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/ From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 12:22:02 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:22:02 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> References: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net> Message-ID: The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" and not Nambia. If you cannot even take care enough to name a country by its correct name I wonder what your company is reliable and worth. Remember the case where we had definitely decided to meet in Vienna after many previous attempts in the framework of a conference which I could not attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt to meet you, but you did not even bother to call me during your week-long stay in Vienna to tell me that you had "more important" committments like going to Bratislava by boat. You could have told me long beforehand that your potential customers were of much more importance to meet than meeting me. I would have gone to Egypt and you would have met your (potential) customers. I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according to a previous mail exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian "radiation news group". After my bad experience with your reliability I just wonder - and maybe other RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can be relied on - especially since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How about UKS, USK, UVW.... for the United States of America?????? Franz 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > Jaro, > > Here are some links for the news story: > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > 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/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Sun Jan 14 12:35:58 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:35:58 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: References: <31586906.1168628594929.JavaMail.root@fed1wml10.mgt.cox.net>, Message-ID: <45AA078E.11880.D3DA786@sandyfl.cox.net> On 14 Jan 2007 at 19:22, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" and not Nambia. If you cannot even take care enough to name a country by its correct name I wonder what your company is reliable and worth.? > ? > Remember the case where we had definitely decided?to meet in Vienna after many previous attempts in the framework of a conference which I?could not attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt to meet you, but you did not even bother to call me during your week-long stay in Vienna to tell me that you had "more important" committments like going to Bratislava by boat. You could have told me long beforehand that your potential customers were of much more importance to meet than meeting me. I would have gone to Egypt and you would have met your?(potential) customers. ? > ? > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according to a previous mail exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian "radiation news group".?After my bad experience with your reliability I just wonder - and maybe other RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can be relied on - especially since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How about UKS, USK, UVW.... for the United States of America?????? Franz, I question your ability to recognize when I personally am writing an article, or simply copying the ACTUAL news posted directly from the wire service. I provide what is in the news. I don't correct how the news is written, or what the news article dstates. That is for the reader to decide. I suggest that you take a class to understand there is a difference. Since I take the time to search out the news, for the benefit of others, and you simply take time to berate others, I think that I'll continue to do what is i the best interest of those who subscribe to Radsdafe. I suggest that you find a different venue for your hatred. Respectfully. From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 14 12:38:59 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:38:59 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links Message-ID: <45AA0843.32682.D4069B3@sandyfl.cox.net> I also suggest that when there is a typo, such as a missing letter in the name of the all important country known as Namibia, that you find better use of your time. Perhaps others will scrutinize every posting that you make, and God forbid, they find a typo. The world would truly come to an end! From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 14 13:01:19 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:01:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception Message-ID: <45AA0D7F.31735.D54DBE5@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply New nuclear plant hinges on fuel disposal Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction Bristol region readies for nuclear waste BAE and Carlyle plan nuclear dockyard bid - source IDBI mulls nuclear power projects funding ============================== Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception Governments are turning to a power source that was once mostly shunned as too dangerous and too expensive. Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune Jan 13 - Sixty miles outside Buenos Aires, construction crews soon will be swarming over a partially built concrete dome abandoned 12 years ago and will resume work on Argentina's long-delayed Atucha II nuclear power plant. They will be in the vanguard of surging interest in nuclear power worldwide. Faced with evidence that coal- and oil-fired electric plants are overheating the planet, and alarmed by soaring demand for electricity, governments from South America to Asia are turning once again to a power source mostly shunned for two decades as too dangerous and too costly. Globally, 29 nuclear power plants are being built. Well more than 100 others have been written into the development plans of governments for the next three decades. India and China each are rushing to build dozens of reactors. The United States and the countries of Western Europe, led by new nuclear champions, are reconsidering their cooled romance with atomic power. International agencies have come on board; even Persian Gulf oil states have plans for nuclear generators. "Energy and climate changes can't remain tied to carbon or hydrocarbon," the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in October. "They are polluting, and we'll have to find substitute energies, including nuclear energy." Creating heat through nuclear reactions rather than combustion gives off no carbon dioxide, the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Dusting off plans Utilities are dusting off plans for nuclear plants even though most of the problems that shelved those projects remain. Critics say governments have forgotten the crises of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The costs and time to build the concrete-encased plants far exceed those of conventional plants. There still is no safe permanent storage for the used fuel that will remain radioactive for a million years. Not to mention the newly realistic worry of a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant. 10 to 30 new U.S. plants In the United States, the Bush administration has strongly pushed nuclear power and backed a 2005 energy bill offering subsidies to utilities to go ahead with projects in a shortened, streamlined regulatory process. The industry talks enthusiastically of 10 to 30 new nuclear plants being started in the next two decades. Critics say those predictions will stall without long-term subsidies, and they scoff at the administration's explanations that nuclear plants will help battle global warming. "The Bush administration doesn't believe climate change is a threat unless it is arguing for nuclear power," said Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. Just talk? Skeptics say the nuclear resurgence is still just talk. In the United States, they note, not a single reactor has been ordered. High costs and long delays that vexed nuclear construction soon will diminish the atomic ardor in other countries, they say. According to Lyman, "We need to move faster to really take a bite out of greenhouse emissions, and there aren't any scenarios in which nuclear power can do that." At present, 442 nuclear plants operate in more than 31 countries, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The United States has the most -- 103, which provide about 19.3 percent of the country's electric power. Worldwide, atomic energy accounts for 16 percent of electrical production. But carbon emissions from conventional plants bring "higher global temperatures, rising sea levels that would threaten to submerge coastal regions, prolonged droughts and more frequent violent storms," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned last month. World energy needs will rise 51 percent by 2030, the International Energy Agency in Paris predicts. Add up the carbon-dioxide emissions from all the oil and coal plants that would be built to meet that need, and scientists see an environmental nightmare in the making. Moving up the list Natural gas is a cleaner fuel for making electricity, but the price has soared. Hydropower from dams has largely topped out at less than 20 percent of the world's electric supply. Solar, thermal and wind power remain a tiny contributor in most countries and would require dramatic economic changes to become substantial sources. To many, that leaves nuclear. In 2003, a British government white paper called nuclear power an unattractive option; in May, Prime Minister Tony Blair said nuclear power is "on the agenda with a vengeance." Some nuclear construction will merely keep the status quo. The first big wave of nuclear plants, built in the 1970s and 1980s, are near their planned obsolescence; six have been shut down. Regulators in the United States have extended licenses to 60 years, but other countries are replacing aging plants to make sure the nuclear component of their base supply does not disappear. 'Head in the sand' Proliferation of nuclear material remains a worry. "The industry is sticking its head in the sand," said Jim Riccio, a policy analyst at anti-nuclear Greenpeace in Washington. "They haven't gotten close to addressing safety or security." Because nuclear fission emits no greenhouse gases, some environmental groups have grudgingly concluded that nuclear power is preferable to global warming. Others still argue that aggressive conservation and a dramatic increase in solar, wind, thermal and biofueled production can meet future needs. "The voices of opposition have drastically decreased," said Tadao Yanase, director of nuclear energy policy at Japan's Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. "They obviously won't say they totally support" nuclear power, "but they are giving a tacit consent." ------------- Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply LONDON Gulf Times - Nuclear Power?s share of global power supply is likely to shrink over the next few decades as political indecision and public opposition stunt its growth. Even optimists do not see a big expansion in nuclear power?s share of electricity production over the next few decades, despite governments warming to it as fears over climate change and security of energy supply intensify. "In relative shares, in most projections out to 2030 nuclear power is going to decline," Hans-Holger Rogner, head of nuclear energy planning at the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters. The IAEA expects nuclear power to produce 12%-13% of global electricity by 2030, down from the current 16%, while the International Energy Agency forecasts 10%-14%. But Rogner said that long construction times, planning obstacles, a lack of trained nuclear engineers and lingering public fear all hindered the progress of nuclear energy. "Even if there is a momentum of rising expectations for nuclear power, it will take time to propagate to the system," he said. "Many countries, even nuclear countries, have lost the capability. They don?t have the licensing authorities in place any more, and they have to re-educate their people." The IAEA forecasts an increase in nuclear generation capacity of 20%-30% by 2030, but as overall electricity generation capacity is going to double in that period - with most of that met by coal, renewables and gas-fired plants - nuclear looks like being left behind. Beyond 2030 is very hard to predict because it mostly depends on whether fears over climate change override the fear of nuclear power that still lingers 20 years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. "One accident could set everything back," Rogner said. "If we have a little bit more climate catastrophe it may just go the other direction." If there is a big shift towards nuclear over the next few decades, amid accelerating climate change and diminishing fossil fuel reserves, the technology might grow its share of generation, but not until the middle of the century and beyond. "Our 2050 projections, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios and so on... you get into the 20 to 25% range of nuclear generated electricity," Rogner said. The global response to climate change, together with soaring oil and gas prices, has helped bring nuclear power out from the shadow cast by Chernobyl. But growing political discussion in the developed world about the benefits of the technology has yet to result in large scale nuclear build, while Europe?s ageing, state-built reactors hobble towards retirement. "Is it just lip service that our politicians pay or do they really mean it?" Rogner said. "That will make a difference over the next 20 to 30 years." Because of the huge costs involved in building new nuclear plants and disposing of the waste, private companies demand investment security from governments, particularly a long-term, global cost on carbon emissions. There is no sign of that yet. Even where there is a cost for carbon, potential investors in new European reactors are reluctant to commit to new build because Europe?s CO2 trading scheme currently ends in 2012. "It?s hard to see private industry investing in nuclear power stations without guarantees from government, not only for carbon but also for... waste disposal and decommissioning," Andrew Nind of Poyry Energy Consulting said. Nind said that increasingly liberalised markets of Europe discourage new nuclear build, but that growing environmental concerns might force governments to assume enough of the risks involved to encourage private industry to build it. "A lot will depend on the weather and the political will to do something about global warming," he said. As it stands, Asia will probably see the biggest nuclear energy growth over the next few decades, observers say. The IAEA says 16 of the 29 reactors being built are in developing countries. Most of those are in Asia, with India leading the pack with seven new reactors and China just behind. Meanwhile, 20 years after Chernobyl, public distrust of nuclear power lingers in Europe and its role in generation there is likely to shrivel as political indecision and public opposition persist. ------------- New nuclear plant hinges on fuel disposal Exelon executive wants U.S. to build depository for spent fuel rods Bloomberg News Jan 13 - Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. owner of nuclear power plants, wants government assurance of a disposal site for spent fuel before it will proceed with the reactor it has proposed in Texas, Chief Executive John Rowe said Friday. "The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I'm the one who's being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they're going to do with the spent fuel," Rowe said in an interview in Chicago. Rowe, 61, said his preference would be for the federal government to step up and establish a permanent fuel depository, something it's been unable to do. However, he would not rule out the state of Texas creating its own site. Proposals to build new nuclear plants, including in the Carolinas, are gaining momentum as prices rise for coal-fired and natural-gas plants along with global-warming concerns. About 32 announcements have been made for new nuclear power plant licenses. No company has sought to build a new reactor in about 30 years. Exelon in September said it would seek regulatory approval for a nuclear-fueled plant in Texas, the largest power-consuming state. Lack of a permanent repository has forced Exelon and other nuclear- plant operators to store spent fuel at their plants, a strategy that's been criticized by environmental groups, partly on concern the sites may be terrorist targets. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who became Senate Majority Leader this week, opposes the government's chosen site in that state's Yucca Mountain. The next new U.S. nuclear plant probably will be built in the U.S. South or Southeast, where economic growth is driving demand for so- called baseload plants, usually coal-fueled or nuclear plants designed to run at all hours and all seasons to provide basic power supply, Rowe said. Most of the pending nuclear-plant licenses are for sites in southeastern states and Texas. A few proposals have also been made in the state of New York and Maryland. Atlanta-based utility owner Southern Co. has won regulatory approval in Georgia to charge customers for the cost of licensing new nuclear plants, and Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. is seeking the same in North Carolina. That's a source of funding not available in Texas, where power-generation, power delivery and retail-power sales are separate businesses, Rowe said. No new reactor has been ordered in the U.S. since the 1979 accident at Three-Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa. -------------- Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction CALGARY Calgary Herald Jan 13 -- Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion threw cold water Friday on using nuclear energy to extract bitumen from the Alberta oilsands. Speaking Friday to the Calgary Herald editorial board, Dion acknowledged nuclear is part of the "energy mix" in Canada, but doesn't believe it's a viable option for use in Alberta's oilsands due to lingering concerns about whether its waste can be safely disposed. "I have no power to stop a province to do that. It's provincial jurisdiction," Dion said. "I am concerned about the waste and I don't hide my concerns." The debate over nuclear power in Alberta has heated up in recent months as industry and government look for ways to reduce the use of natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions from the Athabasca oilsands -- a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. Enormous amounts of gas are used in the heating and extraction of tar- like bitumen, and oilsands output generates significantly more carbon dioxide than conventional crude production. A nuclear plant would be used to produce electricity and generate steam that would be pumped underground to help melt the bitumen for easier extraction. However, exact construction costs are unknown -- some estimates peg it at $4 billion -- and significant technical and political hurdles must be cleared before a nuclear plant in the oilsands could proceed. Earlier this week, Husky Energy CEO John Lau said his company is studying nuclear energy for its future oilsands developments in northern Alberta. But new provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner said he's skeptical about nuclear energy in the oilsands, including concerns over how to dispose of its waste. "We obviously have no experience with it in Alberta," Renner told the Herald this week. "It's worth looking at, but I think it's a very long-term solution." Environmental groups also are opposed. "It's the farthest thing from clean energy. It's pretty much a toxic energy," said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute. Raynolds doubts the economic viability of a nuclear facility and said it could make the oilsands potentially a larger terrorist target. --------------- Bristol region readies for nuclear waste Material bound for N.M. will be shipped through area on I-81 BRISTOL Richmond Times Jan 14 -- Local emergency responders are preparing for trucks carrying nuclear waste that will pass through western Virginia next year. About 147 shipments of waste left over from Cold War-era nuclear weapons tests will travel through Virginia via Interstate 81, headed to New Mexico for disposal. Virginia's Department of Emergency Management will spend $100,000 training local firefighters and hospital personnel on how to handle possible spills. "There is going to be specific training on incidents for biological and nuclear waste," Bristol Virginia Fire Chief Walt Ford said. Hazardous materials spills are always a danger along I-81, a major shipping route. Ford, also the city's hazardous materials coordinator, said he doesn't know when state officials will conduct the firefighters' segment of the training. But the sessions will be held in different localities across the state, he said. "We have a lot of monitors and tools already [at the station]," Ford said. "We've had a lot of radiation classes, so it wouldn't be new to us. But that's not to say we can handle this." The waste -- called transuranic -- comes from New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The material can include anything from protective clothing and tools to sludge. Transuranic waste often is covered in plutonium, which is a toxic, radioactive metal. The waste is headed for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M. State and local officials hope the waste is transported safely out of Virginia. However, if an accident happens, the material could be dumped along the highway. Furthermore, an accident followed by a fiery explosion could scatter the waste for miles. Ford said that if local residents are exposed, they would be transported to Bristol Regional Medical Center. "If you get that type of stuff on you, we've got to get it off soon," said David Rasnick, director for safety and security at Wellmont Health Systems, which operates the hospital. "That's like getting exposed to nuclear fallout -- it's radioactive material." Sixty-eight Southwest Virginia hospital employees will be trained in radiation and decontamination on March 15 and 16 at the hospital. "In order to stay ready for disaster, we must undergo training," Rasnick said. ------------- BAE and Carlyle plan nuclear dockyard bid - source LONDON (Reuters) - Defence firm BAE Systems could join with U.S. private equity group Carlyle as one option for bidding for the nuclear submarine dockyard Devonport, a source close to the situation said on Sunday. The source told Reuters the joint bid was "one of BAE (LSE: BA.L - news) 's options" after reports in the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph said the two groups were teaming up for an offer that could be worth around 200 million pounds. Devonport, the only UK site equipped to refit and refuel nuclear submarines, is currently owned by KBR , Balfour Beatty (LSE: BBY.L - news) and Weir Group (LSE: WEIR.L - news) . BAE already owns the submarine yard at Barrow, the country's only submarine-building facility, which built the current UK fleet. A BAE spokesman said, "Combining front-end design and build capabilities with through-life support is fully in line with the government's aspirations." --------------- IDBI mulls nuclear power projects funding India Daily Jan 14 - The IDBI Bank may consider funding civilian nuclear power projects once players firm up their plans in this segment, a top bank official has said. Several major players like NTPC Limited, the Tata group and Reliance have evinced interest in nuclear power and are awaiting operationalisation of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. "As of now we don''t have any proposal but we are not averse to funding nuclear power projects," IDBI Bank deputy managing director Jitender Balakrishnan said. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 14:28:44 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:28:44 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <45AA0843.32682.D4069B3@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45AA0843.32682.D4069B3@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: 2007/1/14, Sandy Perle : > > I also suggest that when there is a typo, such as a missing letter in the > name of the all > important country known as Namibia, that you find better use of your time. > Perhaps others > will scrutinize every posting that you make, and God forbid, they find a > typo. The world would > truly come to an end! Thanks, I use my time for whatever I want to and not according to your "recommendations" and your queer preferences. To find, what you call a "typo" is less than a 100th of a second, so it is worth a mentioning, because you obviously were not able to detect it. I encourage everybody reading my messages RADSAFE to point out not only my typos, but also other grammatically wrong expressions, because I am of that rare kind of persons who are interested to learn. Especially I am not waiting again for a message from you when you are in Vienna, several weeks after that meeting had taken place and after having months before the meeting announced your desire to meet me. Instead of apologizing you try to blame me. ?nstead of admitting that you have actually lied to me when you contacted me for meeting me and you have not even admitted this, but you seemed and seem to blame me for it. Shame on you. Franz From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 14 14:44:13 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:44:13 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] OSHA and EDE Message-ID: <45AA259D.1458.DB3125D@sandyfl.cox.net> Thanks to those who responded to my request for the current status of OSHA regulations with respect to EDE calculations. Apparently OSHA still does not permit the use of EDE. Perhaps it's time for ACR, AAPM and other organizations with a vested interest in this ruling will once again approach OSHA to revise its regulations to be consistent with other state and federal agencies, and allow the use of NCRP 122 approved methodologies. It is a shame that physicians and technologists can not take advantage of dose weighting methodologies. Unfortunately, this ruling forces many individuals to simply not wear personnel monitoring devices when their cumulative dose approaches regulatory limit (told to me my several individuals). Reasonable regulatory decisions would actually lead to better radiation practices my those who are exposed to higher doses from these applications. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jk5554 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 15:44:11 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:44:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sun Jan 14 16:25:17 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:25:17 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> Dear Ruth, Interesting to read your characterizisation of my contributions to RADSAFE, which is a little surprising. Most comments supporting my opinions during the last few years I have received to my private e-mail address and not to RADSAFE. Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? What is your problem in "demanding high standards"? Shouldn't this be the most basic demand in any analytical business? What is your comment on watches about? Sorry I do not understand it. I do not visit restaurants with high quality and high prices, I rather prefer to make my own food and I do not wear "finely crafted European Watch Brands". How do you dare to pretend a characterization of mine, without ever having met me and known me? Best regards, Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ruth Sponsler Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. J?nner 2007 22:44 An: Sandy Perle Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Sun Jan 14 16:42:17 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:42:17 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well said Ruth! 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 Ruth Sponsler Sent: January 14, 2007 1:44 PM To: Sandy Perle Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 _______________________________________________ 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 nssihou at aol.com Sun Jan 14 18:14:34 2007 From: nssihou at aol.com (nssihou at aol.com) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:14:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <8C9065144F9DAF3-168C-6C39@WEBMAIL-DC16.sysops.aol.com> One determines the nature of a book by it's cover. On learns the nature of the author by reading the words inside. Your constant bitter words posted to RADSAFE characterize you very effectively without the need to ever meet you. Bob Gallagher NSSI Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at To: jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 2:25 PM Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links Dear Ruth, Interesting to read your characterizisation of my contributions to RADSAFE, which is a little surprising. Most comments supporting my opinions during the last few years I have received to my private e-mail address and not to RADSAFE. Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? What is your problem in "demanding high standards"? Shouldn't this be the most basic demand in any analytical business? What is your comment on watches about? Sorry I do not understand it. I do not visit restaurants with high quality and high prices, I rather prefer to make my own food and I do not wear "finely crafted European Watch Brands". How do you dare to pretend a characterization of mine, without ever having met me and known me? Best regards, Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ruth Sponsler Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. J?nner 2007 22:44 An: Sandy Perle Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links I just want to say that I find Sandy Perle's news distributions to be quite informative. I am getting a bit tired of the regular nature of Dr. Sch?nhofer's tirades on this list over the past couple of years. It seems that no one in the world ever does anything correctly to meet Dr. Sch?nhofer's exceedingly high standards. When one possesses exceedingly high standards, it is perhaps good to enjoy the pleasure of a fine dining experience or a finely-crafted product, such as one of the many very good European watch brands. It is good for no one to use one's exceedingly high standards in constant criticism of others, with nary a good word. I think we've all experienced schedule mixups that have cost time and money. Generally, these mixups aren't matters for widespread publicity. For a return to civility - Ruth --- Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > The country in question is to my knowledge "Namibia" > and not Nambia. If you > cannot even take care enough to name a country by > its correct name I wonder > what your company is reliable and worth. > > Remember the case where we had definitely decided to > meet in Vienna after > many previous attempts in the framework of a > conference which I could not > attend and that I had cancelled a holiday in Egypt > to meet you, but you did > not even bother to call me during your week-long > stay in Vienna to tell me > that you had "more important" committments like > going to Bratislava by boat. > You could have told me long beforehand that your > potential customers were of > much more importance to meet than meeting me. I > would have gone to Egypt and > you would have met your (potential) customers. > > I appreciate your comments on RADSAFE and according > to a previous mail > exchange I forward many of them to my Austrian > "radiation news group". After > my bad experience with your reliability I just > wonder - and maybe other > RADSAFERs might wonder, how your contributions can > be relied on - especially > since you name countries in a totally wrong way. How > about UKS, USK, UVW.... > for the United States of America?????? > > Franz > > > > > 2007/1/12, Sandy Perle : > > > > Jaro, > > > > Here are some links for the news story: > > > > > http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3623187 > > > > > http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/January/national/076D5A2AC3.html > > > > > http://www.mineweb.net/african_renaissance/243305.htm > > > > 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/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 _______________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. From m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Mon Jan 15 07:06:06 2007 From: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:06:06 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Shielding for bedsides Message-ID: <45AB7C3E.2050005@tudelft.nl> Dear Radsafers, I need your help in the specification of bedside shields for I-131 radiotherapy patient rooms. The maximum activity per patient is 200 mCi per room. Thank you. Sincerely, Abdalla N. Al-Haj, PhD Head, Health Physics Section Biomedical Physics Department P.O. Box 3354, Riyadh 11211 Saudi Arabia Email: abdal at kfshrc.edu.sa From Lawson.Bailey at ttnus.com Mon Jan 15 09:24:29 2007 From: Lawson.Bailey at ttnus.com (Bailey, Lawson -- NUS) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:24:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Excess Equipment Message-ID: <061154FBB42E5F49B063ABE17ACA1FF4203553@EMI-EVS2.ttemi.com> We are in the final stages of a remediation project and have some excess equipment looking for new homes. If you have any interest in this equipment, please contact me via e-mail or phone. Model MB-LEAD-SHIELD. Lead Shield for NaI detector (sized for 1-L marinnelli) Model 905-4. NaI Scintillation Detector, 3x3-in. crystal, 3-in. tube Model DIGIBASE-PKG-1. 14-Pin Base for NaI Applications. Complete with Digital MCA, Preamplifier, High Voltage Supply, MAESTRO-32, and ScintiVision Qualitative and Quantitative Software. USB Connection Bartlett Model AP-1000-P, 1000 CFM HEPA Ventilation Unit (Never used) F&J LV-14M Standard Lo Vol Air Sampler (2) Lawson Bailey | Senior Health Physicist Direct: 803.641.6326 | Cell: 706.830.7530 | Fax: 803.642.8454 lawson.bailey at ttnus.com Tetra Tech NUS | Aiken Office 900 Trail Ridge Road | Aiken, SC 29803 PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. From DAHatfield at archchemicals.com Mon Jan 15 09:25:24 2007 From: DAHatfield at archchemicals.com (Hatfield, David A **BRAN) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:25:24 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Level Instruments w/sources Available Message-ID: <631F12903A93094E8914BA20EF7A734F3DF43E@dcil-exc-56.arj.archchemicals.com> I have the following instruments available at no cost for anyone with or willing to get a valid license for them. The items are excess and all are in good condition. If interested reply to dahatfield at archchemicals.com. I would also like information on disposal companies that handle radioactive sealed sources. Iso. Activ (mCi) Service Vendor Vendor Serial# Gen. Cond. cs-137 500 Level 67074 good CO-60 77 level Berthold 2150-11- 97 good CO-60 1 Berthold 2151-11-97 good CO-60 4.5 Berthold 2152-11-97 good CS-137 6 Berthold 2153-11-97 good David Hatfield, RSO PO Box 547 2450 Olin Rd Brandenburg, KY 40108 From DAHatfield at archchemicals.com Mon Jan 15 10:51:52 2007 From: DAHatfield at archchemicals.com (Hatfield, David A **BRAN) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:51:52 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Free Level Instruments w/sources Available II Message-ID: <631F12903A93094E8914BA20EF7A734F3DF4A5@dcil-exc-56.arj.archchemicals.com> Sorry for the format problems of initial send as it was my first. This post should read easier. I have the following instruments available at no cost for anyone with or willing to get a valid license for them. The items are excess and all are in good condition. If interested reply to dahatfield at archchemicals.com. I would also like information on disposal companies that handle radioactive sealed sources. Iso. Activ (mCi) Vendor Vendor Serial# Gen. Cond. cs-137 500 67074 good CO-60 77 Berthold 2150-11-97 good CO-60 1 Berthold 2151-11-97 good CO-60 4.5 Berthold 2152-11-97 good CS-137 6 Berthold 2153-11-97 good David Hatfield, RSO PO Box 547 2450 Olin Rd Brandenburg, KY 40108 Direct 270-422-6233 Cell 270-945-4246 From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 15 10:54:16 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 8:54:16 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Message-ID: <17468739.1168880056548.JavaMail.root@fed1wml07.mgt.cox.net> Index: Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Nuclear safety guidance published RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike =============================== Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance James Finch submits: Depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting, the nuclear renaissance is either in full blossom or an arid landscape. The new uranium miners ? Paladin Resources (TSX: PDN.TO - News), UrAsia (AMEX: UUU - News) and SXR Uranium One (TSX: SXR.TO - News) ? celebrate the record spot and long-term uranium price. Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC - News) Chief Executive John Rowe is less sanguine, based upon comments he made this past Friday: ?The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I?m the one who?s being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they?re going to do with the spent fuel.? Exelon is the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the United States. In a September 19 article, we interviewed Steven Kraft, Nuclear Energy Institute Director for Used Fuel Management. Mr. Kraft hinted the stalls around the nuclear renaissance in the United States would revolve around the spent fuel depository issue. What happens with the 40,000 metric tons of used nuclear reactor fuel? Right now, they are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds scattered around the country. For the past quarter century, the nuclear industry expected the reactor fuel would end up in a centralized depository, as has been proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Thanks to U.S. Senator Reid, and his efforts to squash this site, the Department of Energy has been paralyzed in moving forward. Alternatives are now being proposed, and the U.S. part of the nuclear renaissance remains stalled. Then the other shoe drops. Because of the vociferous environmental lobbyists, pre-construction costs dissuade nuclear utilities from accelerating their plans to build new nuclear reactors in the United States. Utilities do what is convenient ? they pass on these licensing costs to their utility consumers. Because of the environmental lobby, Georgia electricity consumers are paying the freight to license the new nuclear reactors proposed by Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO - News). Charlotte-based Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK - News) hopes to get the same deal in North Carolina. How much does it cost to license a nuclear power plant? Standard & Poors analyst Dimitri Nikas estimated the permits to construct a nuclear plant would cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. This means roughly one-half the cost of constructing a nuclear plant in the United States goes to pay for a permit to build and operate the reactor. Because of this expensive proposition, nuclear energy costs more to produce electricity in the United States than it would in places like China, Korea, Japan or just about anywhere else. For a nuclear plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build, the power plant?s electricity would cost $55 per megawatt hour. By comparison, a coal-fired power plant costs consumers $53 per megawatt hour for their electricity. A combined cycle integrated gasification plant fueled by coal produces electricity for $50 per megawatt hour. On the bright side, the S&P analyst believes that after the first wave of nuclear power plant construction, overall costs could plunge to $1.5 million per megawatt hour for electricity, or roughly $44 per megawatt hour. Because of this drop Mr. Niklas concluded nuclear energy ?is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectricity generation.? This is more good news for uranium miners now supplying the nuclear industry and those who hope to do so over the next decade. The question facing most Americans ? and we would guess 99 percent haven?t the slightest clue about this problem ? is whether or not they would prefer losing the nuclear option as part of their electricity generation. The environmental lobby would cheer the loss but the utility consumer would lose up to 20 percent of their baseload electricity generation. And on a darker note, the alternative would be more coal-fired power plants ? not wind or solar power, which are still more than one decade away from offering any sort of hope for baseload electricity generation. To put this into perspective, coal now generates 54 percent of America?s electricity. One pound of coal produces 1.25 kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours. The average internet user consumes more than his body weight in coal just to surf the net: 12 hours weekly over the course of one year consumes 300 pounds of coal. Total demand for electricity by personal computers now amounts to 8 percent of the U.S. electrical supply. In the future, over one billion people will be accessing the Internet. This amount of computer time would be equal to the total ?current? capacity of U.S. electrical production. If the U.S. nuclear renaissance doesn?t get launched, we will either be accessing the Internet by polluting our environment with several hundred additional millions of tons of CO2 emissions, or the Internet users will suffer. Wind and solar won?t power the Internet, but coal, gas and especially nuclear will. And at this stage of the uranium renaissance, U.S. utilities have contracted with three non-U.S. uranium mining companies ? Paladin, SXR Uranium One and UrAsia ? to purchase uranium mined in Namibia, South Africa and Kazakhstan. Where is the energy independence in that observation? Next we?ll be buying our electricity from the Russians, Chinese, and quite possibly the Iranians, if this nonsense continues. Please bring this to the attention of your local environmental lobbying office. It's something that might move Exelon Corp into action. ------------------ Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Four employees at a nuclear plant in Japan were splashed by radioactive water during a routine inspection. The workers' health and the area had been unaffected by the incident, the plant's operators, Kansai Electric Power Co, were quoted as saying. The water, with traces of radiation, leaked at the Takahama No 1 reactor in Fukui, in western Japan. Japan's nuclear industry has been hit by a string of mishaps and accidents but most have not involved people. The country is reliant on nuclear power to meet its energy needs, but its shaky safety record has fuelled popular opposition to the plants. Japan's worst nuclear accident also occurred in Fukui prefecture, at the Mihama plant in 2004 when a pipe burst killing five workers. The latest incident took place as the Takahama unit was closed for regular inspection on Sunday, Kansai said in a statement. A reported 370 litres (96 gallons) of the water leaked from a coolant pump, spraying the four staff members but not injuring them. --------------- Nuclear safety guidance published Industry Channel: Energy & Utilities, Source: The Engineer Online -The UK?s principal nuclear regulators have published guidance for an integrated approach to assessing the safety of nuclear power station designs for the protection of people and the environment. ?The Generic Assessment of Candidate Nuclear Power Plant Design? has been jointly published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Department of Trade and Industry's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). According to the regulators, early scrutiny of designs will help ensure regulatory resources are applied at a stage when greater influence can be brought to bear. The Government?s report on the Energy Review, ?The Energy Challenge?, released on 11 July 2006, stated Government?s belief that nuclear power should have a role in the future UK generating mix, alongside other low-carbon options. Since then, the Department for Trade and Industry has carried out further consultation on the policy framework for new nuclear build, and will be publishing its findings in a White Paper later this year. The Environment Agency (England and Wales) regulates radioactive waste disposal, air quality, cooling water discharges and operation of conventional plant, such as emergency stand-by power supplies and radioactive waste incinerators. It is also involved in flood risk management, contaminated land remediation and construction waste disposal. ?Although, ultimately, the Government will decide whether or not nuclear power stations are needed to meet the UK?s energy demands, the Environment Agency insists all nuclear installations meet high standards of safety, security, environmental performance and waste management,? said Environment Agency Head of Radioactive Substances Regulation Joe McHugh. ?Assessing designs at an early stage is good for the environment and safety because we can influence the design so as to ensure people and the environment are properly protected. It is good for the public and other stakeholders because they can be well informed and engaged as part of our decision making, and it is good for the companies involved as they can make better informed investment decisions.? The new guidance outlines the information reactor vendors, potential operators and other interested parties will be expected to provide so their proposals can be assessed. It also lists he processes that will be followed to ensure the assessment of generic designs is rigorous and robust, conducted in an open and transparent manner, subject to nuclear security and commercially-confidential restrictions, and involves stakeholders, including the public, at an early stage. At the end of the generic assessment, the regulators will each provide their views about the acceptability of a new nuclear power station design. ?If an application is made to build a new nuclear power station on a specific site, the regulators will follow their existing regulatory processes before deciding whether or not to issue a nuclear site licence, environmental authorisations and permits, and security plan approval,? said McHugh. ?Where these site-specific applications are based on a generic design that has undergone assessment, the regulators will take full account of the work they have already carried out and would continue to work together at all stages. ? ------------------ RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Manila Times Jan 15 - The Philippines will start studying modern nuclear technology to understand its importance to economic development, but the government has no intention of activating the mothballed Bataan nuclear power plant. ?Nuclear activities for peaceful uses by our neighbors affect us economically and environmentally,? Energy Secretary Rafael Lotilla told reporters after members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and their East Asian partners signed an energy cooperation agreement. Lotilla said other Asean countries are also currently exploring the possible use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes and Indonesia and Vietnam have likewise expressed interest. Sixteen leaders of Asean and their dialogue partners signed on Monday the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security. ?The declaration recognizes that while fossil fuels will continue to be used for a considerable period of time, we can attain greater energy security by among others, promoting energy efficiency, conservation and cleaner technologies, increasing capacity and reducing costs of alternative energy resources,? Lotilla said. He added the agreement encourages the use of biofuels and developing freer trade in this alternative form of energy by 2010. President Arroyo said the Asean leaders expressed serious concern over the negative impact of high oil prices on economic growth and development. ?The Asean agreed to adopt a strategic approach, to strengthen and promote Asean energy cooperation, especially in key infrastructure projects, including the Asean power grid and Trans-Asean Gas Pipeline,? she said. The ultimate goal of the Asean leaders is to create an open energy market, the President added. Malaysia said the plan also includes stockpiling fuel to ensure enough long-term supply for the region, besides the development of renewable energy sources. Lotilla said that the declaration would bring down the cost of putting up renewable energy sources. ?Cooperation in this area through the declaration will make having those facilities much easier for us,? he pointed out. But Lotilla said Malaysia?s proposal of stockpiling petroleum is not a good option at time because it might add to the volatility of fuel prices. ?We should consider other alternatives,? he said. Meanwhile, New Zealand and the Philippines have agreed to work on tapping renewable energy sources and putting up air linkages. President Arroyo and New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark will discuss the issues when the Philippine leader visits New Zealand after the May election this year. The two leaders agreed to explore energy cooperation at their bilateral meeting on Sunday in Shangri-La Hotel in Lapu-Lapu City. Clark said New Zealand is willing to share technology with the Philippines, particularly in tapping geothermal energy, which could help the country secure its power needs. ------------------- Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike Press Release: District Health Boards - A pay deal?s been struck with Radiation Therapists who have called off all industrial action. Strikes threatened in Auckland and Wellington on Monday will not go ahead and DHBs will be trying to get back to normal treatment schedules as quickly as possible. Murray Georgel, CEO of MidCentral District Health Board and Spokesperson for the DHBs, says DHBs were able to increase their pay offer when radiation therapists agreed to extend the time the agreement covers. ?We?re delighted that the RTS have extended the length of the agreement and reduced their claims so DHBs can stay within our budgets. ?The sad thing is there have been more than 270 separate notices of industrial action, hundreds of people have had their treatment disrupted, but the framework for this deal was on the table in the middle of last year. ?The lesson from this is that meaningful negotiation is the way to achieve fair and reasonable settlements ? not industrial action.? Mr Georgel says the package includes 1.0% backdated to April last year, another 1.5% backdated to October and another 2.5% from July this year ? on top of the step increases. ?The deal means DHBs can start reducing the waiting lists caused by the action over the last four months. Just how long it will take will vary from hospital to hospital.? ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 15 11:28:35 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 9:28:35 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Message-ID: <5448991.1168882115991.JavaMail.root@fed1wml08.mgt.cox.net> Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Nuclear safety guidance published RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike =============================== Why The U.S Is In Need Of a Nuclear Renaissance James Finch submits: Depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting, the nuclear renaissance is either in full blossom or an arid landscape. The new uranium miners - Paladin Resources (TSX: PDN.TO - News), UrAsia (AMEX: UUU - News) and SXR Uranium One (TSX: SXR.TO - News) - celebrate the record spot and long-term uranium price. Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC - News) Chief Executive John Rowe is less sanguine, based upon comments he made this past Friday: "The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I?m the one who?s being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they?re going to do with the spent fuel." Exelon is the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the United States. In a September 19 article, we interviewed Steven Kraft, Nuclear Energy Institute Director for Used Fuel Management. Mr. Kraft hinted the stalls around the nuclear renaissance in the United States would revolve around the spent fuel depository issue. What happens with the 40,000 metric tons of used nuclear reactor fuel? Right now, they are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds scattered around the country. For the past quarter century, the nuclear industry expected the reactor fuel would end up in a centralized depository, as has been proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Thanks to U.S. Senator Reid, and his efforts to squash this site, the Department of Energy has been paralyzed in moving forward. Alternatives are now being proposed, and the U.S. part of the nuclear renaissance remains stalled. Then the other shoe drops. Because of the vociferous environmental lobbyists, pre-construction costs dissuade nuclear utilities from accelerating their plans to build new nuclear reactors in the United States. Utilities do what is convenient - they pass on these licensing costs to their utility consumers. Because of the environmental lobby, Georgia electricity consumers are paying the freight to license the new nuclear reactors proposed by Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO - News). Charlotte-based Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK - News) hopes to get the same deal in North Carolina. How much does it cost to license a nuclear power plant? Standard & Poors analyst Dimitri Nikas estimated the permits to construct a nuclear plant would cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. This means roughly one-half the cost of constructing a nuclear plant in the United States goes to pay for a permit to build and operate the reactor. Because of this expensive proposition, nuclear energy costs more to produce electricity in the United States than it would in places like China, Korea, Japan or just about anywhere else. For a nuclear plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build, the power plant?s electricity would cost $55 per megawatt hour. By comparison, a coal- fired power plant costs consumers $53 per megawatt hour for their electricity. A combined cycle integrated gasification plant fueled by coal produces electricity for $50 per megawatt hour. On the bright side, the S&P analyst believes that after the first wave of nuclear power plant construction, overall costs could plunge to $1.5 million per megawatt hour for electricity, or roughly $44 per megawatt hour. Because of this drop Mr. Niklas concluded nuclear energy "is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectricity generation." This is more good news for uranium miners now supplying the nuclear industry and those who hope to do so over the next decade. The question facing most Americans - and we would guess 99 percent haven?t the slightest clue about this problem - is whether or not they would prefer losing the nuclear option as part of their electricity generation. The environmental lobby would cheer the loss but the utility consumer would lose up to 20 percent of their baseload electricity generation. And on a darker note, the alternative would be more coal-fired power plants - not wind or solar power, which are still more than one decade away from offering any sort of hope for baseload electricity generation. To put this into perspective, coal now generates 54 percent of America?s electricity. One pound of coal produces 1.25 kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours. The average internet user consumes more than his body weight in coal just to surf the net: 12 hours weekly over the course of one year consumes 300 pounds of coal. Total demand for electricity by personal computers now amounts to 8 percent of the U.S. electrical supply. In the future, over one billion people will be accessing the Internet. This amount of computer time would be equal to the total `current? capacity of U.S. electrical production. If the U.S. nuclear renaissance doesn?t get launched, we will either be accessing the Internet by polluting our environment with several hundred additional millions of tons of CO2 emissions, or the Internet users will suffer. Wind and solar won?t power the Internet, but coal, gas and especially nuclear will. And at this stage of the uranium renaissance, U.S. utilities have contracted with three non-U.S. uranium mining companies - Paladin, SXR Uranium One and UrAsia - to purchase uranium mined in Namibia, South Africa and Kazakhstan. Where is the energy independence in that observation? Next we?ll be buying our electricity from the Russians, Chinese, and quite possibly the Iranians, if this nonsense continues. Please bring this to the attention of your local environmental lobbying office. It's something that might move Exelon Corp into action. ------------------ Water leak at Japan nuclear plant Four employees at a nuclear plant in Japan were splashed by radioactive water during a routine inspection. The workers' health and the area had been unaffected by the incident, the plant's operators, Kansai Electric Power Co, were quoted as saying. The water, with traces of radiation, leaked at the Takahama No 1 reactor in Fukui, in western Japan. Japan's nuclear industry has been hit by a string of mishaps and accidents but most have not involved people. The country is reliant on nuclear power to meet its energy needs, but its shaky safety record has fuelled popular opposition to the plants. Japan's worst nuclear accident also occurred in Fukui prefecture, at the Mihama plant in 2004 when a pipe burst killing five workers. The latest incident took place as the Takahama unit was closed for regular inspection on Sunday, Kansai said in a statement. A reported 370 litres (96 gallons) of the water leaked from a coolant pump, spraying the four staff members but not injuring them. --------------- Nuclear safety guidance published Industry Channel: Energy & Utilities, Source: The Engineer Online - The UK?s principal nuclear regulators have published guidance for an integrated approach to assessing the safety of nuclear power station designs for the protection of people and the environment. `The Generic Assessment of Candidate Nuclear Power Plant Design? has been jointly published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the Department of Trade and Industry's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). According to the regulators, early scrutiny of designs will help ensure regulatory resources are applied at a stage when greater influence can be brought to bear. The Government?s report on the Energy Review, `The Energy Challenge?, released on 11 July 2006, stated Government?s belief that nuclear power should have a role in the future UK generating mix, alongside other low-carbon options. Since then, the Department for Trade and Industry has carried out further consultation on the policy framework for new nuclear build, and will be publishing its findings in a White Paper later this year. The Environment Agency (England and Wales) regulates radioactive waste disposal, air quality, cooling water discharges and operation of conventional plant, such as emergency stand-by power supplies and radioactive waste incinerators. It is also involved in flood risk management, contaminated land remediation and construction waste disposal. `Although, ultimately, the Government will decide whether or not nuclear power stations are needed to meet the UK?s energy demands, the Environment Agency insists all nuclear installations meet high standards of safety, security, environmental performance and waste management,? said Environment Agency Head of Radioactive Substances Regulation Joe McHugh. `Assessing designs at an early stage is good for the environment and safety because we can influence the design so as to ensure people and the environment are properly protected. It is good for the public and other stakeholders because they can be well informed and engaged as part of our decision making, and it is good for the companies involved as they can make better informed investment decisions.? The new guidance outlines the information reactor vendors, potential operators and other interested parties will be expected to provide so their proposals can be assessed. It also lists he processes that will be followed to ensure the assessment of generic designs is rigorous and robust, conducted in an open and transparent manner, subject to nuclear security and commercially-confidential restrictions, and involves stakeholders, including the public, at an early stage. At the end of the generic assessment, the regulators will each provide their views about the acceptability of a new nuclear power station design. `If an application is made to build a new nuclear power station on a specific site, the regulators will follow their existing regulatory processes before deciding whether or not to issue a nuclear site licence, environmental authorisations and permits, and security plan approval,? said McHugh. `Where these site-specific applications are based on a generic design that has undergone assessment, the regulators will take full account of the work they have already carried out and would continue to work together at all stages. ` ------------------ RP to study civilian uses of nuclear power Manila Times Jan 15 - The Philippines will start studying modern nuclear technology to understand its importance to economic development, but the government has no intention of activating the mothballed Bataan nuclear power plant. "Nuclear activities for peaceful uses by our neighbors affect us economically and environmentally," Energy Secretary Rafael Lotilla told reporters after members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and their East Asian partners signed an energy cooperation agreement. Lotilla said other Asean countries are also currently exploring the possible use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes and Indonesia and Vietnam have likewise expressed interest. Sixteen leaders of Asean and their dialogue partners signed on Monday the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security. "The declaration recognizes that while fossil fuels will continue to be used for a considerable period of time, we can attain greater energy security by among others, promoting energy efficiency, conservation and cleaner technologies, increasing capacity and reducing costs of alternative energy resources," Lotilla said. He added the agreement encourages the use of biofuels and developing freer trade in this alternative form of energy by 2010. President Arroyo said the Asean leaders expressed serious concern over the negative impact of high oil prices on economic growth and development. "The Asean agreed to adopt a strategic approach, to strengthen and promote Asean energy cooperation, especially in key infrastructure projects, including the Asean power grid and Trans-Asean Gas Pipeline," she said. The ultimate goal of the Asean leaders is to create an open energy market, the President added. Malaysia said the plan also includes stockpiling fuel to ensure enough long-term supply for the region, besides the development of renewable energy sources. Lotilla said that the declaration would bring down the cost of putting up renewable energy sources. "Cooperation in this area through the declaration will make having those facilities much easier for us," he pointed out. But Lotilla said Malaysia?s proposal of stockpiling petroleum is not a good option at time because it might add to the volatility of fuel prices. "We should consider other alternatives," he said. Meanwhile, New Zealand and the Philippines have agreed to work on tapping renewable energy sources and putting up air linkages. President Arroyo and New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark will discuss the issues when the Philippine leader visits New Zealand after the May election this year. The two leaders agreed to explore energy cooperation at their bilateral meeting on Sunday in Shangri-La Hotel in Lapu-Lapu City. Clark said New Zealand is willing to share technology with the Philippines, particularly in tapping geothermal energy, which could help the country secure its power needs. ------------------- Settlement in Radiation Therapists Strike Press Release: District Health Boards - A pay deal?s been struck with Radiation Therapists who have called off all industrial action. Strikes threatened in Auckland and Wellington on Monday will not go ahead and DHBs will be trying to get back to normal treatment schedules as quickly as possible. Murray Georgel, CEO of MidCentral District Health Board and Spokesperson for the DHBs, says DHBs were able to increase their pay offer when radiation therapists agreed to extend the time the agreement covers. "We?re delighted that the RTS have extended the length of the agreement and reduced their claims so DHBs can stay within our budgets. "The sad thing is there have been more than 270 separate notices of industrial action, hundreds of people have had their treatment disrupted, but the framework for this deal was on the table in the middle of last year. "The lesson from this is that meaningful negotiation is the way to achieve fair and reasonable settlements - not industrial action." Mr Georgel says the package includes 1.0% backdated to April last year, another 1.5% backdated to October and another 2.5% from July this year - on top of the step increases. "The deal means DHBs can start reducing the waiting lists caused by the action over the last four months. Just how long it will take will vary from hospital to hospital." 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jan 15 12:13:23 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:13:23 -0600 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links In-Reply-To: <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> References: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070115120935.046b0470@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 04:25 PM 1/14/2007, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? Hey, Franz: You misspelled "revealed"...... But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it........ ;~) Doug (looking forward to some postings with a relevant content on Radsafe...) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From radproject at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 15 12:39:21 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:39:21 -0500 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners References: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com><000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> <6.2.0.14.2.20070115120935.046b0470@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> Message-ID: <000e01c738d4$78f71770$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hi everyone, Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: >......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >written. Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as "reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. BTW, "How many radsafers does it take to change a lightbulb??" :-) Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Farber Medical Solutions, LLC Broker for Linacs, Medical Imaging, and Radiation Instrumentation 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Aitken" To: "Franz Sch?nhofer" ; "'Ruth Sponsler'" ; "'Sandy Perle'" Cc: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:13 PM Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia - Nuclear Power links At 04:25 PM 1/14/2007, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: >......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >publicly reveiled as affirmative posters? ============ "Doug Aitken" Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:13 PM wrote: Hey, Franz: You misspelled "revealed"...... But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it........ ;~) Doug (looking forward to some postings with a relevant content on Radsafe...) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/628 - Release Date: 1/15/2007 From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jan 15 14:07:41 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:07:41 -0600 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <000e01c738d4$78f71770$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> References: <903526.94459.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000001c7382a$e4aad010$49197254@pc1> <6.2.0.14.2.20070115120935.046b0470@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> <000e01c738d4$78f71770$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070115140539.0492ea98@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 14:24:25 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:24:25 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Colonel Eric Daxon wrote that the U.S. Veterans' Administration "found that Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than non-Gulf War Veterans. When they actually did the study and examined the medical records, the birth defect rates were equal to the normal population rates," and, "the paper that found that the birth defect rates were equivalent did not receive much press," citing some unpublished research of Dr. Han Kang. Dr. Kang, the Director of the Veterans Administration's Environmental Epidemiology Service, does not agree, stating that the total number of "moderate to severe" birth defects in children of male Gulf War veterans increased from an odds ratio of 1.8 from survey data to 2.2 after the pediatric medical records were examined. Colonel Daxon should have known better than to try to misrepresent Dr. Kang's unpublished results, because a summary of them was published in 2003: "Dr. Kang found that male Gulf War veterans reported having infants with likely birth defects at twice the rate of non-veterans. Furthermore, female Gulf War veterans were almost three times more likely to report children with birth defects than their non-Gulf counterparts. The numbers changed somewhat with medical records verification. However, Dr. Kang and his colleagues concluded that the risk of birth defects in children of deployed male veterans still was about 2.2 times that of non-deployed veterans." -- Department of Veterans Affairs (2003) "Q's & A's - New Information Regarding Birth Defects," Gulf War Review, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 10: http://www1.va.gov/gulfwar/docs/GulfWarNov03.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/11/07, Eric D wrote: > Mr. Salsman, > > Your accusation (I am a liar) is unfounded. I provided the information I > based my statements upon and this is an old discussion. A recently released > National Academy of Sciences report (2006) is in line with my original > statement as are the many other independent, published studies cited in this > work. Unpublished results are just that. I would suggest you read earlier > posts that discuss the topic of lying. > > I disagree with your connecting Dr. Kang's results as an endorsement of your > position that DU is a causal factor. There are no data that support your > inference. > > I would like to see the references for "... people to propose using urine > testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage > from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring > exposure to uranium trioxide gas." If anyone on the list has information to > corroborate or to disprove the statement, I would appreciate it. I believe > it to be incorrect. > > Once again you are discussing the vapor issue, the uranium trioxide and DoD > testing which has already been laid to rest multiple times. I skimmed the > 1970 article you provided and saw no mention of uranium trioxide and very > little discussion of uranium. The paper focused on Pu. If you read the > discussion with an understanding of vapors and the experiment itself, the > results are in line with the many articles published since this work was > done. > > Dr. Johnson's statement that you provided in your link was accurate. He > agreed with my statement, I am assuming, because of his study and the rest > of the scientific community's research into the health effects of DU. > > Your argument appears to be that if someone disagrees with you they are > either a "liar" or "...are betraying the interests of truth, science..." > Your post illustrates a previous discussion thread on this web site. > > Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of James Salsman > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 6:07 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor > > When I see posts like this... > > http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-November/004495.html > > I wonder why Dr. Johnson is agreeing with someone who has been proven to > have lied about epidemiological birth defect research results. To make a > long > story short, Dr. Kang, a Veterans Administration epidemiologist, has been > tracking an increasing trend of birth defects in the children of 1991 Gulf > War > veterans, and Colonel Daxon claimed that Dr. Kang's unpublished research > indicated the trend had decreased. In fact, in is increasing more sharply > than > ever. (Roger H, did you ever call Dr. Kang to confirm after I gave > you his phone > number?) > > The only reason I can think that Dr. Johnson would want to agree with a > proven > liar is because he was responsible, in the 1990s for proving the "safety" of > depleted uranium munitions. In doing so, he never considered the amount of > uranium which becomes gas vapor instead of particulates, which settle much > more quickly, when it burns. Neither has anyone else in the military > or industrial > production of DU munitions. > > Sadly, this state of affairs has caused otherwise-intelligent people to > propose > using urine testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring > chromosome damage from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate > method of measuring exposure to uranium trioxide gas. > > I note that fully half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor, see page 836 of > Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the > combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38: > http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf > > I suspect that the people who lie about depleted uranium think that they are > doing our military a favor. In fact, they are betraying the interests > of truth, > science, the health of our nation's armed forces, and their ability to > recruit, > upon which they rely. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Mon Jan 15 16:48:23 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:48:23 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20070115140539.0492ea98@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> Message-ID: <000001c738f7$4a4a4f50$49197254@pc1> Dear Dough and all those engaged or interested in this exchange of opinions, Thank you so much for your signature "Doug (just having fun)" and your previous post. I appreciate it and it shows that people on RADSAFE still are open for some humour and putting things into perspective. Thanks to everybody who gave me a lecture in English. I wrote that I am always eager to learn. Of course I intended to write "reveal". Everybody on RADSAFE should have a high enough IQ to find out that English is not my mother tongue or probably understand that the ".at" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Austria which should not be confused with Australia. T-shirts are sold in Vienna to tourists with the slogan "Austria, No Cangaroos". I do not understand how somebody can find out about "nature of the authors of books" by reading them (Bob Gallagher), but if you would refer to books for which I have been a co-editor you could easily find out that I am an expert in LSC. Quite interesting (and "revealing") that according to my stored RADSAFE mails Bob Gallagher hardly participates in RADSAFE technical discussions, except one a few years ago where he stated that the introduction of SI-Units in the USA is not necessary, because people in the USA are used to the pCi, mCi, MCi etc. What a point of view! Syd Levine: The group might be interested into the reliability of a person who has weeks or even months before his travel made appointments with me and has not even bothered to cancel them, but only wrote an e-mail weeks after that event. I think that reliability of a company is a big factor in deciding which services to order. Regarding my English - see my above comments. I am well aware that I am not a native English speaker as you should know, but I would wish you that you spoke half as well German as I speak German, English, Swedish and French. Finally I refer to the comment of Sandy Perle on my message, which reads "the all important country of Namibia". I think that it does not need a native speaker to understand that this is a very humiliating comment on a developing country. Please send any flames to my private address, unless you feel your flaming will gain you extra values at your job. Best wishes Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] Gesendet: Montag, 15. J?nner 2007 21:08 An: stewart farber; Franz Sch?nhofer; 'Ruth Sponsler'; 'Sandy Perle' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 15 17:09:14 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:09:14 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: Google Alert - Leuren Moret Message-ID: <018901c738fa$30780560$fc435142@roger1> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/AstuciaReport/Astucia_Report_01_14_2007.mp3 For those of you who worked at Lawrence Livermore or who have friends who worked at Lawrence Livermore, Sandia or Los Alamos, you might want to listen to this to see whether or not the story is being distorted. Moret already is Youtube with video claiming that atomic testing has resulted in lowering of SAT scores and rise of autism. She has also claimed that depleted uranium is responsible for worldwide increase in diabetes. She probably is not the one who should be on a two-part series on the Livermore lab. Google Groups Alert for: Leuren Moret The Astucia Report, with guest, Leuren Moret The Astucia Report, with guest, Leuren Moret (PART 1 of 2-PART SERIES) 60 minutes INTERNET RADIO PROGRAM Hosted by writer, Salvador Astucia Sun, January 14, 2007 (first broadcast) Topic of Show: Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and its advocate, the late Edward Teller CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS AND TO ACCESS MP3 FILE. ... alt.politics.bush - Jan 15, 11:22am by Salvador Astucia - 1 message - 1 author From: Salvador Astucia - view profile Date: Mon, Jan 15 2007 12:22 pm Email: "Salvador Astucia" Groups: alt.politics.bush, hawaii.military, soc.culture.iraq, alt.gathering.rainbow Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author The Astucia Report, with guest, Leuren Moret (PART 1 of 2-PART SERIES) 60 minutes INTERNET RADIO PROGRAM Hosted by writer, Salvador Astucia Sun, January 14, 2007 (first broadcast) Topic of Show: Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and its advocate, the late Edward Teller CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS AND TO ACCESS MP3 FILE. j_f_k_m_o_n_t_r_e_a_l.c_o_m (Remove Underlines.) Go to the upper left area of the home page and click "Astucia Report". [NOTE: Google has blocked my USENET messages where I include URLs. BTW, a lot of people think Google is propped up by NSA, and I tend to agree.] Synopsis of Show: This is the first broadcast of the Astucia Report. Our guest is Leuren Moret, geo-scientist, formerly employed at Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab near San Francisco, California. This show is PART 1 of a 2-PART series from a telephone interview conducted on Dec. 11, 2006. Ms. Moret is a critic of US nuclear policy and has lots of interesting thoughts on that and other related topics. The show begins with host, Salvador Astucia, explaining how he was introduced to Ms. Moret by journalist Christopher Bollyn, formerly a writer with American Free Press. Mr. Astucia states that he is interested in Ms. Moret because she has first-hand knowledge of Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, having worked there as a scientist for two years. Mr. Astucia states that he has linked individuals associated with Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab to the assassinations of both President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and ex-Beatle John Lennon. Leuren Moret makes the following observations that are consistent with many aspects of Astucia's research: * Never met or worked with Edward Teller, but saw him from a distance as an old man. He was very grandiose. Ms. Moret discussed Teller with other scientists, some of whom worked with Teller at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project. * The general consensus of Teller, among scientists, was he was a "total failure...gross, uncouth, absolutely disgusting person...nobody liked him," according to Ms. Moret. * Indicated that Teller was not a true intellectual. He essentially stole other people's intellectual properties and took credit for them. * Said Teller was not truly the creator of the Hydrogen Bomb. The mathematics behind the theory for the H-Bomb was done by Stansilaw Ulam who is considered by most scientists to be the true father of the H-Bomb. * Says the nuclear weapons industry often murders people who cause problems. She cites Karen Silkwood as a prime example. She claims Silkwood was murdered by Wackenhut, the security contractor at most nuclear weapons labs and facilities in the USA. * Says she was harassed a great deal by police and military types across the country because she up and left Livermore in disgust; however, she was less of a threat because she did not work on classified projects. * Claims there was a lot of cancer at Livermore Labs. * Stated that Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and Los Alamos are run by the University of California, and employees of both labs are employees of the University. * Indicated that security at Livermore was extremely shoddy. * Stated that there was a strong military presence at Livermore, but she never saw any officers in uniforms. She assumed a lot of the support came from the Navy. (Note: Astucia challenged her on this point, citing historical documents showing the Air Force was Livermore's main supporter.) Comming Soon: http://www.jfkmontreal.com/ - is the home page of Astucia's website Bollyn, Salvador Astucia - My name is Salvador Astucia (pseudonym) and I have written two books, (a) Opium Lords ... I was recently a guest on Piper's radio show, The Piper Report, ... www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-SalvadorAstucia.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages From nssihou at aol.com Mon Jan 15 17:09:01 2007 From: nssihou at aol.com (nssihou at aol.com) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:09:01 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <000001c738f7$4a4a4f50$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <8C90711474B6A9D-11F0-1222@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com> Its pretty apparent that you have little to do but criticize others. I have litte to say on RadSafe except when one person or topic seems to hog all of the space. It would be appreciated by most on Radsafe if you did the same. Most of us have better things to do than to be an expert in all subjects of radiation. And yes, I continue to feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value. We use SI units when required by the regulatons but internally within our organization, continue to utilize non SI units. Bob Gallagher NSSI -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at To: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com; radproject at sbcglobal.net; jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 2:48 PM Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners Dear Dough and all those engaged or interested in this exchange of opinions, Thank you so much for your signature "Doug (just having fun)" and your previous post. I appreciate it and it shows that people on RADSAFE still are open for some humour and putting things into perspective. Thanks to everybody who gave me a lecture in English. I wrote that I am always eager to learn. Of course I intended to write "reveal". Everybody on RADSAFE should have a high enough IQ to find out that English is not my mother tongue or probably understand that the ".at" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Austria which should not be confused with Australia. T-shirts are sold in Vienna to tourists with the slogan "Austria, No Cangaroos". I do not understand how somebody can find out about "nature of the authors of books" by reading them (Bob Gallagher), but if you would refer to books for which I have been a co-editor you could easily find out that I am an expert in LSC. Quite interesting (and "revealing") that according to my stored RADSAFE mails Bob Gallagher hardly participates in RADSAFE technical discussions, except one a few years ago where he stated that the introduction of SI-Units in the USA is not necessary, because people in the USA are used to the pCi, mCi, MCi etc. What a point of view! Syd Levine: The group might be interested into the reliability of a person who has weeks or even months before his travel made appointments with me and has not even bothered to cancel them, but only wrote an e-mail weeks after that event. I think that reliability of a company is a big factor in deciding which services to order. Regarding my English - see my above comments. I am well aware that I am not a native English speaker as you should know, but I would wish you that you spoke half as well German as I speak German, English, Swedish and French. Finally I refer to the comment of Sandy Perle on my message, which reads "the all important country of Namibia". I think that it does not need a native speaker to understand that this is a very humiliating comment on a developing country. Please send any flames to my private address, unless you feel your flaming will gain you extra values at your job. Best wishes Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] Gesendet: Montag, 15. J?nner 2007 21:08 An: stewart farber; Franz Sch?nhofer; 'Ruth Sponsler'; 'Sandy Perle' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation _______________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Mon Jan 15 17:47:58 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:47:58 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners In-Reply-To: <8C90711474B6A9D-11F0-1222@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Bob Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that having two "systems" is the problem. FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? 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 nssihou at aol.com Sent: January 15, 2007 3:09 PM To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com; radproject at sbcglobal.net; jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners Its pretty apparent that you have little to do but criticize others. I have litte to say on RadSafe except when one person or topic seems to hog all of the space. It would be appreciated by most on Radsafe if you did the same. Most of us have better things to do than to be an expert in all subjects of radiation. And yes, I continue to feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value. We use SI units when required by the regulatons but internally within our organization, continue to utilize non SI units. Bob Gallagher NSSI -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at To: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com; radproject at sbcglobal.net; jk5554 at yahoo.com; sandyfl at cox.net Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 2:48 PM Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners Dear Dough and all those engaged or interested in this exchange of opinions, Thank you so much for your signature "Doug (just having fun)" and your previous post. I appreciate it and it shows that people on RADSAFE still are open for some humour and putting things into perspective. Thanks to everybody who gave me a lecture in English. I wrote that I am always eager to learn. Of course I intended to write "reveal". Everybody on RADSAFE should have a high enough IQ to find out that English is not my mother tongue or probably understand that the ".at" at the end of my e-mail address stands for Austria which should not be confused with Australia. T-shirts are sold in Vienna to tourists with the slogan "Austria, No Cangaroos". I do not understand how somebody can find out about "nature of the authors of books" by reading them (Bob Gallagher), but if you would refer to books for which I have been a co-editor you could easily find out that I am an expert in LSC. Quite interesting (and "revealing") that according to my stored RADSAFE mails Bob Gallagher hardly participates in RADSAFE technical discussions, except one a few years ago where he stated that the introduction of SI-Units in the USA is not necessary, because people in the USA are used to the pCi, mCi, MCi etc. What a point of view! Syd Levine: The group might be interested into the reliability of a person who has weeks or even months before his travel made appointments with me and has not even bothered to cancel them, but only wrote an e-mail weeks after that event. I think that reliability of a company is a big factor in deciding which services to order. Regarding my English - see my above comments. I am well aware that I am not a native English speaker as you should know, but I would wish you that you spoke half as well German as I speak German, English, Swedish and French. Finally I refer to the comment of Sandy Perle on my message, which reads "the all important country of Namibia". I think that it does not need a native speaker to understand that this is a very humiliating comment on a developing country. Please send any flames to my private address, unless you feel your flaming will gain you extra values at your job. Best wishes Franz -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Doug Aitken [mailto:jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com] Gesendet: Montag, 15. J?nner 2007 21:08 An: stewart farber; Franz Sch?nhofer; 'Ruth Sponsler'; 'Sandy Perle' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nambia [sic] - Nuclear Power links /Typos/& Manners At 12:39 PM 1/15/2007, stewart farber wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Of course, Franz Sch?nhofer might have meant to write: > >>......Could this be a sign that most US-posters are afraid of being >>publicly "reviled" as affirmative posters? vs. publicly "revealed" as >>written. > >Given how many posters get "reviled" related to a typo after making a >simple post, or treated discourteously on an honest technical difference >of opinion, perhaps "reveiled" [sic] should have been written as >"reviled" and not "revealed". Many possibilities here. Yeah1 I thought of this alternative spelling, but given Franz's general amiable tone in posts, I thought that "reviled" might be a little negative...... ;~) Doug (just having fun) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation _______________________________________________ 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/ ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Mon Jan 15 18:05:58 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:05:58 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: References: <8C90711474B6A9D-11F0-1222@WEBMAIL-DC06.sysops.aol.com>, Message-ID: <45ABA666.28570.13922579@sandyfl.cox.net> Hi John, I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and scientific community is getting smaller all the time. There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing instrumentation and read-out devices. I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. Regards, Sandy On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: > Bob > > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that having two "systems" is the problem. > > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. > > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jan 15 20:16:45 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:16:45 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> If anyone remains interested in your (Salsman's) claims, one must grind through 7 pages of the pdf reference in order to approach the Kang tentative report on page 10. A couple pages of discussion of this whole topic illustrates how evanescent the topic is. In my opinion, you (Salsman) are not promoting clarification of these issues. Moreover, perusal of the Dec 2006 meeting report of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses might convince one how tentative are solutions due in part to the breadth and vague nature of these interests. That report can be seen at: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/AnnualReport_Dec2006.pdf It really is unfortunate that so many problems remain beyond definitive scientific settlement, notwithstanding sincere desires. Sigh .... Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) ======================= James Salsman wrote: > Colonel Eric Daxon wrote that the U.S. Veterans' Administration > "found that Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than > non-Gulf War Veterans. When they actually did the study and examined > the medical records, the birth defect rates were equal to the normal > .... ' -------------------snipped------------ From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 20:44:08 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:08 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor In-Reply-To: <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: This review of over 74 studies on the subject is not evanescent at all: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." -- Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 This has been discussed at length before, but Colonel Daxon tries to imply that it is incorrect: > I disagree with your connecting Dr. Kang's results as an endorsement of your > position that DU is a causal factor. There are no data that support your inference. > > I would like to see the references for "... people to propose using urine > testing to measure uranium exposure, instead of measuring chromosome damage > from uranyl poisoning, which is a much more accurate method of measuring > exposure to uranium trioxide gas." If anyone on the list has information to > corroborate or to disprove the statement, I would appreciate it. I believe > it to be incorrect. Schr?der H, Heimers A, Frentzel-Beyme R, Schott A, Hoffman W (2003) "Chromosome Aberration Analysis in Peripheral Lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War Veterans" Radiation Protection Dosimetry 103: 211-219: http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-H.pdf "It is concluded that ... urine assay could be useful, provided that measurements are made soon after a known acute intake.... The urinary excretion rate falls substantially after exposure, particularly during the first few days.... However, if urine analysis is carried out on a routine basis not related to the pattern of intake, then the errors in the assessment of intake can be considerable." -- Ansoborlo E (1998). "Exposure implications for uranium aerosols formed at a new laser enrichment facility: application of the ICRP respiratory tract and systemic model" Radiation Protection Dosimetry 79: 23-27: http://www.bovik.org/du/Ansoborlo98.pdf Colonel Daxon's lies continue: > Once again you are discussing the vapor issue, the uranium trioxide and > DoD testing which has already been laid to rest multiple times. Fact: Neither the DoD, nor any of its contractors, have ever measured the gas vapor products of uranium combustion. They have only measured the aerosol particulates, which settle from the air much faster. This includes those who have been responsible for the safety of those using pyrophoric uranium munitions, including Dr. Johnson, Colonels Daxon and Cherry, all of whom read RADSAFE, and Drs. Mishima, Parkhurst, etc., and all of the regulators at the NRC. It has required me, an amateur, to bring the fact that there even are gaseous combustion products of uranium to all of them in the first place. I challenge anyone to produce any document showing that any U.S. military organization or contractor ever considered any gaseous combustion product of uranium prior to 2005. What level of professional competence should we demand from those entrusted with the safety of soldiers and their children? Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/15/07, Maury Siskel wrote: > > If anyone remains interested in your (Salsman's) claims, one must grind > through 7 pages of the pdf reference in order to approach the Kang > tentative report on page 10. A couple pages of discussion of this whole > topic illustrates how evanescent the topic is. In my opinion, you (Salsman) > are not promoting clarification of these issues. Moreover, perusal of the > Dec 2006 meeting report of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War > Veterans Illnesses might convince one how tentative are solutions due in > part to the breadth and vague nature of these interests. That report can be > seen at: > http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/AnnualReport_Dec2006.pdf > It really is unfortunate that so many problems remain beyond definitive > scientific settlement, notwithstanding sincere desires. Sigh .... > Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) > ======================= > James Salsman wrote: > Colonel Eric Daxon wrote that the U.S. Veterans' Administration "found that > Gulf War veterans REPORTED more birth defects than non-Gulf War Veterans. > When they actually did the study and examined the medical records, the birth > defect rates were equal to the normal .... ' > -------------------snipped------------ > From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 15 21:50:35 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:50:35 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871><45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: <00ba01c73922$91aaa720$70425142@roger1> Hindin is the lead off .. all Hindin did was review studies recommended by the Traprock Peace Center .. their article was not peer reviewed and you will also note that Hindin quickly dropped off the radar screen - had thus really been serious academic research, Hindin would be the one touring instead of Douglas Lind Rokke or Leuren Moret. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor This review of over 74 studies on the subject is not evanescent at all: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." -- Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 23:17:37 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:17:37 -0800 Subject: Hindin (was Re: [ RadSafe ] half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor) Message-ID: On 1/15/07, Roger Helbig wrote: > all Hindin did was review studies recommended by the Traprock Peace Center Are you suggesting that the 74 studies Hindin and her coauthors cite are not comprehensive? What would you add to them? > their article was not peer reviewed That's completely false. Environmental Health is a peer-reviewed journal recognized as such by MEDLINE, CAS, CABI, Scopus, and Embase, with a professional and qualified editorial board: http://www.ehjournal.net/edboard/ > you will also note that Hindin quickly dropped off the radar screen Nonsense, she's a PhD MPH epidemiologist and faculty at the University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences at Amherst, and she has been publishing since the 1970s. You can reach her via rhindin at gmail dot com if you have questions. Sincerely, James Salmsan From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 15 23:32:37 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:32:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health Message-ID: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> From: "David Ozonoff" To: "Roger Helbig" Cc: "Grandjean Philippe" Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:23 AM Subject: Re: Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health Dear Mr. Helbig Our peer review process is described on the web page. It is essentially identical to those of other peer review journals except that it is "open," that is, not anonymous. You can see the reviews by clicking on "Pre-publication history" on the website. We require any disclosure of conflicts of interest. If you have technical comments, we would consider publishing them in the form of a Letter. Sincerely yours dave ozonoff On Sep 10, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Roger Helbig wrote: > Professor Ozonoff, > > I would like to know how your publication performs peer review of > manuscripts to assure the public that research articles represent > sound science and are not politically biased. In particular, I am > concerned with the research article "Teratogenicity of depleted > uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective" > which appears at http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/ > 1476-069X-4-17.pdf . > > The principal researcher Rita Hindin openly admits to being > politically motivated to enter into this literature survey research > on page 47 of the article > > "Sunny Miller, executive director of Traprock Peace Center of > Deerfield, MA hosted a presentation by Damacio Lopez (director of > IDUST, International Depleted Uranium Study Team) > http://www.idust.net/#HISTORY > which Rita Hindin attended and that eventually led to the writing > of this paper. Our appreciation. Thanks to Dan Bishop (of IDUST) > and Tom Fasy (Mt. Sinai Medical Center, NYC) for their assistance > early on explicating DU toxicology, and to the > Uranium Weapons Study Team (of Traprock Peace Center) for > thoughtful conversations and support to explore leads and deepen > understanding of DU. Thanks to the conveners and attendees of the > World Uranium Weapons Conference Hamburg Germany, October 16 - 19, > 2003. Of greatest importance, Rita's attendance afforded her the > opportunity to > share thoughtful conversation with and learn from Iraqi > researchers, Drs. Jennan Hassan, Jawad Al-Ali and Souad Al-Azzawi. > We offer deep thanks, appreciation and respect for the information > they shared, and for work that they and their colleagues are > doing. We deeply appreciate the reporters and activists who have > managed, against great odds, to report bits of information out of > Iraq and who, as responsible, thoughtful citizens of many > countries, assert their dignity and demand appropriate response to > the challenges posed by DU aerosols. Rita also had the opportunity > to speak with and learn from Drs. Chris Busby and Michel Fernex at > the Hamburg conference. Their contributions to this paper stem from > their long-term, on-going, related research as well as, more > particularly, to the helpful and thoughtful comments they gave as > peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript. Thanks to Tova Neugut > for insightful conversations and for reading many early drafts of > the manuscript. Jaime DeLemos helped us figure out the chemistry of > depleted uranium." > > and the materials researched clearly show a bias against the use of > depleted uranium munitions and do not show an objective approach to > science. > > I look forward to your detailed description of the peer review > process as it applied to this specific research article. When you > determine that the entire research was biased and not objective, > please, remove this publication from your website and indicate why > it has been removed for failing to meet objective scientific > standards. > > Thank you. > > Roger Helbig > From rhelbig at california.com Tue Jan 16 04:19:41 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:19:41 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tate Britain Current Exhibitions Mark Wallinger Message-ID: <004201c73957$e001c9a0$29435142@roger1> This exhibit contains photos reputed to be of birth defects resulting from the use of depleted uranium ... this peace protester began when all he knew was what the Saddam government wanted him to know about depleted uranium. The anti-DU crusaders including Mohammed Daud Miraki who is listed in the copyright credits (and who is suspected of being a con artist in addition to faking the photos for which he has the copyright) are ecstatic about this exhibition, which gets even more worldwide exposure to their false claims. http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/wallinger/ Head of Press Helen Beeckmans Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7887 4940 Email: helen.beeckmans at tate.org.uk From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jan 16 09:09:53 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:09:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Greg Clary The Westchester Journal News (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of strontium-90. The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with detectible amounts. The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area and the rest from around Indian Point. "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied immediately." The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without locating the source. Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last week. Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 picocuries per kilogram. Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. GCLARY at lohud.com 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 From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jan 16 09:11:17 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:11:17 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Recall: Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3F@mail.nymc.edu> The sender would like to recall the message, "Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90". From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jan 16 09:13:10 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:13:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C40@mail.nymc.edu> Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 Greg Clary The Westchester Journal News (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of strontium-90. The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with detectible amounts. The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area and the rest from around Indian Point. "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied immediately." The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without locating the source. Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last week. Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 picocuries per kilogram. Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. GCLARY at lohud.com 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 From pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us Tue Jan 16 09:59:42 2007 From: pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:59:42 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] OSHA and EDE In-Reply-To: <45AA259D.1458.DB3125D@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45AA259D.1458.DB3125D@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <45AC93FE020000360000DCDA@dphe.state.co.us> Not just OSHA, but also MSHA, who follows OSHA, and not just for EDE. We are looking at renewed interest in uranium mining, and the way MSHA calculates dose for the uranium miners should be updated to be consistent with the rest of the world. Phil Egidi >>> "Sandy Perle" 01/14/07 1:44 PM >>> Thanks to those who responded to my request for the current status of OSHA regulations with respect to EDE calculations. Apparently OSHA still does not permit the use of EDE. Perhaps it's time for ACR, AAPM and other organizations with a vested interest in this ruling will once again approach OSHA to revise its regulations to be consistent with other state and federal agencies, and allow the use of NCRP 122 approved methodologies. It is a shame that physicians and technologists can not take advantage of dose weighting methodologies. Unfortunately, this ruling forces many individuals to simply not wear personnel monitoring devices when their cumulative dose approaches regulatory limit (told to me my several individuals). Reasonable regulatory decisions would actually lead to better radiation practices my those who are exposed to higher doses from these applications. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 bobcherry at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 16 10:16:30 2007 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (bobcherry at satx.rr.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:16:30 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 In-Reply-To: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> References: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: Those Sr-90 concentrations are probably about the same as in my old bones. Turned 60 last October, Bob C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:18 am Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 To: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve , radsafe at radlab.nl > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago > at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four > withdetectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late > summer- six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon > Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 > percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If > indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so > far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jan 16 11:05:39 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Birth Defects from Saddammizing - not DU (Tate Britain Current Exhibitions Mark Wallinger) In-Reply-To: <004201c73957$e001c9a0$29435142@roger1> Message-ID: <700724.17097.qm@web81813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Read "Hell Is Over", interviews with dozens of Kurds to see the malnutrition, cold, sarin and organic cynaide gassing and detruction of 4,500 villages (of 5,000) to see causes of birth defects. DU was minimal there, in that genocide of Saddamizing. Kurds now show great gratitude to Americans, especially Bush. Howard Long Roger Helbig wrote: This exhibit contains photos reputed to be of birth defects resulting from the use of depleted uranium ... this peace protester began when all he knew was what the Saddam government wanted him to know about depleted uranium. The anti-DU crusaders including Mohammed Daud Miraki who is listed in the copyright credits (and who is suspected of being a con artist in addition to faking the photos for which he has the copyright) are ecstatic about this exhibition, which gets even more worldwide exposure to their false claims. http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/wallinger/ Head of Press Helen Beeckmans Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7887 4940 Email: helen.beeckmans at tate.org.uk _______________________________________________ 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 molex77 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 11:22:47 2007 From: molex77 at yahoo.com (michael olex) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:22:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] non-lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology Message-ID: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello all, Does anyone have any strong feelings regarding the use of non-lead based apparel in a diagnostic radiology department. We're mainly looking at Xenolite-NL due to the weight, lack of disposal issues, and performance. However, I'm a little hesitant due the transmission through the Xenolite at energies above 100 kVp. Does anyone use this regularly and have any words of wisdom to offer? Mike Olex, MS Medical Physicst molex77 at yahoo.com "There is nothing permanent except CHANGE" -Heraclitus From Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Tue Jan 16 12:59:34 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:59:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Message-ID: ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? From spencer.fisher at opg.com Tue Jan 16 13:05:16 2007 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:05:16 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units Message-ID: Last November I attended three Categorical Courses in Diagnostic Radiology Physics at the RSNA/AAPM meeting in Chicago. The courses were on X-Ray Imaging and Radiation Dose Optimization. All the units given in the course were in SI units. All of the speakers were Americans, and all of the examples shown were US exampled. In addition, almost all of the machines that display the Dose Area Product do so in cGy and rad, since 1 cGy = 1 rad. This includes many of the machines that are manufactured in the USA. The x-ray companies are multinational and want a product that can be used anywhere. Spencer M. Fisher Health Physicist- Field Support Radiation Protection Department 1549 Victoria St. E. Whitby, Ont L1N 9E3 905-430-2215 ext 3290 Fax: 905-430-8583 Pager: 416-372-9353 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From syd.levine at mindspring.com Tue Jan 16 13:10:07 2007 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:10:07 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 References: Message-ID: <011001c739a1$f48a2300$0100a8c0@House> I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the below comment. But on serious reflection, this is the obvious explanation for this problem. The quality of analytical thinking on this list is remarkable! ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:59 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 > > ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Tue Jan 16 13:39:17 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:39:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF79@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, so it had to be introduced into the food matrix artificially. That is obvious. But with a half-life of 29+ years, and the distance some fish cover in their respective lifetimes, the Sr-90 could have come from just about anywhere. Just because the fish was caught one place doesn't mean that's anywhere near where it came into contact with the radio-isotope. Floyd W. FlaniganB.S.Nuc.h.p. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:00 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? _______________________________________________ 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 Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Tue Jan 16 14:03:21 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:03:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes Message-ID: > Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish . . . Owwww, I know that ! After having been through the grind with the tooth fairy folks, that was my 1st thought . . .OINC. Radioactive material is everywhere, all ya got's to do is look hard enough. From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Tue Jan 16 14:20:02 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:20:02 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plantcontain strontium-90 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF7B@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Okay ... I re-read this. "Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week." "upriver" ... I have always been under the impression that if the fish came from upriver of the plant, the whatever is in them came from someplace else. Is this just a typo or are they saying the Sr-90 from the plant has found its way upstream? I'm having issues with that part. Floyd -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of bobcherry at satx.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:17 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plantcontain strontium-90 Those Sr-90 concentrations are probably about the same as in my old bones. Turned 60 last October, Bob C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:18 am Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 To: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve , radsafe at radlab.nl > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago > at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four > withdetectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late > summer- six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon > Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 > percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If > indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so > far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 radproject at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 16 14:31:46 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:31:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain [reduced] strontium-90 -"A red-herring??" Message-ID: <003001c739ad$57900450$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> I noted the following post was being held for review by the list moderator, since I sent it from another email address: ======================================================= Hello all, As is well established, one does not have Sr-90 released from a nuclear plant without much higher total activity of Cs-137 [i.e.: for unit release of Sr-90, the Cs-137 release >>> 1]. Lots of reasons related to waste control systems and behavior of Sr-90 vs. Cs-137 regarding fractionation in any leakage path, but not necessary to go into details. Cs-137 once released into the environment will be concentrated in fish much more than Sr-90 for any concentration in water [especially in fresh water]. So any release of activity from Indian Point [or any nuclear plant], if significant vs. background levels of these isotopes residual from bomb testing, would result in elevated Cs-137 in fish before anything significant showed up with measured Sr-90 activity. The low levels of Sr-90 reported in this news article are almost certainly an analytical artifact. Since half of the fish sampled 10 miles upriver [what would be considered a "background" area had Sr-90, one-third higher than fish taken near the plant, it is unlikely the plant and its recent releases of Sr-90 [or Cs-137] are connected in any way. Without much elevated levels of Cs-137 in all of these fish, especially those sampled near the plant, this whole issue of supposed slightly elevated Sr-90 in fish sampled near and upriver is likely just a "red herring" being promoted by those with an anti-nuclear agenda to scare the public. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ====================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" To: "Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:09 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with > detectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer > - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 From SAFarber at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 16 13:54:38 2007 From: SAFarber at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:54:38 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain [reduced] strontium-90 -"A red-herring??" References: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C3E@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: <000f01c739a8$278d5050$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Hello all, As is well established, one does not have Sr-90 released from a nuclear plant without much higher total activity of Cs-137 [i.e.: for unit release of Sr-90, the Cs-137 release >>> 1]. Lots of reasons related to waste control systems and behavior of Sr-90 vs. Cs-137 regarding fractionation in any leakage path, but not necessary to go into details. Cs-137 once released into the environment will be concentrated in fish much more than Sr-90 for any concentration in water [especially in fresh water]. So any release of activity from Indian Point [or any nuclear plant], if significant vs. background levels of these isotopes residual from bomb testing, would result in elevated Cs-137 in fish before anything significant showed up with measured Sr-90 activity. The low levels of Sr-90 reported in this news article are almost certainly an analytical artifact. Since half of the fish sampled 10 miles upriver [what would be considered a "background" area had Sr-90, one-third higher than fish taken near the plant, it is unlikely the plant and its recent releases of Sr-90 [or Cs-137] are connected in any way. Without much elevated levels of Cs-137 in all of these fish, especially those sampled near the plant, this whole issue of supposed slightly elevated Sr-90 in fish sampled near and upriver is likely just a "red herring" being promoted by those with an anti-nuclear agenda to scare the public. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 367-0791 [office] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net ====================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johnston, Thomas" To: "Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:09 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > Hudson fish near nuke plant contain strontium-90 > > > > > > Greg Clary > The Westchester Journal News > > > > (January 16, 2007) - BUCHANAN - In what could be the Lower Hudson > Valley's next environmental controversy or just a laboratory mistake, > fish in the Hudson River have been found to contain traces of > strontium-90. > > The radioactive isotope was discovered leaking almost a year ago at the > Indian Point nuclear power plants, and tests on 12 fish found four with > detectible amounts. > > The tests were conducted for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the > plants, after researchers pulled the fish from the river in late summer > - six from more than 10 miles upriver in the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge area > and the rest from around Indian Point. > > "Certainly it's of concern that the strontium was found in 25 percent of > the sampling," said C.J. Miller, spokeswoman for Rockland County > Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. > > "The origin of that is something that we need to determine. If indeed it > is coming from the plant itself, then that needs to be remedied > immediately." > > The company has spent millions to find and stop the leaks, but so far it > has been able only to capture much of the irradiated water without > locating the source. > > Three of the upriver fish had strontium levels ranging as high as 24.5 > picocuries per kilogram, while one taken from near the plant had 18.8 > picocuries per kilogram, according to results first released late last > week. > > Picocuries measure radioactivity in the tiniest amounts. Although the > Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't set safe minimums for fish, > Westchester County officials said the mean detectible level is 10 > picocuries per kilogram. > > Public officials, regulators and plant owners are eager for more > sampling to determine if the results are merely false positives, which > are more likely at low levels, or something more significant. > > GCLARY at lohud.com > > > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/631 - Release Date: 1/16/2007 From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Tue Jan 16 14:37:06 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:37:06 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dosimetry Message-ID: I am going to be needing a dosimetry system for measuring the dose to stowaways from 3 thru 9 MeV pulsed LINAC non-intrusive Inspection systems. The roughly measured dose is in the range of 300-700 microrem per scan. The second issue is the photo neutrons generated. Here we expect a very minimal dose until we get into the very high end of the range. I am not looking forward to having to run dosimeters through the system hunderds of times to get meaningful results. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Regards, Luke McCormick From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Tue Jan 16 15:05:52 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:05:52 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Message-ID: In 1965 that part of the country had Sr-90 deposits in the range of 80 millicuries per square kilometer from fallout. In 1982 the average New York City diet was around 5 picocuries per day. Add a half life and expect it to be about 2.5 pCi/day now. these numbers are from Environmental Radioactivity by Eisenbud (my prized signed edition) Luke ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Author: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl Date: 1/16/2007 2:39 PM Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, so it had to be introduced into the food matrix artificially. That is obvious. But with a half-life of 29+ years, and the distance some fish cover in their respective lifetimes, the Sr-90 could have come from just about anywhere. Just because the fish was caught one place doesn't mean that's anywhere near where it came into contact with the radio-isotope. Floyd W. FlaniganB.S.Nuc.h.p. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:00 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? _______________________________________________ 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Tue Jan 16 15:13:51 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:13:51 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070116131158.02c53fb8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 12:03 PM 1/16/2007, Pete_Bailey at fpl.com wrote: >Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish . . . ***************************** January 17, 2007 Almost all the strontium-90 is in the skeleton. Who eats fish bones? 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 sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 16 15:25:07 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:25:07 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case Message-ID: <11427103.1168982707523.JavaMail.root@fed1wml07.mgt.cox.net> Index: Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case Nuclear plants getting warmer reactions AZ nuclear plant operator asks regulators not to lower safety rating Protection Against Lethal, Whole-Body Radiation Firm gets OK to test radiation drug Radiation: more than 100 test positive Iran to build 10 nuclear plants ================================ Court will not hear nuclear plant threat case WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to decide whether a potential terrorist attack must be considered as part of a U.S. government agency's environmental review of a nuclear power plant's expansion plans. Without comment, the justices declined to hear an appeal by PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit arguing a lower court should not have required the environmental impact review of potential sabotage from a terrorist attack. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group supported the company's appeal and said Congress never intended for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to address issues of national security or threat assessments. As part of its expansion plans at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo, California, Pacific Gas & Electric seeks to construct and operate spent-fuel storage capacity. A U.S. appeals court ruled last year that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission violated federal environmental law by failing to undertake the review. The NRC had said the possibility of a terrorist attack was so remote and speculative that no environmental review was needed. The Bush administration told the Supreme Court the appeals court ruling was wrong, but said the justices did not have to decide the case. The administration said it is unclear at this time how burdensome the ruling will turn out to be. The lawsuit challenging the NRC's decision to authorize the license for the facility was brought by the Sierra Club and a group called the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. --------------- Nuclear plants getting warmer reactions WASHINGTON The Dallas Morning News ? The U.S. nuclear power industry is planning for a renaissance, drawing up its first applications to build nuclear plants since the 1970s. Just a decade ago, many energy executives didn't think nuclear power had much of a future. Strict regulations had led to costly downtime for reactors. The public showed little interest in betting billions on new plants. DEAN HOLLINGSWORTH/DMN Instead of fading away, the industry launched a revival, using a friendlier political climate to spur a regulatory overhaul. Rules that had led to lengthy investigations and plant shutdowns became less restrictive. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission started embracing industry efforts to create alternative, less costly regulations. Today, the turnaround is nearly complete. The electricity output of the nation's remaining 103 reactors is at or near record highs. Power providers banking on getting a hand from Uncle Sam Republicans and Democrats ? and a growing number of environmentalists ? are embracing nuclear power as a critical response to global warming and reliance on unstable oil suppliers. And Wall Street is slowly warming up to the idea of new construction. The change in direction came in large part by reshaping a regulatory environment that often meant the difference between a profit and loss ? and whether a plant could afford to operate. Some industry critics say the regulatory changes have lowered safety standards, increasing the risk to the public. Lessons from past accidents and near-misses, they say, are being written off. "It's a must for this industry to lower its costs in an increasingly competitive electricity market," said Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group that opposes nuclear power. "That comes at a cost to public safety, health and security." The industry slowly won over key lawmakers and regulators in the 1990s by making the case that many of the prescriptive rules created earlier for a nascent industry imposed heavy burdens without much of a safety benefit. Central to the effort was reassessing the risk of accidents and breakdowns based on a plant's history and industry experience, rather than trying to protect against an unlikely "perfect storm" scenario. "You can focus on what really matters and get some cost reductions at the same time," said Tony Pietrangelo, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. The effort helped to improve the industry's overall operational performance dramatically. Unplanned reactor shutdowns for six months or more dropped from more than 120 reactor months in 1997 to 10 months or less for most of this decade, according to NRC figures. Better performance Sharp drops in refueling times and offline maintenance sent capacity factors ? a measure of a plant's efficiency ? from 71 percent in 1997 to more than 90 percent today, government data show. And the average cost of producing a kilowatt-hour of nuclear power fell 28 percent to 1.72 cents in 2005 from 2.38 cents in 1997. The performance won nuclear plants credibility as a reliable source of power, setting the stage for new construction. More than 30 new reactors are under consideration nationwide. Dallas-based TXU Corp. has said it's interested in building as many as six new reactors, likely to include an expansion of its Comanche Peak plant southwest of Dallas. Nuclear developers are betting on a new generation of technology to avoid past licensing and construction delays. They're also counting on a more accommodating regulatory environment. Critics of nuclear power warn that the bullish environment could end with a single accident. An accident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa., led to a public backlash and widespread cancellations of new projects. A scare They cite one of the most recent close calls, in 2002, when workers at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio found a football-size hole in the nuclear reactor vessel head caused by a boric acid leak. If the hole had opened up, it could've caused a meltdown. The NRC's inspector general later found that the agency's staff had accepted a request from the plant operator, FirstEnergy Corp., to continue operating to avoid financial losses from a shutdown. Watchdog groups say that's part of the risk that comes from relaxing requirements. "The NRC is trusting the plant owners more and more to get it right," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and safety expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Davis-Besse and some of the others show what happens when that trust is misplaced." Industry officials criticized FirstEnergy and maintained that it wasn't representative of conditions at other reactors. They say that safety has only improved under the newer approach of allocating resources based on risk. Lawmakers and other government officials who support nuclear power have pushed to ease the regulatory burden since the early 1990s. The first Bush administration and the Clinton administration supported plans to cut regulations across the government. The industry regained congressional support as environmental concerns grew; by the end of the decade, leading lawmakers were threatening to slash the NRC's budget if it didn't ease its grip on the industry. By the late 1990s, the industry was proposing regulatory changes and in many cases attaching figures of cost savings, part of the "risk-informed" approach of focusing on what's probable rather than simply possible. For instance, revamping the regulations for emergency core cooling systems in a reactor could save $3 million per unit, according to one Nuclear Energy Institute estimate. Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace, which opposes nuclear power, calls the overhaul over the last decade a "regulatory retreat" in the face of industry pressure. 'Stop signs' Mr. Riccio said the industry's efforts to deregulate technical specifications ? rules for equipment operations and testing at a plant ? led the NRC to remove 40 percent of the "stop signs" that would force a plant to shut down. "The public is going to be exposed to more risk, while the industry is exposed to less regulation," he said. The NRC and industry faced a barrage of criticism throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Nuclear plant owners accused the agency of using vague guidelines, imposing unreasonable requirements or meddling beyond their scope. The NRC took heat from lawmakers and the public for not always enforcing the rules it created. Some of the decades-long battles, such as how to protect against fires inside a plant, are still being resolved today. A 1975 incident at Alabama's Browns Ferry nuclear facility exposed how nuclear plants are vulnerable to fire. A worker using a candle set cables ablaze, with a fire that burned for seven hours and shorted out the plant's backup safety systems. Regulations In the years that followed, the NRC created regulations requiring protection of at least one set of equipment needed to shut down a plant safely. Dozens of plants failed to comply with the requirements. Some utilities used fire barriers that turned out to be faulty. Many sought exemptions from the NRC to use manual actions ? a worker physically pulling breakers during a fire, for instance. The industry argued that the rules were applied regardless of the chance of a fire in a particular location, and sought a new standard ? being implemented today ? based on the likely risk of ignition of a piece of equipment at a particular plant. The new standard, which 41 plants say they plan to adopt, is "the best thing that's happened to fire protection," said Alex Marion, the Nuclear Energy Institute's executive director for nuclear operations and engineering. Nuclear reactors that accept the new system would be given a pass for not being compliant with the original rules. NRC and industry officials say it's a common-sense approach to solving a longstanding problem. Changing focus "You try to shift the focus ... to what's really important to safety as opposed to your compliance requirements," said Sunil Weerakkody, chief of the NRC's fire-protection branch. Mr. Gunter, of the nuclear watchdog group NIRS, said the reliance on probabilities should not be a primary protection "particularly in a post-9/11 world." "These are all backdoor approaches ... rather than state-of-the-art fire-protection features," he said. TXU was among the companies cited for fire-safety violations, receiving notice of noncompliance in 1998. A TXU spokesman says the company is now in compliance ? without signing on to the new rule ? and had no fire-safety violations in the NRC's last inspection there in 2005. Reactivating activists Even as many companies are looking toward the next round of plants, the regulatory overhaul is starting to draw attention from activists from the last era. Among the NRC's new rules is one that allows nuclear operators to reclassify safety-related parts. The move would allow existing plants to purchase less-expensive commercial-grade parts instead of the nuclear-grade materials that were previously required. Three senior engineers inside the NRC protested the rule, saying it could not provide adequate assurances of protecting public safety. But the changes were ultimately passed over their objections. For Steve Comley, a nuclear activist now living in Florida, the new standards ? that plants could voluntarily adopt ? draw parallels to the problem of substandard and counterfeit parts in nuclear power plants in the 1980s. At the time, 72 out of the nation's 113 licensed reactors were found to have parts such as fasteners, valves and circuit breakers that did not conform to their safety specifications. Some were provided by counterfeit suppliers that later faced criminal charges. The industry says the parts were replaced. But Mr. Comley says the issue lost attention in the late 1990s and never received the full inspection that was promised. "They haven't proved the plants are safe," said Mr. Comley, whose group, We the People, drew attention to the counterfeit parts issue. "They don't want to know. If that isn't putting safety second to the profits of the industry, I don't know what is." Mr. Comley has spent the last year gathering dozens of letters of support from activists around the country in a bid for a congressional investigation of nuclear plants' parts and the NRC's new regulatory stance. ---------------------- Arizona nuclear plant operator asks regulators not to lower safety rating PHOENIX Mohave Daily News AP - The operator of the nation's largest nuclear power plant complex will plead with federal regulators Tuesday to reconsider a negative safety finding that if upheld would move the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station into the worst performance category. Arizona Public Service will appear before regulators in Texas and try to show that an emergency backup generator that was inoperative for 18 days and unreliable for 40 days last year was only a minor risk. Emergency generators at nuclear reactors are critically important because they provide electricity to pumps, valves and control rooms if the main electrical supply fails. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines that is anything greater than a minor safety issue, the triple-reactor plant would be bumped into the commission's most stringent reactor performance category. That would trigger even more stringent oversight by regulators, who already have stepped up inspections following two years of failures and problems at the plant west of Phoenix. The failed generator was partnered with a second that remained operational. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, requires two sources of backup power for each reactor, a common approach with virtually all safety systems at nuclear plants. Arizona Public Service, or APS, said it will present technical arguments at the hearing that it hopes will show that the failure wasn't a serious safety issue. Jim McDonald, a spokesman for APS, downplayed the significance of any safety downgrade on how the plant is operated, or on costs for APS or the consortium of companies in four states that own the plant. ??We know that we have issues at Palo Verde that need to be resolved. We know that there are a lot of human issues that need to be improved upon,'' McDonald said. ??Obviously we would prefer to stay out of category 4 - but that work's going to get done either way.'' Last month, the NRC backed away from a similar safety downgrade after a hearing with APS officials. That review was prompted by inspectors' discovery in September that heat exchangers that cool emergency equipment and spent fuel storage areas had been fouled by years of plant technicians using an improper chemical mix. The chemical residue on the heat exchangers lowered their efficiency, but had a very low risk of triggering a serious failure in a crisis, regulators determined. Nonetheless, they called the problem ??particularly egregious'' because it went undetected for years, and another example of repeated problems at Palo Verde since 2004. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer for the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, said regulators should step in and increase oversight at Palo Verde. ??This latest event, coupled with the event from the year before, shows that the company isn't finding problems. They're waiting on the NRC or for them to self-reveal, which isn't the way it is supposed to work,'' Lochbaum said. ??The company is not finding hardly anything - they're relying on outside forces to find them.'' Palo Verde has been on the regulatory hot seat since 2004, when NRC inspectors found that APS had drained a large pipe designed to flood the reactors with water in an emergency years earlier without informing them. Since then, a series of problems has occurred, and APS fired or transferred a dozen supervisors and line workers earlier this year in response to NRC concerns. The company hired a new chief nuclear engineer earlier this month. Randy Edington, 53, will become a senior vice president and chief nuclear officer of the state's largest utility on Jan. 25. The hearing wasn't expected to generate an immediate ruling. Federal regulators were expected to make a final decision on the safety downgrade in several weeks. If Palo Verde is downgraded, it will become the third plant in the nation on the list, out of 103 plants. ---------------- Novel Compound Affords Protection Against Lethal, Whole-Body Radiation Even When Administered Hours After Exposure! Radiology / Nuclear Medicine News - 16 Jan RxBio, Inc., announces that its lead product, RX100, protects against lethal, whole-body radiation when administered before, during, or up to several hours after exposure. Animal studies convincingly demonstrate that RX100 can prevent death if given before or during lethal radiation exposure or rescue life if administered within six hours of lethal, whole-body radiation exposure. According to Gabor Tigyi M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Physiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center: "RX100 is unique among radioprotectants. It is an analog of an endogenous, prosurvival molecule that is metabolically stabilized which boosts natural mechanisms that promote and sustain cell survival while inhibiting the cascade leading to programmed cell death. While other agents shut down essential cellular-signaling mechanisms involved in radiation-induced cellular injury, tend to lack specificity, and may deliver unacceptable toxicities, RX100 is a specific activator of natural, nontoxic, protective mechanisms of cell survival." RX100 is a small molecule (molecular weight <500) that is stable at room temperature, has an excellent shelf life and can be formulated for a wide range of patient types-from infants to the elderly. "This product appears unique as a radioprotectant in that it can be administered orally or by subcutaneous injection before, during, or up to six hours after exposure to lethal, whole-body radiation," stated RxBio Chairman and CEO Dr. W. Shannon McCool. In addition, Rx100 is a potent protector of the gut -- from radiation, chemotherapy, and other toxic substances. Among other things, it prevents the disintegration of the mucosal barrier -- thus, preventing diarrhea and overwhelming bacterial infections, potentially severe side effects from such exposures. Several agencies of the Federal Government have expressed interest in this promising new compound and its unique approach and mechanism. -------------------- Firm gets OK to test radiation drug Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal - Jan 12 - Federal regulators approved Humanetics Corp.'s plans to start clinical trials for its drug used to combat acute radiation sickness. The Eden Prairie-based company's drug, BIO 300, would be used to treat people who have been exposed to radiation as a result of a nuclear blast or "dirty bomb" terrorist attack. ----------------- Radiation: more than 100 test positive Almost one in five of those tested for the radioactive substance which killed a former Russian spy have shown signs of contamination. Urine samples were taken from nearly 600 people who feared they may have been caught up in the scare and of those 120 tested positive with only 13 deemed to have any type of risk to health. Professor Pat Troop, chief executive of the Health Protection Agency, said: "There are just over 100 people who had evidence that they were in contact with this radiation polonium-210." She said tests were still being carried out on a number of foreign nationals who may also have been contaminated. The HPA is working with 48 different countries and has identified 450 people who may have been affected worldwide. Former spy Alexander Litvinenko visited a number of venues in central London on the day that he fell ill including the Millennium Hotel, the Itsu sushi bar in Piccadilly and an Italian restaurant in Mayfair. The 43-year-old died in London's University College Hospital in November. Prof Troop said the amount of contamination in his body was "many thousands of times greater" than anyone else who had tested positive for polonium-210. --------------- Iran to build 10 nuclear plants TEHRAN, Jan. 16 Iran says it needs 10 nuclear power plants to keep up with electricity demand, marking a new step in an international row over its uranium enrichment program. Gholam Hossein Elham, a spokesman for the Iranian government, said Monday the country will need more than the 3,000 centrifuges used to produce the nuclear fuel. Iran needs an electricity supply of 10,000 megawatts by nuclear energy, and in order to supply that, we need 10 nuclear plants, Elham said. Elham said all of Tehran's nuclear work will be done with International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, the state-run Fars News Agency reports. Iran faces sanctions by the U.N. Security Council over its decision to continue enriching uranium -- a process to make both nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons, depending on the extent of the enrichment. Tehran says it only wants to make nuclear energy and claims the sovereign right to do so as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. A Russian company is building a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, Iran, which would be Iran's first. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Tue Jan 16 15:30:18 2007 From: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:30:18 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] As a refresher: RadSafe Rules Message-ID: <1168983019.8198.3.camel@157-75-dsl.ipact.nl> RadSafe Rules (both general as technical) ________________________________________________________________________ [RadSafe Home] [Version January 2007] Subject to change when applicable (without prior notice). General rules * The list is open to all points of view on radiation protection issues. * The language used on the list is English. * Include a clear and specific subject line. * Edit any quoted text down to the minimum. * Read your own message three times before you post it to RadSafe. * When posting to the list include at least your full name and preferrably, if applicable, address, professional details, etc. * Do not curse, flame, spam, USE ALL CAPS or use only lower case. * (At least) Try to ponder how recipients might react to your message. * Check spelling and grammar. However, since RadSafe is an international list, please understand that a large group of members are non-native English speakers (like the moderator), so don't be to harsh on this. * 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". * When in doubt, save your message overnight and reread it in the light of dawn. * Do not forward any chain letter. * Do not use the list for any illegal or unethical purpose. * That which you find hateful to receive, do not send out to the list. * Commercial postings and advertisements are not allowed. * Job postings will be accepted (both seeking and advertising). * "Not for profit" groups are allowed to advertise, i.e. training courses, etc. that are paid for. Technical rules and aspects * RadSafe is a closed list. Posting is only possible by members. Posting by non-members will be moderated by the moderator (Marcel Schouwenburg) and, when rejected, send back to the poster accompanied by a reason for the rejection. * Only plain text messages will be accepted by the list. Any code (HTML, etc) will be filtered out. * Attachments are not allowed because of security reasons, except PDF-files. To send images with a message, please convert them to a PDF-file. Other image formats will be filtered out. * The maximum message size is 40 kB. Larger messages should be split up in multiple parts. Include a number in the subjectline of every part (e.g. 2/3). * If you want to reply to the list you should use the option Reply All in your mail program. When using Reply the mail will only be sent to the original sender of the message. * Do not use BCC to sent a message to RadSafe (this is an implicit address). Only To and CC are allowed (explicit addresses) when sending a message to RadSafe. * If a message from RadSafe is bounced from your email address for more than 5 times, your subscription will be temporary suspended. * Once a month a password reminder is sent to every listmember. Using this password, you can change settings of your subscription on your personal memberpage. For example: you can choose to hold your subscription for a while in case of a holiday or change to receive digest versions in stead of separate messages. * Digest versions can be received in either MIME or plain text format (that is all messages in one big text file). Default for new members is plain text. * Out of the office messages will be filtered out. * When referring to a document, program, etc. include the link to this file whenever possible. * If necessary, the RadSafe moderator (Marcel Schouwenburg) will provide storage space on the radlab.nl server for large files, documents, etc. that might be of interest to listmembers. Copyrighted material is excluded. The moderator will take into consideration all requests for storage on the server. However, only material related to RadSafe matters will be allowed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Marcel Schouwenburg RadSafe moderator & listowner From garyi at trinityphysics.com Tue Jan 16 16:08:10 2007 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:08:10 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] non-lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology In-Reply-To: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ACF86A.21684.2CAFCBE@garyi.trinityphysics.com> I think they are great. For fluoroscopy, where you really want aprons, the typical beam energy is <100 kVp, and that's going to be scatter radiation too. So you're almost never really trying to protect the technologists from >100 kVp photons. -Gary Isenhower On 16 Jan 2007 at 9:22, michael olex wrote: Hello all, Does anyone have any strong feelings regarding the use of non-lead based apparel in a diagnostic radiology department. We're mainly looking at Xenolite-NL due to the weight, lack of disposal issues, and performance. However, I'm a little hesitant due the transmission through the Xenolite at energies above 100 kVp. Does anyone use this regularly and have any words of wisdom to offer? Mike Olex, MS Medical Physicst molex77 at yahoo.com From james at readsay.com Tue Jan 16 16:21:16 2007 From: james at readsay.com (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:21:16 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Birth Defects from Saddammizing - not DU (Tate Britain Current Exhibitions Mark Wallinger) Message-ID: Dr. Howard Long wrote: > Read "Hell Is Over", interviews with dozens of Kurds to see the > malnutrition, cold, sarin and organic cynaide gassing and > detruction of 4,500 villages (of 5,000) to see causes of birth > defects. DU was minimal there.... Firstly, malnutrition defects are unlike those from uranyl poisoning. Secondly, there is no alternative explanation of the U.S. and U.K. servicemembers' (and Basrah civilians') increase from a risk ratio of less than 0.5 six years after exposure to 1.8 in 2000 and 2.2 in 2003, without a corresponding steep increase in cancers -- that is another signature of uranyl's teratogenicity. (Of course the Basrah civilians have lots of extra cancers, unlike the troops who were not exposed to nerve gas in 1991.) Sincerely, James Salsman From GRMarshall at philotechnics.com Tue Jan 16 16:23:42 2007 From: GRMarshall at philotechnics.com (Glenn R. Marshall) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:42 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes Message-ID: <5B0DA358D2061D47A3BB00647C29D12F5A1A8D@tnor-fpe.philotechnics.int> Bigger fish......:) Glenn Marshall, CHP Almost all the strontium-90 is in the skeleton. Who eats fish bones? Otto From edaxon at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 16 17:24:19 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:24:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gulf War and Birth Defects In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVkxCQA References: <011201c7360b$0c55d3c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> <45AC358D.2010208@peoplepc.com> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFVkxCQA Message-ID: <000701c739c5$72759ec0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> The most recent review of birth defects and Gulf War has just been published by the Institute of Medicine, 2006. The conclusion was "This the committee concludes that there is no consistent pattern of higher prevalence of birth defects among the off spring of male or female Gulf War veterans and no single defect, except urinary tract abnormalities, has been found in more than one well-designed study." Note this is not just DU but all exposures during the Gulf War. The book can be read or purchased from the NAS web site. It is instructive to read the list of other exposures considered by the group. Eric Daxon, Ph.D., CHP From garyi at trinityphysics.com Tue Jan 16 17:28:49 2007 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:28:49 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Point in the news - Hudson fish near nuke plantcontain strontium-90 In-Reply-To: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF7B@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> References: , <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF7B@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <45AD0B51.22003.314D1ED@garyi.trinityphysics.com> You are all misinterpreting this!! This is clear and conclusive proof that nuclear power plants are sucking essential trace elements right out of the environment, probably right out of our bodies!! Those poor, poor fish. Somebody call PETA, or BETA or whatever it is! We'll get a lawsuite out of this somehow...I'm talk'n class action. -Gary On 16 Jan 2007 at 14:20, Flanigan, Floyd wrote: "upriver" ... I have always been under the impression that if the fish came from upriver of the plant, the whatever is in them came from someplace else. Is this just a typo or are they saying the Sr-90 from the plant has found its way upstream? I'm having issues with that part. Floyd From jjcohen at prodigy.net Tue Jan 16 19:18:39 2007 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen at prodigy.net) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:18:39 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 References: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAF79@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <000e01c739d5$6c9e9d20$2235e345@domainnotset.invalid> Atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives happened less than two Sr-90 half-lives ago. Can anyone identify any location in the northern hemisphere known to be free of Sr-90?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Flanigan, Floyd" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 11:39 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, so it had to be introduced into the food matrix artificially. That is obvious. But with a half-life of 29+ years, and the distance some fish cover in their respective lifetimes, the Sr-90 could have come from just about anywhere. Just because the fish was caught one place doesn't mean that's anywhere near where it came into contact with the radio-isotope. Floyd W. FlaniganB.S.Nuc.h.p. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 1:00 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 ummm, do those fish eat baby teeth ? _______________________________________________ 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 james at readsay.com Tue Jan 16 20:09:19 2007 From: james at readsay.com (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:09:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Gulf War and Birth Defects Message-ID: Colonel Daxon wrote: > The most recent review of birth defects and Gulf War has just been published > by the Institute of Medicine, 2006. The conclusion was "This the committee > concludes that there is no consistent pattern of higher prevalence of birth > defects among the off spring of male or female Gulf War veterans and no > single defect, except urinary tract abnormalities, has been found in more > than one well-designed study." If it isn't already obvious from "This the committee" and "off spring," that is a fabricated and misleading quote. In "Gulf War and Health: Volume 4. Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf War" (2006), the Institute of Medicine wrote: "Evidence regarding rates of testicular cancer, brain cancer, and certain birth defects among Gulf War veterans is inconsistent and the committee recommended further surveillance for those health outcomes." -- http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/24597/36955.aspx I wonder what quotes Colonel Daxon will feel he has to come up with when the odds ratio breaks into double digits and/or persists to grandchildren. We need to face the facts. People sometimes accuse me of being a peace activist. I am in favor of diplomacy, but I have never picketed a recruiting station. When military types resort to blatant lies and distortion, the public eventually finds out, and when they do, the effect is greater than a hundred picketers at each of a thousand recruiting stations could ever hope to achieve. What must other nations think of the U.S., with all the money we spend on our military and such a serious recruiting crisis? We have such a crisis because those entrusted with the safety of our soldiers can not face the truth about the Gulf War vets' kids birth defects, or even the fact that uranium has gas vapor combustion products. Astounding! Sincerely, James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jan 16 21:02:18 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:02:18 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman, and Hindin's 74 studies Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070116194308.009f2870@mail.swcp.com> January 16, 2007 RADSAFers: On 1/15/07, Roger Helbig (RH) wrote: "all Hindin did was review studies recommended by the Traprock Peace Center" James Salsman (JS) wrote: "Are you suggesting that the 74 studies Hindin and her coauthors cite are not comprehensive? What would you add to them?" My Comments: RH did not say the 74 studies are not comprehensive. He said all Hindin did was review studies recommended by Traprock (an anti-DU organization). (And define the word comprehensive.) JS made a mistake when he dragged out the "74" studies. I looked at the list of references and found the following: Articles in the popular press: fns. 6, 58, and 59. Anti-DU articles: fns. 1, 5, 8, 39, 60, 61, 62, and 71. Symposiums and conferences: fns 25, 44, 45, and 47. Reference book, not about DU or U: fn 36 Letters about events in New Mexico: fn 38. Another letter: fn 63. That's 18 "studies" that are not studies at all. There are some additional citations to material that is probably not studies (such as reports by the Iraqi government), but you get the point. That lowers the 74 studies to around 50. Sure, 50 studies is a lot of studies, but it's not 74. Furthermore, one would have to read all the studies and ascertain how well they conform to what Hindin and her co-authors claim for them. RH: "their article was not peer reviewed" JS: "That's completely false. Environmental Health is a peer-reviewed journal recognized as such by MEDLINE, CAS, CABI, Scopus, and Embase, with a professional and qualified editorial board" (URL edited) My Comments: I will let RH address this. RH: you will also note that Hindin quickly dropped off the radar screen JS: "Nonsense, she's a PhD MPH epidemiologist and faculty at the University of Massachusetts School of Public Health and Health Sciences at Amherst, and she has been publishing since the 1970s. (Hindin's e-mail address edited) My Comments: Hindin's being a PhD MPH, etc., etc., has nothing to do with whether or not she dropped off the radar screen. Has she published anything on DU since her co-authored expose in Environmental Health? That would be one good way of determining whether or not she's still on the radar screen. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jan 16 21:04:17 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:04:17 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070116194919.009eda80@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 16, 2007 On Jan. 16, James Salsman (JS) wrote: "Firstly, malnutrition defects are unlike those from uranyl poisoning. Secondly, there is no alternative explanation of the U.S. and U.K. servicemembers' (and Basrah civilians') increase from a risk ratio of less than 0.5 six years after exposure to 1.8 in 2000 and 2.2 in 2003, without a corresponding steep increase in cancers -- that is another signature of uranyl's teratogenicity. (Of course the Basrah civilians have lots of extra cancers, unlike the troops who were not exposed to nerve gas in 1991.)" My Comments: How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"? You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years. The typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years. What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with teratogenicity? Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not cause cancers. Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged excess Basrah cancers? Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From terryj at iit.edu Tue Jan 16 23:35:00 2007 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:35:00 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health In-Reply-To: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> Message-ID: <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. I must have gone into the wrong field of study. On Jan 15, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Roger Helbig wrote: > > > Dear Mr. Helbig > > Our peer review process is described on the web page. It is > essentially identical to those of other peer review journals except > that it is "open," that is, not anonymous. You can see the reviews by > clicking on "Pre-publication history" on the website. > > We require any disclosure of conflicts of interest. If you have > technical comments, we would consider publishing them in the form of > a Letter. > > Sincerely yours > > dave ozonoff > From spencer.fisher at opg.com Wed Jan 17 06:00:21 2007 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:00:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Non lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology Message-ID: I have two issues with non lead based RPE in Diagnostic Radiology. 1)While it is good for scattered radiation, it is not good for direct radiation. What is to stop a pregnant Nuclear Medicine tech from using one of these aprons to protect from 140 keV Tc-99m? What happens when a tech uses an apron to shield a patient from part of the beam? What happens when a caregiver assists a patient by holding them while wearing this apron, but may be partially in the direct beam? 2)I did some test on Xenolite, 20 or so years ago before Dupont purchased the rights to it. At that time I found that if you looked at a radiograph of Xenolite, you found a salt and pepper immage. That is, there are a lot of holes in the apron, and a lot of dense areas. Overall, there is a dose reduction, but some spots have no protection. This contrasted greatly with a radiograph of lead. The product may have improved over the years. Spencer M. Fisher Health Physicist- Field Support Radiation Protection Department 1549 Victoria St. E. Whitby, Ont L1N 9E3 905-430-2215 ext 3290 Fax: 905-430-8583 Pager: 416-372-9353 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Wed Jan 17 06:54:53 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:54:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sr-90 in fishes Message-ID: Other fish eat fish bones.... - the other fish swallow the whole fish, may regurg some bones may partially digest, if not totally digest, on way through.... We need to caputre baby fish and send their teeth to . . . At 12:03 PM 1/16/2007, Pete_Bailey at fpl.com wrote: Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish . . . ***************************** January 17, 2007 Almost all the strontium-90 is in the skeleton. Who eats fish bones? Otto From Pete_Bailey at fpl.com Wed Jan 17 06:58:29 2007 From: Pete_Bailey at fpl.com (Pete_Bailey at fpl.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:58:29 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] re: fish near nuke plant contain Sr-90 Message-ID: Probably Southern hemisphere too is not Sr free. Other than NZ or AU, probably not as much Rad Environ Monitoring (like northern hemi) occurs, so we may not know... Atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives happened less than two Sr-90 half-lives ago. Can anyone identify any location in the northern hemisphere known to be free of Sr-90?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Flanigan, Floyd" Sr-90 mimics calcium in the system. Maybe the fish got the Sr-90 in its system third or fourth hand. Who knows. I know Sr-90 does not occur naturally, . . . From mpatterson at canberra.com Wed Jan 17 08:00:17 2007 From: mpatterson at canberra.com (PATTERSON Melissa) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:00:17 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units Message-ID: Spencer, You have a good point. I work for Canberra and the units issue actually leads to increased product development and manufacturing costs for us. We are and must be a global products and services provider. The US economy and the nuclear/ radiation measurement market specifically is the largest single market in the world. But the sales opportunity in the rest of the world which uses SI units is bigger. This means that we either develop 2 versions of new instrument models or we develop instruments that allow the user to select the units they wish to display in. -Melissa -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:05 PM To: idias at interchange.ubc.ca; sandyfl at cox.net; nssihou at aol.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units Last November I attended three Categorical Courses in Diagnostic Radiology Physics at the RSNA/AAPM meeting in Chicago. The courses were on X-Ray Imaging and Radiation Dose Optimization. All the units given in the course were in SI units. All of the speakers were Americans, and all of the examples shown were US exampled. In addition, almost all of the machines that display the Dose Area Product do so in cGy and rad, since 1 cGy = 1 rad. This includes many of the machines that are manufactured in the USA. The x-ray companies are multinational and want a product that can be used anywhere. Spencer M. Fisher Health Physicist- Field Support Radiation Protection Department 1549 Victoria St. E. Whitby, Ont L1N 9E3 905-430-2215 ext 3290 Fax: 905-430-8583 Pager: 416-372-9353 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ 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.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Wed Jan 17 10:43:28 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:43:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08BBA6@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Very many papers thank the "helpful comments by our anonymous peer-reviewers" among the acknowledgements. Regards, Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry >Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:35 AM >Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for >helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. > >I must have gone into the wrong field of study. > From jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 11:37:23 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:37:23 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio Message-ID: Steven Dapra wrote: > How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"? What teratogens have been suggested that anyone might have been exposed to in 1991 Iraq which do not cause an even more pronounced increase in rapid-onset cancers? According to the CDC, most of the sulfur mustards and sarin, which were involved, do. Uranyl does not. There have been no such alternative hypothesis -- PB, anthrax vaccine, pesticides, and oil smoke have all been ruled out. > You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in > cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years. > The typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years. No, cancers in the U.S. and U.K. soldiers remained very low in the first six years, but recently have began to pick up, especially for brain and testicular cancers. I suspect in 2011 the cancer rate for the troops will be substantially higher across the board. > What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with > teratogenicity? Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not > cause cancers. Not exactly. Uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide gas are teratogens which do not cause much immediate-onset cancer, unlike most teratogens including all of the nerve gases that I have looked at. > Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged > excess Basrah cancers? Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf Sincerely, James Salsman From edaxon at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 17 14:55:53 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:55:53 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio - discussion of the citation provided In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXEziQA References: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXEziQA Message-ID: <001601c73a79$e1051910$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> In response to a comment from Steve Darpa James Salsman wrote: > Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged > excess Basrah cancers? >Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf < The citation is an undated presentation (not a published paper) that appears to have other presentations embedded in it. The data were taken when Saddam was still in power and there are several limitations the most important of which are a lack of exposure assessment (levels of uranium exposure were not measured in neither the parents nor the children), the lack of a control group (comparable measurements were not made in other cities, and census data were used for the denominator as opposed estimates of the populations in the cities at the time. The discussion of biological plausibility that DU was the cause does not include a discussion of dose. The logic used could be applied tom many other toxins - most notably mustard gas. I have heard of no studies since then that confirm these data for the city of Basra. Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jan 17 20:46:30 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:46:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] How are half-lives determined? Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070117194325.009ebea0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 17, 2007 How are half-lives determined? I am particularly interested in the determination of very long half-lives, such as the uraniums. What are the measurement techniques, or whatever is used? Citations to standard reference books explaining the techniques would be useful and appreciated. You are welcome to answer here, or by private e-mail. Thank you. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jan 17 20:42:33 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:42:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranyl and increased risk ratio Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070117183046.00a02010@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 17, 2007 SD Steven Dapra JS James Salsman SD-1 How do you know, JS, that there is "no alternative explanation"? JS-1 What teratogens have been suggested that anyone might have been exposed to in 1991 Iraq which do not cause an even more pronounced increase in rapid-onset cancers? According to the CDC, most of the sulfur mustards and sarin, which were involved, do. Uranyl does not. There have been no such alternative hypothesis -- PB, anthrax vaccine, pesticides, and oil smoke have all been ruled out. SD-2 I asked you to explain your claim. I did not ask you to ask me to explain it. Your pseudo-explanation has too many "no's" and "not's" in it to be coherent. SD-1 You seem to be implying that there was in abrupt increase in cancer (is that morbidity or mortality?) within a period of six years. The typical latency period for hard tumors in 20 years. JS-1 No, cancers in the U.S. and U.K. soldiers remained very low in the first six years, but recently have began to pick up, especially for brain and testicular cancers. I suspect in 2011 the cancer rate for the troops will be substantially higher across the board. SD-2 Where has this increase in incidence been reported? Please give the full citation(s). What you "suspect" will happen in 2011 has nothing to do with what has been happening in the six year period you initially invoked. SD-1 What does a steep increase in cancers have to do with teratogenicity? Teratogens cause birth defects, they do not cause cancers. JS-1 Not exactly. Uranyl compounds such as uranium trioxide gas are teratogens which do not cause much immediate-onset cancer, unlike most teratogens including all of the nerve gases that I have looked at. SD-2 "Not exactly" what? Are you saying uranyl compounds do not cause "much" immediate-onset cancer, but that they cause more than "much" cancer later on? How much is "much"? Have you given us any studies showing that uranyl compounds cause cancer at any time? (Perhaps you have and I did not see the citations.) You say "unlike most teratogens". What does this mean? Do most teratogens, including the nerve gases you have looked at, cause cancer? Do you have citations to studies? SD-1 Do you have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged excess Basrah cancers? JS-1 Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf SD-2 It appears that Eric Daxon has taken care of this. I have not read it yet. You say you have "plenty." What are some of the others? This time give studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that are anonymously reviewed. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jan 18 03:24:42 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:24:42 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Scientists to study risks from uranium weapons Message-ID: <009401c73ae2$85b1f240$c8435142@roger1> Scientists to study risks from uranium weapons This article is reasonably factual, but it caters to the activist community, who, for example call the DU penetrators "uranium weapons" - this then leads to activist claims that Israel, wise to the tests for DU did not use DU, but used Enriched Uranium in their non-existent Uranium weapons. I also question whether several tonnes of DU are in the soil around this plant near Albany, New York. Does anyone on this list know more about the actual DU contamination at that site? Roger Helbig The effects of a toxic metal used for armour-piercing weapons in both Gulf wars is to be studied by British scientists. Depleted uranium (DU) is nearly twice as dense as lead and highly valued for its ability to punch through armoured vehicles. But concerns have been raised about the lasting health risks it poses. When a weapon made with a DU tip hits armour it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour. The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive. Because of the difficulties of carrying out research in war zones, little is known about DU's effects, but veterans from the Gulf and Kosovan wars claim it has made them seriously ill. A team of geologists from the University of Leicester will travel to the US in the new year to examine a site heavily polluted by the substance. Several tonnes of fine DU oxide dust have settled near the plant in Albany, New York. The project will use various scientific techniques, including geochemical methods, isotope measurements and scanning electron microscopy, to evaluate the environmental effects. Leicester geologist Dr Tim Brewer said little was known regarding DU's degradation, mobility, and solubility within the environment ? largely due to the difficulty of studying it in conflict zones and the limited period of time that DU has been in use. The information will be critical to evaluating the potential risk to both humans and the environment in areas where DU has been extensively used. 01 January 2007 http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1951377 From DUTOIT at sabs.co.za Thu Jan 18 04:10:03 2007 From: DUTOIT at sabs.co.za (Du Toit Volschenk) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:10:03 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] How are half-lives determined? Summary of methods from Lederer et al References: <5.2.1.1.1.20070117194325.009ebea0@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <45AF6399.87C9.008B.0@sabs.co.za> A summary of methods used for Half-life determination is given in the introduction of "Tables of isotopes" edited by Lederer, CM and Shirley, VS a Wiley Interscience Publication John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York I looked at the 7th Edition (1978) Methods listed (not specifically listed for the length of the half life, although the U-235 half-life listed of 3.5 x 10^17 y was determined with methods 2+3 below): 1) Measurement of time-decay 2) Mass spectroscopy - Direct determination of the decay rate by measurement of the decrease in the number of atoms (or the increase of number of atoms of a daughter isotope) relative to another isotope of the same element 3) Disintegration rate of a sample containing a known mass of the active substance (mass spectrometric analysis of the sample to correct for other isotopes present) 4) Calorimetry - Heat rate production from a known mass of active substance 5) Measurement of decay rate of a parent substance by periodic removal and radioassay (or mass spectrometric assay) of a decay product 6) Specific activity determination by chemical and/or isotopic analysis of natural samples, involving assumptions about sample history 7) Measurement of radioactivity from a sample containing a number of atoms calculated from the expected yield of the reaction by which it was produced 8) Estimation based on decay energy, level structure and theoretical considerations (Usually used for alpha emitters) 9) Other methods (e.g. nuclear recoil, delay coincidence, doppler shift attenuation, etc) Du Toit Volschenk Radiation Protection Service South African Bureau of Standards dutoit at sabs.co.za >>> Steven Dapra 2007-01-18 04:46 >>> Jan. 17, 2007 How are half-lives determined? I am particularly interested in the determination of very long half-lives, such as the uraniums. What are the measurement techniques, or whatever is used? Citations to standard reference books explaining the techniques would be useful and appreciated. You are welcome to answer here, or by private e-mail. Thank you. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com DISCLAIMER ________________________________________________________________ This communication is sent from the SABS group of Companies and complies with the Communication requirements of the Companies ACT. Further particulars of the SABS Group of Companies from which this communication has been sent can be found at http://www.sabs.co.za/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail was checked by the e-Sweeper Service. ---------------------------------------------------------------- From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Thu Jan 18 06:09:24 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:09:24 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Scientists to study risks from uranium weapon Message-ID: I am assuming that they are probably referring to the Colonie FUSRAP site just outside Albany. Here is the link. http://www.fusrapcolonie.com/back/ 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". _______________________________________________ Scientists to study risks from uranium weapons This article is reasonably factual, but it caters to the activist community, who, for example call the DU penetrators "uranium weapons" - this then leads to activist claims that Israel, wise to the tests for DU did not use DU, but used Enriched Uranium in their non-existent Uranium weapons. I also question whether several tonnes of DU are in the soil around this plant near Albany, New York. Does anyone on this list know more about the actual DU contamination at that site? Roger Helbig From jal247 at cornell.edu Thu Jan 18 06:58:20 2007 From: jal247 at cornell.edu (Jeff Leavey) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:58:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 1978 BRH video Dr. Taylor Interviews Dr. Robley Evans Message-ID: <45AF6EEC.7000908@cornell.edu> I found this old video from the BRH made back in 1978 (I think). The BRH apparently did a series of interviews of early radiation safety pioneers called Vignettes of Early Radiation Workers. This one is Dr. Lauriston Taylor interviewing Dr. Robley Evans. It's about 55 min. long and 280MB in wmv format. Use this link to download it. I can burn a DVD if anyone wants it. Are there any other surviving interviews??? http://www.sendspace.com/file/zqkr74 Jeff -- Jeff Leavey Assistant Radiation Safety Officer Cornell University Environmental Health and Safety 125 Humphreys Service Building, Ithaca, NY 14853 jal247 at cornell.edu www.ehs.cornell.edu (607)255-7397 fax(607)255-8267 From osuleiman at comcast.net Thu Jan 18 08:52:11 2007 From: osuleiman at comcast.net (osuleiman at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:52:11 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units Message-ID: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> Et al- I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily, myself included, insist on using older units. It's not like the Roentgen has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced in the 70's. I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie. However, if we are to be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause, why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude? Fortunately the professional journals, and other organizations including the government are moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago. As a scientific professional I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I exercise it here. And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is. How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? We have more important things to discuss. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Sandy Perle" > Hi John, > > I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. > Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, > understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to > use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and > scientific community is getting smaller all the time. > > There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than > the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have > seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the > data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant > consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are > the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. > Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, > postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at > substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing > instrumentation and read-out devices. > > I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some > degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this > transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. > One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the > impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't > see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, > more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. > > Regards, > > Sandy > > On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: > > > Bob > > > > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard > than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that > having two "systems" is the problem. > > > > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost > completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would > be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. > > > > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > 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 sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 10:46:16 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:46:16 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] A Nuclear Power Renaissance Message-ID: <45AF33D8.18504.F350F69@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: A Nuclear Power Renaissance 4 Northeast nuclear power plants warned Radiation Degrades Nuclear Waste-Containing Materials Faster =========================== A Nuclear Power Renaissance With concerns about global warming and energy security on the rise, countries the world over are taking a new look at nuclear energy. Some are building new reactors as fast as they can. They are coming from everywhere in Australia; shirt-sleeved workers from every corner of the continent heading to a remote stretch of the South Australian desert. There is no water, and not much of anything else either. But the Olympic Dam mine is located here. And the mine is hiring. The company currently employs about 700 miners, who have already dug several kilometers of tunnels under the desert. The area is so bone dry that drinking water must be pumped through a system of pipes from a distant spring. Recently, there has even been talk of building a desalination plant. After all, uranium mining requires water -- lots of it -- and Australia wants to remain the world's second largest supplier after Canada. The explanation for the government's enthusiasm for nuclear power can be found in a report by nuclear physicist and former IT manger Ziggy Switkowski. As if on cue, he enthuses about the need for more nuclear power plants: Australia must start building reactors so that the first one can be completed in 2020. If a concerted effort is made, another 25 could be online by mid-century. On the one hand, this would help the country improve its poor record of carbon dioxide emissions. On the other, it would allow Australia to tap an almost inexhaustible source of energy; the country possesses more than 38 percent of the world's accessible uranium reserves. The international atomic energy lobby loves such talk. Almost 21 years after the Chernobyl disaster, and just a couple months after the most recent breakdown at Sweden's Forsmark reactor last July, the risks associated with nuclear power are largely fading into the background. So too are questions about the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and atomic weapons. The industry, in short, is preparing for a new boom. Plans for more nuclear plants Currently there are 435 atomic reactors generating electricity in 31 countries across the globe. They fill 6.5 percent of the world's total energy demand and use close to 70,000 tons of enriched uranium per year. Atomic plants produce one-sixth of the total electricity supply -- roughly on par with hydropower. That number may soon rocket upwards. At present, 29 nuclear power plants are under construction and there are concrete plans to build another 64. Another 158 are under consideration. On the other end of the equation, only six are slowly being shut down in preparation for decommissioning. In response to the growing demand, the price for uranium has increased seven-fold since 2002 and now sells for $72 per pound (454 grams). The fact that no final storage place exists for highly radioactive waste is considered to be but a secondary problem. Indeed, the only terminal repository apparently free from political opposition is that in Finland's Eurajoki where such a site is now under construction. There, nuclear waste will be stored at a maximum depth of 520 meters in shafts bored deep into the granite bedrock. The main obstacle to the construction of nuclear power plants is no longer the anti-nuclear power lobby, but the huge costs of building them. Whereas in 1970 a brand new reactor cost $400 million, a plant now runs as much as 10 times higher. In the last three decades the nuclear power industry has received subsidies of about $1 billion -- the electricity generated may be clean from a global warming point of view, but it's not cheap. Nonetheless, power plant construction companies are hoping for a renaissance. E.on has applied to build a new plant in Romania's Cernavoda and Siemens expects orders to triple in the next five years. General Electric too expects a number of new reactors to be built within the next decade, says Ferdinando Beccalli-Falco, a GE manager. Indeed, a lots of companies stand to benefit. The industry is celebrating the "strategic shift" and preparing for a boom with mergers en vogue. Japan's Toshiba has acquired US-based Westinghouse, General Electric is working together with Hitachi and Mitsubishi Heavy is flirting with the Franco-German global market leader Areva NP, in which Siemens holds a stake. Until now, France has been virtually alone in its reliance on nuclear technology: Eighty percent of its domestically produced power comes from nuclear plants. The 59 plants allow the country to be mostly self-sufficient, and now this strategy is once again being held up as an example. Lithuania, for example, urgently wants to replace its aging Ignalina nuclear reactor. Doing so would allow the country to decrease its dependence on Russia, but the price tag is some EUR3 billion. Ukraine also wants to build more nuclear power plants in order to increase its self-sufficiency, despite the trauma of Chernobyl. Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are both discussing building two new nuclear reactors each. Poland is considering building a nuclear plant after 2020 since its domestic coal-fired power plants could soon run afoul of EU regulations. Next year the EU wants to tighten the emissions requirements for such polluters. Sites under consideration include Gryfino and Klempicz near Posnan, both of which are close to the German border. Britain's Labour government wants to prepare the way for new atomic power plants by easing the approval process; many of its aging coal- fired power plants will have to close as a result of new EU standards. Gas-fired plants could help to close the gap, but Europe's two most important suppliers, Russia's Gazprom and Algeria's state- owned Sonatrach, in August signed an agreement that has aroused suspicions in London and Brussels that they will create a cartel similar to OPEC. EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso adroitly side-stepped the issue last Wednesday when announcing the EU's new energy strategy. Germany is joined by a number of other EU countries in their skepticism toward nuclear power. But he did not conceal his committee's sympathy for atomic power, citing both environmental reasons and issues related to securing Europe's energy supply. Canada and Australia, the two most significant uranium suppliers, are reliable partners. Other suppliers include Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Namibia and Niger. Kazakhstan wants to surpass Canada as the world's leading uranium supplier by 2010, which explains why French, Chinese and Japanese companies are racing to invest there. India is considering building 19 new reactors, while China wants to construct at least 63 facilities that will be able to supply 50 giga- watts of power. In emerging market Indonesia a single, very modest, nuclear reactor will go online in 2011. In contrast the US is talking about building more than 20 new plants after a 20-year construction moratorium. Washington is providing tax incentives for power plant operators and it also wants to ease the process of obtaining the required permits. But who is going to pay? President George W. Bush already enthuses about a "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" to foster the use of nuclear power while also monitoring to ensure that the technology is not misused by North Korea, Iran or al-Qaida. The US has budgeted $250 million to support the partnership, and the Hill & Knowlton public relations company, which worked for the government during the first Gulf war, has already launched a PR campaign to promote nuclear power. The need for advertising seems unavoidable, since even the most enthusiastic supporters of the new atomic era cannot deny that it brings with it the same old risks. No one can rule out a meltdown. And no one can guarantee that civilian nuclear research won't be misused. Furthermore, no one knows who is going to pay for all the new facilities. Moscow wants to build about 30 new reactors, in part because Gazprom doesn't want to sell natural gas on the domestic market at low prices. The Kremlin speculates that it will be able to obtain $30 billion from foreign investors to fund their construction, but this money is not likely to appear soon. President Putin has called for the former superpower to take a "giant leap" by expanding its nuclear energy sector, but at present it only has one factory capable of manufacturing turbines and reactors. Consequently, Russia can only build one new nuclear power plant every three years. On the other hand, Russia also wants to sell nuclear technology abroad at discount prices, charging roughly 30 percent less than France for its reactors. Despite the lofty ambitions and impressive figures, the fact remains that 1.6 billion people still do not have access to electricity, while 2.4 billion are forced to meet their energy needs with wood, straw or manure. In this respect, Steve Kidd, the director of strategy and research at London's World Nuclear Association, could be correct. In the nuclear industry, Kidd says, many such grandiose plans often turn out to be delusional. ------------------ 4 Northeast nuclear power plants warned MONTICELLO, Minn. - Four Northeast nuclear power plants have been alerted to check for potential safety problems following a failure at a sister plant here that caused a shutdown. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified managers of the four plants because they're similar in age and design to the Xcel Energy's Monticello plant, said Jan Strasma, a commission spokesman. The plants being told to be alert are Vermont Yankee and Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Nine Mile Point in New York, and Pilgrim in Massachusetts. "Typically when there's a problem at one plant, we look to see if any aspects have the potential of applying to other plants," Strasma said. "It's a precautionary or prudent notification." The Monticello plant has been shut down since Jan. 10 when welds failed that held in place a 35,000-pound box containing valves that control steam pressure. No radiation was released, officials said. ------------------- Radiation Degrades Nuclear Waste-Containing Materials Faster Than Expected New method enlists NMR to test durability of mineral-based waste forms Richland, WA - Minerals intended to entrap nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years may be susceptible to structural breakdown within 1,400 years, a team from the University of Cambridge and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported in the Jan. 11 issue of Nature. The new study used nuclear magnetic resonance, or NMR, to show that the effects of radiation from plutonium incorporated into the mineral zircon rapidly degrades the mineral's crystal structure. This could lead to swelling, loss of physical strength and possible cracking of the mineral as soon as 210 years, well before the radioactivity had decayed to safe levels, said lead author and Cambridge earth scientist Ian Farnan. According to current thinking, highly radioactive substances could be rendered less mobile by combining them, before disposal, with glass or with a synthetic mineral at a very high temperature to form a crystal. However, the crystal structure can only hold the radioactive elements for so long. Inside the crystal radioactive decay occurs, and tiny atomic fragments called alpha particles shoot away from the decaying nucleus, which recoils like a rifle, with both types repeatedly blasting the structure until it breaks down. This may increase the likelihood for radioactive materials to leak, although co-author William J. Weber, a fellow at the Department of Energy national laboratory in Richland, Wash., who made the samples used in the study, cautioned that this work did not address leakage, and researchers detected no cracking. Weber noted that the "amorphous," or structurally degraded, natural radiation-containing zircon can remain intact for millions of years and is one of the most durable materials on earth. Some earth and materials scientists believe it is possible to create a structure that rebuilds itself after these "alpha events" so that it can contain the radioactive elements for much longer. The tests developed by the Cambridge and PNNL team would enable scientists to screen different mineral and synthetic forms for durability. As well as making the storage of the waste safer, new storage methods guided by the NMR technique could offer significant savings for nations facing disposal of large amounts of radioactive material. Countries including the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan are all considering burying their nuclear waste stockpiles hundreds of meters beneath the earth's surface. Doing so necessitates selection of a site with sufficiently stringent geological features to withstand any potential leakage at a cost of billions of dollars. For example, there is an ongoing debate over the safety of the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. A figure published in Science in 2005 put that project's cost at $57 billion. "By working harder on the waste form before you started trying to engineer the repository or choose the site, you could make billions of dollars worth of savings and improve the overall safety," Farnan said. "At the moment, we have very few methods of understanding how materials behave over the extremely long timescales we are talking about. Our new research is a step towards that. "We would suggest that substantive efforts should be made to produce a waste form which is tougher and has a durability we are confident of, in a quantitative sense, before it is stored underground, and before anyone tried to engineer around it. This would have substantial benefits, particularly from a financial point of view." PNNL senior scientist and nuclear magnetic resonance expert Herman Cho, who co-wrote the report, said: "When the samples were made in the 1980s, NMR was not in the thinking. NMR has enabled us to quantify and look at changes in the crystal structure as the radiation damage progresses. "This method adds a valuable new perspective to research on radioactive waste forms. It has also raised the question: 'How adequate is our understanding of the long-term behavior of these materials?' Studies of other waste forms, such as glass, could benefit from this technique." The collaboration was funded by Britain's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the U.S. DOE, with support from the PNNL-based Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. SOURCE: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 12:00:33 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:00:33 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> References: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> Message-ID: <45AF4541.9895.F78E32E@sandyfl.cox.net> On 18 Jan 2007 at 14:52, osuleiman at comcast.net wrote: > And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is.? How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial?and?yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? Hello Orhan, Your comments are pertinent to the debate at hand. I do agree that this transition will happen at some point, but I don't think that it will happen any time soon. I recall this topic being discussed back in the 70's and as you pointed out, it is still being debated. You will recall that the NRC specifically required that occupational dose reports not be provided using SI units, it was directly prohibited in 10CFR20. I also agree that being one of the lone stand-outs does cause embarrassment to the US when attending international meetings. As Chair, Health Physics Society Standards Committee, we have made efforts to include the SI units along with the accepted non-SI units in all of our N13 and N43 Standards. I believe that N42 does as well. As others have pointed out by others, instrumentation for the most part does include all units, primarily due to the global market as it is. In time this will happen. For this to be expedited, there needs to be a major sponsoring entity pushing for it, that does not exist today. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 14:29:37 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:29:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U.S. Approves License for Palisades Nuclear Plan Message-ID: <45AF6831.10564.10016EFE@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: U.S. Approves License for Palisades Nuclear Plan GE Energy to oversee and update Monticello nuclear plant Plans for 2nd Hungarian nuclear plant Rats caused wildfire near Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant =================================== U.S. Approves License for Palisades Nuclear Plant WASHINGTON (AP) Jan 17 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday that it has renewed the operating license of the Palisades Nuclear plant in South Haven, Mich., for an additional 20 years. The environmental and safety reviews of the plant did not uncover any reasons to preclude the renewal of the license, the agency said. Public meetings to discuss the environmental review were held in July 2005 and April 2006. The plant is owned by Nuclear Management Company, a joint venture of three electric utilities, including We Energies, a Wisconsin company, XCel Energy Inc. and Consumers Energy, a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corp. Consumers Energy owns the Palisades plant. -------------------- GE Energy to oversee and update Monticello nuclear plant Bizjournal Jan 17 - GE Energy's nuclear business has been awarded the contract to oversee and implement an extended power update of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.The contract is valued at more than $100 million. The deal will boost the plant's output to 120 percent of its original licensed thermal power. The EPU contract was awarded by the plant's operator, Nuclear Management Company of Hudson, Wisc., and represents GE's (NYSE: GE - News) largest extended power upgrade order to date. The plant's owner is Northern States Power Company, a subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL - News) Monticello, a one-unit, boiling water reactor, began commercial operation in 1971 and generates enough electricity to meet the needs of more than 500,000 customers. On Wednesday, media reports indicated that the plant was shut down indefinitely, after a large metal component broke loose inside the plant. Investigation into the matter is underway. The incident was outside the reactor, and no radiation was released. ----------------- Plans for 2nd Hungarian nuclear plant Budapest Sun Jan 18 - The government has plans to build either a second nuclear power station or to expand the existing Paks plant "with the aim of cutting carbon emissions," national daily Magyar H?rlap reported on Tuesday, Jan 16. Experts are said to discussing whether the current use of the Paks nuclear power plant should be extended beyond its current lifecycle, or whether to build a new nuclear plant, the paper said, quoting unnamed sources. To build a new plant would cost the government an estimated e3 billion. Last year the existing Paks plant worked on expanding the capacity at the second of its four blocks by 8% from the current 467 megawatts (MW) - the target figures to be reached by February or March of this year. The plant is already under going a Ft5bn ($23.2m) capacity expansion, due to be completed by 2009. The Economy ministry is said to have drawn up a medium-term energy policy based on energy needs and investment potential. Green organization have already protested the plans for a second nuclear power plant, citing the dangers seen in 2003 when Paks? fuel rods were damaged. The rods over-heated in a cleaning tank located close to the plant?s second reactor. ----------------- Rats caused wildfire near Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant LOS ANGELES (AP) Jan 18 - Rats chewing on electrical wire inside a mobile home likely caused a wildfire near the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, authorities said. "The most probable cause of the fire is related to rodents and the electrical system," Andy Anderson of the California Department of Fire and Forestry said in a statement. The 332-acre blaze, which burned within two miles of the nuclear plant, was surrounded Wednesday, forestry spokeswoman Laura Brown said. It is expected to be fully extinguished Saturday. The blaze began Sunday on land owned by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. when a mobile home ignited and flames spread to brush, including parts of Montana de Oro State Park, she said. All trails in the park have been reopened. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 16:28:07 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:28:07 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors Message-ID: <45AF83F7.18200.106DC1C4@sandyfl.cox.net> Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors Post Gazette Jan 18 - David Harner pulled on a fitted Lycra outfit with thin tubes snaking around his body carrying cold water. He attached pencil-thin monitoring devices to his thighs, biceps, chest and back. Co-workers helped him into a red rubber suit and a helmet attached to an oxygen line. Mr. Harner then lowered himself into a pool of warm water that had the faint, distant blue glow of fuel rods. "Not everyone would want to jump in a nuclear reactor," Mr. Harner says. "It's a definite breed." Mr. Harner, 33 years old, belongs to a small corps of men and women who make their living in the underwater world of nuclear-power plants. Many first took up diving as a hobby, then attended commercial diving school. John Paul Johnston, executive director of Divers Institute of Technology in Seattle, says "the high-tech guys" are drawn to nuclear diving, rather than to other sorts of work, like offshore oil rigs. Mr. Harner, whose father worked at a Michigan nuclear plant, started diving in muddy rivers where he could see little. Then, he was sent into the crystal-clear water of a reactor. There, he says, he was struck by how much he could see, including the numbers on the fuel rods about eight feet beneath him. Mark White, 40, chose diving about 18 years ago rather than follow his father into the Ohio coal mines. He thought mining was a dying industry -- and too dangerous. "When you're 22 years old, and you can try something new and daring, it catches your imagination," says Mr. White, who dives and manages projects for Underwater Construction Corp., the largest nuclear diving company. Divers are in great demand these days. Power companies need them to maintain many of the world's 442 nuclear reactors. They're also called on to repair aging bridges and water tanks. And oil companies need them to fix offshore platforms damaged by Hurricane Katrina. That has done little to increase pay for nuclear divers, who start at salaries of about $30,000 a year. Experienced divers certified for specialized work can make close to $100,000. Offshore divers make still more but have to live on a ship for months at a time. Nuclear reactors range in size, from 35 feet to 70 feet tall, and 14 feet to 20 feet wide, depending on the type of technology. They are enclosed in steel-reinforced concrete structures. During operation, boiling water reactors are partially filled with about 60,000 gallons of water that circulates to cool the fuel and also turns into steam to power the turbine. Pressurized reactors hold 35,000 gallons of water during operations. When the reactor is shut down for refueling and maintenance, the vessel and secondary pools, also called the cavity, are filled with more than 500,000 gallons of water that further cools down the reactor and acts as a guard against radiation. The nuclear divers measure assignments not only by the minute, but by millirems, a measure of radiation exposure. Diver Michael Pickart received about 450 millirems during a project last fall inside an Arkansas nuclear reactor's cavity. That's more than the average person's annual exposure to natural radiation -- 300 millirems according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. An X-ray delivers about 40 millirems. At the Arkansas plant, Mr. Pickart, 30, replaced underwater stainless- steel tubes. In an underwater chair, the former construction worker cut and threaded new cylinders. He says he tries not to think about the risks. "If you ever slipped out of the chair, it could ruin your day," he says. He hastens to add that plant workers would swiftly pull him to the surface by the cords attached to his suit. Divers aim to keep exposure below 2,000 millirems a year, the limit set by most power companies. (The government allows individual divers to be exposed to 5,000 millirems a year.) When they near the maximum, divers are barred from nuclear plants, which typically pay better than other jobs do. After his work in Arkansas, Mr. Pickart got a mix of assignments. On a November job in Illinois, he worked primarily in a less-radioactive pool. A dive is aborted at the first sign of trouble. Last year, David Klassen was forced to surface after a few minutes when dosimeters showed he was receiving too much radiation. The 28-year-old former Southern California scuba instructor had been working on a reactor dryer in Morris, Ill., which removes excess water from the steam that powers turbines. Mr. Klassen says he later learned that his dosimeters had malfunctioned. The work "never lets you get too relaxed," he says. The divers' equipment is the product of improvisation and experimentation. Conventional wet suits, which keep divers warm in cold water, aren't practical. The water in a nuclear plant is too warm, sometimes exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Instead, nuclear divers wear a suit made of vulcanized rubber, which keeps them dry. To stay cool, they wear so-called cold suits, like the one Mr. Harner donned, developed for space walks in the 1960s. Including the special helmet, the gear can weigh about 100 pounds. That's more than twice as heavy as the gear commonly worn by recreational divers. Before a project begins, plant technicians measure radiation in the pool. Divers wear as many as a dozen dosimeters -- on their knees, arms, chest, back, feet and hands -- to track exposure. On the refuel floor, generally five stories up, workers monitor the dives and follow the real-time radiation readings on computers. Mr. Pickart's cold suit burst on a recent job, dousing the dosimeters with water and causing them to short out. His dive quickly ended. "There's no way to monitor you," he says, if the dosimeters fail. "They're not going to leave you down there to get cooked." The divers, mostly in their 20s and 30s, sometimes travel as a small team to plants as distant as Taiwan and Korea. They live on daily room-and-board allowances of as little as $55 and often share motel rooms to save money. In the fall, more than a dozen divers from Underwater Construction, in Essex, Conn., bunked for one to three weeks at the Wingate Inn, in Joliet, Ill. Underwater Construction has been working on nuclear plants since the 1970s. The divers were divided into groups of four to eight for projects at two nearby nuclear plants. Kyra Richter, 37, recently quit Underwater Construction after three years to work, in operations, at a nuclear plant. Diving is "what I love to do, but there's no future," she says, adding that the dives would get harder as she gets older. Ms. Richter also says she was paid less, and given less interesting assignments, than male divers. On one recent assignment, she remained "on deck" holding divers' safety cords for more than a week, rather than diving. Michael Pellini, Underwater Construction's vice president and co- owner, acknowledges the industry can be rough for women. The company has five women divers among its 250 employees. Mr. Pellini says he had not heard about Ms. Richter's experiences. "We want to make sure we are treating everyone equally," says Mr. Pellini, who himself started diving in 1981. Daniel Vollrath, who is 25, joined Underwater Construction last year after five years with the U.S. Coast Guard. He chose inland diving over offshore diving because it means less time away from home. More important, he likes the weightless feeling of hovering in a reactor pool, tethered by a "lifeline" of cords providing air, communications, and radiation readings. It is, he says, "the closest thing to being an astronaut." 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au Thu Jan 18 16:16:16 2007 From: brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au (ROGERS, Brent) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:16:16 +1100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units Message-ID: Perhaps all these new nuclear plants that are being planned for will have their techdoc's written in SI. I think the HP's would deal well enough with SI rad units. The questions will arise with the pumps rated in kw instead of horsepower (do you know the conversions off the top of your head?), piping systems measured in meters, coolant temperatures in Celsius, etc. Brent Rogers Leader Commercial Radiation Safety Group Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation PMB 1, Menai NSW 2234 T 61 2 9717 3251 F 61 2 9717 9266 M 0417 231 879 E brent.rogers at ansto.gov.au www.ansto.gov.au -----Original Message----- From: osuleiman at comcast.net [mailto:osuleiman at comcast.net] Sent: Friday, 19 January 2007 1:52 AM To: sandyfl at cox.net; John R Johnson; nssihou at aol.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] SI Units 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". _______________________________________________ Et al- I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily, myself included, insist on using older units. It's not like the Roentgen has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced in the 70's. I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie. However, if we are to be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause, why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude? Fortunately the professional journals, and other organizations including the government are moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago. As a scientific professional I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I exercise it here. And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is. How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? We have more important things to discuss. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Sandy Perle" > Hi John, > > I do not believe that the US will adopt the SI units any time soon. > Ideally it would make sense to transition to the SI units, > understanding that we are among very few in numbers that continue to > use the non-SI unit, and, globalization within the market and > scientific community is getting smaller all the time. > > There are many issues to contend with a transition. It is more than > the work-place understanding the units. I do believe, and we have > seen, serious incidents occur whereby workers did not understand the > data, and, mis-judegements occurred, in some cases with significant > consequences. Assuming that these issues are eliminated, there are > the significant administrative and economic costs to contend with. > Just looking a the NPPs, training programs, revision of all SOPs, > postings, manuals and other documents would require revision at > substantial cost. There would be the issues with existing > instrumentation and read-out devices. > > I am not implying that all of these issues can't be mitigated to some > degree. I recognize that others have had to go through this > transition as well, and successfully implemented the new programs. > One just needs to be aware of all that must be done and determine the > impact as well as the time-frame to accomplish. Again, I just don't > see that this transition will occur due to the economic burden, and, > more importantly, there is nobody really pushing for this transition. > > Regards, > > Sandy > > On 15 Jan 2007 at 15:47, John R Johnson wrote: > > > Bob > > > > Does that the fact that you "feel that SI units are more of a safety hazard > than a value" mean that you will always think this. I don't agree! I think that > having two "systems" is the problem. > > > > FYI, I worked in the US (at PNL, now PNNL) for ~11 years, and was almost > completely "SI" before I moved in 1998. I heard (many times!) that the US would > be SI "soon" and many US scientist/technical people are. > > > > To all Radsafers; when do you think soon should/will occur? > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com Thu Jan 18 17:56:07 2007 From: DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com (Don Jordan) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:56:07 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units References: Message-ID: <001101c73b5c$38f615b0$4501a8c0@RAMSERVICE1> In the mid 1970's my research advisor & some colleagues wrote a Physical Chemistry text book, supposedly for college juniors but most 1st year grad students would have had difficulty with it (Actually, it started out as a freshman tex!). Since SI was all the rage the authors all made a determined effort to write the book entirely in SI. I was asked to work out the standard correct (?) answers to the problems for several chapters & discovered that my advisor didn't actually have a clue as to the relative magnitudes of the 2 systems. For example, I recall one mass spectrometry problem that posed a magnetic field of 10,000 tesla. Not on this planet! My advisor held a named professorship at a major research university and was a member of the National Academy. If he had trouble with conversions, then I do worry about the guys in the control room of an NPP & tend to agree with Sandy Perle's position: this would be a gradual change from driving on the right side to the left side of the road. Since we have to change eventually, maybe we should start with the next new plant to be built. Don Jordan DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com RAM Services, Inc. 510 County Highway V Two Rivers, WI 54241 U.S.A. Voice: +1-920-686-3889 Fax: +1-920-686-3899 From pnwnatives at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 18:08:57 2007 From: pnwnatives at gmail.com (The Wilsons) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:08:57 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Message Guide Message-ID: <45B00C19.70603@gmail.com> Does anyone else besides me feel like this statement showing up not once but three or four times in a message/message reply does as much to clutter the messages as it does to guide the participants? It should be "readable" not readible. 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". From LNMolino at aol.com Thu Jan 18 18:16:32 2007 From: LNMolino at aol.com (LNMolino at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:16:32 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Message Guide Message-ID: In a message dated 1/18/2007 6:10:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, pnwnatives at gmail.com writes: Does anyone else besides me feel like this statement showing up not once but three or four times in a message/message reply does as much to clutter the messages as it does to guide the participants? It should be "readable" not readible. YES Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jan 18 18:29:56 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:29:56 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net> Message-ID: <000001c73b60$f94227b0$49197254@pc1> Dear "osuleiman" you obviously did not observe the directions given by the list owner- namely to give your full name and your affiliation. The name "osuleiman" suggests that you are not American of birth, but nobody can verify it, and you do not disclose your affiliation. Since you have discomfort to use SI-units you must have lived in the USA for probably all of your life. I do not expect that you have been trained in Japan or the former USSR, where the outdated units are officially, but not scientifically in use. If I would deliver a comment on the US attitude to SI-units some of the hard-liners at RADSAFE would without doubt start to flame me -which I am not afraid of, but would like to avoid. Never mind I will do it and launch soon a comprehensive comment on the question of SI-units from me and all flames will be welcomed!!!!! Oh, why flames? The world and the scientists have gone and are going to SI and even the US is doing it. Scientists who want to question this, like Sandy Perle, seem to try to delay this because - in the case of Sandy Perle - of obvious commercial interests. (Flame expected.) It is just a question of time, that we will have SI units everywhere on this globe, whether in radiation protection or in "meters". Europe did not really need a long time to convert all the "Klafter", "Ellen", "gallons", "shilling", "pence", "guinees", not to talks about "crowns", Kreutzer, Heller, Pfennig, ?re, Kronor (Swedish, (Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic), etc. etc. Not only me by billions of scientists welcome this. The "reluctance of the USA" is not favouring their perception in the field of scientists in the scientific world. Sandy Perle and similar persons have obviously not understood, that the US reputation in radiation protection science is close to zero. Come on, at least in the field of money exchange, the dramatic changes in the European Market, where most of the participants have adopted the EURO as the standard currency has been in my opinion and of most Europeans a real success. Hundreds of millions of people in Europe have been able to exchange their national currency to a common European one "Euro" about 5 years ago and on Jan 1st, 2007 approximately 6 million people in Slovenia have switched to it, abandoning the "Slovenian Tolar". (US-Americans should notice that the "Slovenian Tolar" was not named after the US-Dollar but after the Austrian "Taler", which was originally named after the place in nowadays Czech Republic (Joachimsthal, Jachimow), where the silver was mined - "Joachimsthal". Well educated radiation scientists could trace this "Joachimsthal" to the radium extraction industry at Joachimsthal,nowadays Jachymov. Many more countries are to follow. A hopefully soon occurring exchange of traditional radiation (protection) units to SI units should really be no mayor problem. I will in another mail describe my own experience going just during the Chernobyl accident from pCi to Bq. Countries using the "old" units within the European Union until the Chernobyl accident (for instance Austria) have adopted the SI units by law since then. Since the European Union Directive has prescribed these units there are no countries within the European Union adhering to the "old" ones! Of course I know, that the US is blocking a lot of international efforts to provide unification of justice and as well on the adoption of internationally agreed units. I do not expect or at least hope, that they will not be able to do this forever. At least I hope so and I know of many friends in the USA having the same hope. Best regards to all of you! Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von osuleiman at comcast.net Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. J?nner 2007 15:52 An: sandyfl at cox.net; John R Johnson; nssihou at aol.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] SI Units 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". _______________________________________________ Et al- I find it really disturbing when it comes to how US scientists, primarily, myself included, insist on using older units. It's not like the Roentgen has been around for 2000 years, 1928 if you're interested. SI was introduced in the 70's. I do have discomfort using SI units, I will not lie. However, if we are to be progressive, and standardizing to minimize confusion is a noble cause, why do we have an "our way or the highway" attitude? Fortunately the professional journals, and other organizations including the government are moving forward, although at an extremely slow rate. I remember when I was first introduced to SI in the 70's, that was several decades ago. As a scientific professional I am frankly embarassed. Dissent is a right, and I exercise it here. And I do think that universal adoption of SI units will eventually happen, it really is inevitable- but I continue to be amazed that it is discussed and debated to the extent that it is. How can one expect to be respected as open minded and collegial and yet behave in a way that can only be perceived as bordering on the stubborn? We have more important things to discuss. From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 18:47:55 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:47:55 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <001101c73b5c$38f615b0$4501a8c0@RAMSERVICE1> References: <001101c73b5c$38f615b0$4501a8c0@RAMSERVICE1> Message-ID: Sorry, to be that cruel, but in this case the person you describe was an idiot. Hopefully there were not many more at that time and in our time. Hopefully that after he quit or retired there was somebody more qualified. Did that happen in Austria - I would not be surprised, because we have more than enough similar cases here......... Franz 2007/1/19, Don Jordan : > > 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". > _______________________________________________ > In the mid 1970's my research advisor & some colleagues wrote a Physical > Chemistry text book, supposedly for college juniors but most 1st year grad > students would have had difficulty with it (Actually, it started out as a > freshman tex!). Since SI was all the rage the authors all made a > determined > effort to write the book entirely in SI. > > I was asked to work out the standard correct (?) answers to the problems > for > several chapters & discovered that my advisor didn't actually have a clue > as > to the relative magnitudes of the 2 systems. For example, I recall one > mass > spectrometry problem that posed a magnetic field of 10,000 tesla. Not on > this planet! > > My advisor held a named professorship at a major research university and > was > a member of the National Academy. If he had trouble with conversions, > then > I do worry about the guys in the control room of an NPP & tend to agree > with > Sandy Perle's position: this would be a gradual change from driving on > the > right side to the left side of the road. > > Since we have to change eventually, maybe we should start with the next > new > plant to be built. > > Don Jordan > > DonJordan at ramservicesinc.com > RAM Services, Inc. > 510 County Highway V > Two Rivers, WI 54241 U.S.A. > > Voice: +1-920-686-3889 > Fax: +1-920-686-3899 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Thu Jan 18 18:48:32 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (=?UTF-8?B?U2FuZHkgUGVybGU=?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:48:32 +0000 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units Message-ID: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless From sandyfl at cox.net Thu Jan 18 19:14:14 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:14:14 -0800 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <000001c73b60$f94227b0$49197254@pc1> References: <011820071452.11180.45AF899B0001CF4F00002BAC2207000953020E03070A049A9C01@comcast.net>, <000001c73b60$f94227b0$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <45AFAAE6.22810.2343B959@sandyfl.cox.net> On 19 Jan 2007 at 1:29, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > Scientists who want to question this, like > Sandy Perle, seem to try to delay this because - in the case of Sandy Perle > - of obvious commercial interests. (Flame expected.) If Franz would have actually read my posts for content, instead of simply looking for any opportunity to twist and attack my comments, he would have noted that I specifically stated that the HPS Standards Committee, which I am Chair, has consistently pushed for all US Standards to either be published with SI Units, or, to also include the SI Units along with the non-SI Units. As also stated, this is not "Sandy Perle" addressing the SI Units, but many scientists in the US (all with apparent problems according to Franz). Let me also reiterate that Franz's comment tying my opinion to commercial endeavors is unfounded, since we do report in SI Units throughout the world where we provide dosimetry. Flame .. no flmaes from me Franz. I'll simply reply to your comments where there is a techncial reason to do so. Other than that, I'll let others reply to your comments. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 19:21:11 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:21:11 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Sandy, If you you had wanted me to read your message, you would have sent it in such a way that I would have been able to read it. No text received. I just cannot understand that some people at RADSAFE blame me, that I have trusted you in the case of finally meeting me after many attempts and even ridicule me for having trusted you. Is this really the US way to handle agreements? Please refrain from sending any mails to me, you are one of the most distainful persons on RADSAFE. Good look with your sales! Franz 2007/1/19, Sandy Perle : > > 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". > _______________________________________________ > FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. > Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Thu Jan 18 19:27:51 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:27:51 -0800 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] SI Units In-Reply-To: References: <1642309143-1169167702-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-1694643953-@bxe044-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, Message-ID: <45AFAE17.26302.2350316D@sandyfl.cox.net> Again Franz, you show your brilliance. You say there was no message, yet it is in the meesage you forwarded below. THIS was my message: FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless -------------------------------------------------- On 19 Jan 2007 at 2:21, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: Sandy, If you you had wanted me to read your message, you would have sent it in such a way that I would have been able to read it. No text received. I just cannot understand that some people at RADSAFE blame me, that I have trusted you in the case of finally meeting meafter many attemptsand even ridicule me for having trusted you. Is this really the US wayto handle agreements? Please refrainfrom sending any mails to me, you are one of the most distainful persons on RADSAFE. Good look with yoursales! Franz 2007/1/19, Sandy Perle : 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". _______________________________________________ FYI, GDS reports in SI units for all interantional accounts. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Thu Jan 18 22:28:31 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:28:31 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] John W. Simpson, 92, Dies; Pioneer of Nuclear Power Message-ID: <45AFD86F.24953.23F59630@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: John W. Simpson, 92, Dies; Pioneer of Nuclear Power NRC Chairman pushes for safer plants Nuclear Regulatory Workforce Challenged Public input on nuclear power first: minister Germany reconsiders nuclear phase-out Federal enviro plan includes nuclear Irish protest Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant Radiation dose 60 per cent too high ====================================== John W. Simpson, 92, Dies; Pioneer of Nuclear Power New York Times Jan 17 - John W. Simpson, a former top executive and engineer for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation who played a major role in developing the nation?s first commercial nuclear power plant and its first nuclear-powered submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus, died Jan. 4 near his home on Hilton Head Island, S.C. He was 92. He died at a hospital of complications of pneumonia, his son Carter said. Mr. Simpson was a close associate of Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, known as the father of the nuclear Navy. The two first worked together during World War II to build switchboards that could withstand the hard impacts faced by naval vessels. Mr. Simpson, already a Westinghouse employee, and Admiral Rickover later joined in designing the Nautilus. Mr. Simpson was in charge of the design and construction of the submarine?s power plant. In 1951, when Westinghouse received a contract from the federal Atomic Energy Commission to build the first atomic electricity- generating plant, at Shippingport, Pa., Mr. Simpson was named manager. In the late 1950s, he organized the company?s astronuclear laboratory, which won the federal government?s first contract to develop a nuclear reactor for rocket propulsion. It was successfully tested, but money was later redirected to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration?s Gemini program. Mr. Simpson was president of the Westinghouse Electric Power Systems Company, one of four major divisions of Westinghouse, from 1969 to 1977. In the late ?50s and early ?60s, Westinghouse held about 30 percent of the nation?s market for power-generating equipment. Industry analysts eventually credited Mr. Simpson with turning Westinghouse into a close competitor of General Electric in the production of nuclear plants, turbines and transformers and the distribution of electricity. When Mr. Simpson was awarded the Edison Medal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1971, the citation said he had made contributions to electricity generation and naval and space propulsion. It continued: "The extent to which he influenced the transition from scientific discovery to practical application in all three areas is to a substantial degree responsible for the eminence of the United States in the atomic energy field today." John Wistar Simpson was born in Glenn Springs, S.C., on Sept. 25, 1914, to Richard and Mary Berkeley Simpson. As a young man, he was torn between competing passions, his son Carter said - a fascination with science and an urge to serve in the military. Mr. Simpson joined the Marines in 1933. Just as he was completing basic training, his application to attend the United States Naval Academy was accepted. He graduated from Annapolis in 1937. But in his last year at the academy, Mr. Simpson developed near-sightedness and was denied a commission. Soon after, he went to work as a junior engineer at the Westinghouse switchboard division in East Pittsburgh, Pa. There he met Rickover, the Navy?s contract officer on the switchboard project. At the same time, Mr. Simpson was studying at the University of Pittsburgh for a master?s degree in electrical engineering, which he received in 1941. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Simpson tried to enlist in the Army. His son recounted that when Rickover found out, he called Mr. Simpson into his office and told him he would never let him leave his scientific work. He said, "We don?t need more heroes, we need to win this war." In 1946, Westinghouse granted Mr. Simpson a two-year leave to work at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. There, with Rickover and a group of engineers and scientists, he helped draft plans for the first attempt at applying nuclear energy to the generation of electricity. After returning to Westinghouse in 1949, he was named assistant manager of engineering at the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Pittsburgh, which the company operated for the Atomic Energy Commission. There, in addition to working on the Nautilus with Rickover, he helped design propulsion plants for the U.S.S. Long Beach and the U.S.S. Enterprise, the nation?s first nuclear surface ships, and for the U.S.S. George Washington, the first nuclear submarine that carried Polaris missiles. In addition to Carter, of Great Falls, Va., Mr. Simpson is survived by another son, John Jr., of Bridgeville, Pa.; two daughters, Patricia Deely of Indianapolis and Barbara Wilkinson of Truckee, Calif.; and seven grandchildren. His wife of 56 years, the former Esther Slattery, died in 2004. ----------------- NRC Chairman pushes for safer plants WASHINGTON (AP) Jan 16 - Future nuclear power plants should include design improvements to better protect against a terrorist attack by large aircraft, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday. The chairman, Dale Klein, said the commission soon will give guidance to reactor manufacturers on "what we believe the reactors should be designed to withstand," including the possibility of a terrorist crashing a plane into the reactor. "It is likely that we will ask the vendors to consider that in a different way than we did in the previous plants," said Klein in an Associated Press interview in his office at NRC headquarters in suburban Rockville, Md. Klein, who became the commission's chairman last June, said it was incorrect to suggest that the NRC will not require design improvements to guard against an airborne terrorist attack. The 103 reactors now in use were designed under regulations that did not require consideration of a direct hit by an aircraft. The nuclear industry maintains that protection against such an attack is a government matter and not one reactor operators should be responsible for as part of their security. While the industry says tests show current reactors can withstand such a direct hit, others have raised doubts. Klein said the NRC will likely want future reactor designs to take such a possibility into account. "These new plants have the opportunity to reduce the (deterrent) actions" that will be required as part of plant operations "by increased design requirements," Klein said. "The new reactors in all likelihood will be more robust than the existing fleet." The NRC is gearing up for a rush of applications for new power reactors, the first such applications since the 1970s before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Klein said four or five firm applications for new reactors are expected to be received this year with another eight likely in 2008. Most, if not all, of the new reactors are expected to be built on the sites of existing nuclear power plants. In the interview, Klein expressed concern that the NRC won't be able to handle the license requests promptly unless Congress increases funding. The NRC, like other agencies, has not received a new budget and will run $95 million, or 12 percent, short. "It will slow (the licensing) down," said Klein, because there won't be money to train licensing specialists. On other matters, Klein: _Said the NRC is ready and in "a watch-and-see mode" when it comes to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He noted there have been several "false starts" in the Energy Department's push to complete a license application. _Expressed confidence that reactor waste can continue to be stored at nuclear plant sites in water pools and dry-cask storage, which are both regulated by the NRC. _Said that the new, streamlined licensing process for new power reactors - now about 42 months - should be shortened even more, at least after the initial group of licenses. It can be done "with no compromise on safety," he said. _Expects that Congress will require NRC approval for licenses for proposed reprocessing facilities under the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Program. "In today's world, it's not likely the DOE will self-regulate like it has in the past," Klein said. He said the NRC is on the fence when it comes to reprocessing nuclear fuel, the centerpiece of the Bush administration's vision of an expanded nuclear industry. "As a regulator, we will evaluate whatever proposal comes at us, but we are not promoting recycling nor are we discouraging it," Klein said. -------------- Nuclear Regulatory Workforce Challenged WASHINGTON (AP) Jan 18 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to hire enough workers to manage the expected onslaught of new nuclear reactor applications will be crippled without increased funding, a report by the investigative arm of Congress says. NRC Chairman Dale Klein said he, too, was concerned about the agency's ability to handle the license requests unless it receives more money from Congress. Without a new budget, the agency will be $95 million, or 12 percent, short. "It will slow (the licensing) down," he said in an interview. A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday examined his agency's workforce challenges. "The funding and full-time equivalent restrictions ... would have a crippling impact on our ability to manage human capital," Klein wrote in a response included in the GAO report released Wednesday. Electric power companies, including Southern Co., Entergy Corp., Constellation Energy Group Inc., Exelon Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and Duke Energy Corp., intend to apply for 20 licenses to build and operate at least 29 new nuclear power reactors in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 with project costs between $1.5 billion and $4 billion, according to the GAO report. French state-owned nuclear power company Areva, through its UniStar Nuclear joint venture with Constellation, is competing with General Electric Co., Westinghouse -- now owned by Toshiba Corp. -- and others to develop the new reactors. To deal with the application demands and its other duties, NRC projects that its workforce will need to grow from about 3,100 employees in early fiscal 2006 to nearly 4,000 workers by 2010, which will require between 300 and 400 new hires annually during that time, according to the report. NRC exceeded its fiscal year 2006 hiring target by hiring 371 new employees, but sustaining that performance could be difficult because the agency has not completed its hiring and training enhancement plans, the GAO said. Reviewing the applications and conducting its other work could hinder NRC's ability to ensure a safe and secure nuclear power industry. Substantial delays in the application process also could hurt investor confidence, decrease the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy, and possibly reduce the amount of electricity available in the U.S., the report concluded. GAO recommended the NRC complete an overall workforce plan and provide appropriate resources to implement its knowledge management and training efforts. There are currently 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States, producing about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and the new applications will be the first since the 1970s before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979. ------------- Blair accused of nuclear waste 'cover-up' Scientists claim committee's conclusions were manipulated for political gain, reports Colin Brown The Independent Jan 19 - Two scientists who sat on a nuclear waste committee have alleged that chaotic organistaion drove the committee to approve an option for deep storage of high-level nuclear waste. Labour MPs have responded to their allegations by saying there had been a " cover-up". The scientists, Professor David Ball and Dr Keith Baverstock, left the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in April and May. David Miliband, the Secretary of State for the Environment, subsequently informed Labour MPs that Professor Ball had left for "personal reasons", an assertion dismissed by the professor as "misleading". Professor Ball and Dr Baverstock accused Tony Blair of "manipulating" the committee's decision for "political ends". They believe its recommendation for deep storage of high-level waste was used to push through the Cabinet the decision to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations. But they warn that CoRWM's prolonged failure to identify which sites can safely take the waste will cause delays that could open Britain to a terrorist attack on its nuclear stockpiles, which are held on the surface at the Sellafield site in Cumbria. "Science has been manipulated for political ends," said Dr Baverstock. "The time wasted has resulted in continued and unnecessary exposure of the public to the ongoing risk of temporarily stored nuclear waste, surely a legitimate public concern in this age of terrorism," said the scientists. Dr Baverstock is a former senior radiation adviser with 12 years' experience at the World Health Organisation, but was sacked from the committee. He is now head of environmental science at the University of Kuopio, Finland. Mr Miliband, in a letter to the Labour MP Alan Simpson, rejected their criticism, saying the committee had taken the "best available existing scientific knowledge" into account. He added: "I believe it is possible to conclude that the scientific basis for CoRWM's work has been sound." Professor Ball said he had given Mr Miliband substantial reasons for his resignation from the committee, none of which could remotely be described as a "personal reason". He said: "I believed CoRWM to be treading dangerously close to the line and it was overall such an appalling experience that I concluded... that the only option was to resign." He added: "Defra's continuing strategy of total denial and what looks like the attempted rewriting of history is only compounding the problem." The two scientists added that they were unaware that four of the CoRWM's 12 members worked for the committee's largest suppliers until it was revealed by The Independent on Sunday on 8 May 2005. The committee included a paid consultant for NNC, which won the ?1m contract to project-manage CoRWM's work; an associate consultant for Enviros Consulting, which had a contract worth ?50,000 to ?100,000 from the committee; and an associate of the IDM consultancy, which conducted ?10,000 to ?50,000-worth of contract work for the committee. Mr Simpson, who organised a private Commons meeting with Labour MPs to hear the scientists' criticism, said: "This blows apart the recommendations for deep storage of nuclear waste. The taxpayer faces an ?85bn bill for disposing of the last generation of nuclear waste. We now know that no one has a clue how to do this safely. This is no time for a cover-up." He added: "Blair has been allowed to ride the country into another nuclear nightmare before he goes. Someone has to call a halt, and if Brown isn't up to it, he isn't up to the succession." The Prime Minister signalled his determination on Tuesday to take the next step towards the nuclear power programme before he steps down from office. He announced that new licensing conditions for nuclear power stations would be published next month. But a former Labour minister joined MPs in calling on Mr Blair to stop the development of nuclear power stations until he answers the concerns raised by the scientists. A former environment minister, Michael Meacher, said their views had to be considered by the Government rather than being " rubbished". "I think it's very dangerous when reputable scientists have their views not fully taken into account and answered," said Mr Meacher. "It is incredibly irresponsible to go for a further round of nuclear power-station building when we still have not got a safe way of storing the huge volume of nuclear waste already produced." Where the waste goes * Higher activity radioactive waste is stored at facilities around the UK * The amount is estimated at 80,000 cubic metres about the size of Albert Hall. It weighs about 100,000 tons * Even if the Government decides not to build any more reactors, waste will increase by nearly sixfold to 477,860 cubic metres over the next century * The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was asked to look at all the options for higher activity waste and find a long-term solution * It is expected to take 40 years to build a deep repository so, in the interim, it says the waste should be stored at surface sites as close as possible to nuclear facilities * The most likely candidate is Sellafield. ------------------ Public input on nuclear power first: minister CALGARY (CBC) Jan 18 - Albertans don't share federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn's "enthusiasm" for using nuclear energy in oilsands extraction, a provincial cabinet minister says. "I don't know that Albertans share his enthusiasm," Environment Minister Rob Renner said. "That's why I would suggest that before we go down that route, there would need to be some fairly broad-based public consultation." On Wednesday, Lunn told reporters he favours using nuclear energy to extract petroleum from the oilsands in Alberta. "There's great promise in the oilsands for nuclear energy," he said. "Nuclear energy is emission-free. There's no greenhouse gases. We burn a lot of natural gas to extract that oil from the sands right now. There's great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy, something that I'm very keen on." Nuclear would be considered: industry Two serious oilsands players - Husky Energy Inc. and Total SA of France - are publicly mulling over the nuclear option. But the Alberta government is not working on any proposals for nuclear power plants in the province, provincial Energy Minister Mel Knight said Wednesday. Renner said he is not opposed to nuclear power, but other sources of energy may be preferable. It's too early to say if nuclear power will ever come to the oilsands, said Pierre Alvarez, head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. "If a proposal can be brought forward that meets the timelines associated with oilsands development and the cost requirements, it would be considered," he said. Alvarez said any nuclear project would have to make economic sense - in other words, it would have to be proven to be cheaper than using natural gas to extract the oil. --------------- Germany reconsiders nuclear phase-out Edie News Center Jan 19 - Germany is reconsidering its decision to abandon nuclear power after a temporary cut-off from Russian oil brought out its dependence on foreign fuel imports. The country decided to phase out nuclear power completely back in 2001, but the country's politicians are now having second thoughts as energy prices rise, dependence on oil and gas from unreliable Russia grows and climate change increasingly becomes an issue. Russia cut off oil supplies to a number of European countries when it closed off the Druzhba pipeline for three days last week in order to force Belarus to accept an oil price increase. After doubts about the phase-out expressed by some members of Germany's ruling Social Democrats party, Chancellor Angela Merkel recently assured them and the public that she was "faithful to the contract" that foresees a complete nuclear phase-out. But the economics minister Michael Glos and environment minister Sigmar Gabriel remain in opposition on whether the country's future energy mix should include nuclear. The economics ministry has said in a recent discussion paper that the EU's climate-focussed energy policy is "not compatible with the continued phasing out of nuclear energy, given current energy predictions, which are seen as realistic." Phasing out Germany's 19 nuclear power plants to be replaced by gas or coal would significantly boost CO2 emissions, the economics ministry said. The environment ministry argues that Germany's greenhouse gas emission cuts can be achieved without the help of nuclear power, as renewables take a stronger role in the energy mix and energy efficiency improves. The share of renewables in energy production should go up from 4.5% today to 15.7% by 2020, the environment ministry calculates. --------------- Federal enviro plan includes nuclear Fort McMurray Today - Jan 18 - The Conservative government launched its green rebranding effort Wednesday with a controversial boost for nuclear power. In the first big announcement since Rona Ambrose was shuffled from the environment portfolio two weeks ago, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn promised $230 million over four years for research into clean energy. But he gave no specifics on how the money will be spent -- "it hasn?t been allocated yet" -- leading to criticism that the government is making more vague promises like those that scuppered Ambrose. The government is trying to restore credibility on the environment, which has emerged as a top issue for voters, and an election could come soon. Lunn said one target area for the research money is "next-generation nuclear. "Nuclear energy is emission-free, there?s no greenhouse gases, there?s no pollutants going out (with) the energy," he told a news conference. "There?s a great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy, something I am very keen on." Although it is often touted as an alternative to fossil fuels because it doesn?t directly produce greenhouse emissions, nuclear power is still panned by most environmentalists. "The range of problems associated with nuclear power is such that this is in no way a solution to the greenhouse gas problems," Matthew Bramley, director of climate change with the Pembina Institute, told Today in a telephone interview from Ottawa. "The generation of large amounts of radiation and hazardous wastes impact on surface and ground water quality and when you consider the security, the cost, this is in no way a good idea for cleaning up the oilsands sector," he said. Emilie Moorhouse of the Sierra Club of Canada said there?s no storage system that can keep nuclear waste isolated because it remains active for millions of years . Lunn suggested nuclear energy could be an ideal source of power for the massive oilsands project in Alberta. But Moorhouse said that would be problematic because nuclear plants need water for cooling, and high demand for water is already one of the biggest problems in Alberta. The new research program, dubbed the ecoEnergy Technology Initiative, is similar to a Liberal research program now terminated, although annual funding will rise somewhat. But the "overwhelming priority" Bramley said is to actually reduce emissions now and not for more research and development on technology. "For the oilsands, carbon capture is the obvious technology. We know that carbon capture technology is already available at a cost of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 per tonne of carbon dioxide," the climate change watch director said. "It?s in the oilsands industry?s own economic interest to deploy carbon capture technology on a large scale -- because its cost is modest," he said. The $30 per tonne cost to use carbon capture works out to be an additional $2 per barrel of produced oil and would eliminate 100 per cent of carbon dioxide. Lunn promised that the government will soon announce short-term emissions- cutting targets for industry. Nor would he give his view on whether the government should stop generous tax breaks for the petroleum industry, saying that?s a matter for Finance Minister John Flaherty. Environment Minister John Baird, who also attended Wednesday?s news conference, offered no defence for the tax breaks for the oilsands, saying he did not know why they were introduced. Lunn is expected to make news with further clean energy announcements this week in Victoria and Toronto. Lunn got a cautious thumbs-up from Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who said improved technology is the only way to improve the situation. But Alvarez warned that change will take time and a lot more money than Ottawa is willing to allocate. "There are no silver bullet solutions right now. We?re going to need more. But what?s encouraging to us is that we?re now having the debate on energy technologies that for the last 20 years nobody has wanted to talk about." ----------------- Entire Irish Nation Gathers On Beach To Futilely Shake Fists At Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant (DUBLIN) Shitegist Jan 12 - The entire population of the Republic of Ireland are due to gather on Dollymount Strand, Clontarf this coming weekend to join in the world's largest instance of impotent fist- shaking at a neighbouring nuclear polluter. 'We're gonna tell them British bastards what's feckin' what so we feckin are' said a random drunk who crawled out from under a nearby rock. Campaign manager Gubnait O'Toss says that the demonstration will send a powerful message to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) that the Irish people are serious about the issues of nuclear waste disposal in the Irish Sea and that they are prepared to take serious measures to make their case heard. Irish Government ministers were quick to lend support to the campaign, with Minister for the Environment, Dodgy Roach, claiming that the Irish Government has been pursuing a 'vigorous campaign' against the nefarious Albionites and their radioactive goo-dumping. 'No more' fumed Roach, 'will the Irish sea be the cess-pool where England dumps it's radioactive gysm. For too long the island of Ireland have been the continental wank-rag of the British Empire'. Government spokesmen, speaking under terms of strict anonymity, indicated that the government is willing to consider further radical action to make itself and the Irish people heard. Amognst some of the more startling suggestions mooted are a mass staring session, formation frowning, synchronised, county-by-county grumbling and a nation-wide simoultaneous foot-stamping. ---------------- Radiation dose 60 per cent too high Telegraph UK Jan 19 - Lisa Norris is just one of the many patients who have died after being given the wrong treatment. The teenager had 19 radiotherapy sessions at the Beatson Oncology Centre in Glasgow to treat a brain tumour. But after she was given the all clear, consultants told the 16-year- old she had mistakenly been exposed to radiation levels 60 per cent higher than prescribed. advertisementLisa, above, from Girvan, Ayrshire, was left covered in painful burns and blisters from the radiation overdose and died months later. An inquiry revealed that the medic who planned Lisa's treatment was a trainee with limited experience, and that senior staff failed to monitor him correctly. Lisa's father Ken said after the report into his daughter's death: "It is very hard for us to take in all the errors that took place. It is also hard to believe so many things could go wrong with someone's treatment in an NHS hospital. "It is frightening to think staff who were not properly trained were able to work with radiation. " ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sontermj at tpg.com.au Fri Jan 19 02:37:55 2007 From: sontermj at tpg.com.au (Mark Sonter) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:37:55 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: SI units In-Reply-To: <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> References: <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> Message-ID: <45B08363.6090707@tpg.com.au> Deary me! I remember as a kid learning 12 inches equals 1 foot, 3 ft equals 1 yard 5-and-a-half yards one rod pole or perch, 16 ounces equals 1 pound, 2240 pounds one ton, etc etc; not to mention 32 poundals one pound force, and something about slugs...and horsepower, BTUs, bushels, and acre-feet; but maybe I'm wrong. No wonder NASA lost the Mars lander, if it was trying to work in both imperial and metric.... And then at university came the blessed discovery of first the cgs system of units and then the kgs system, now SI. Then when I was teaching physics in Papua New Guinea, we, following Australia, 'went metric', and at last gallons (two types, US and Imperial), ounces (two types, Troy and Avoidupois), Fahrenheit, psi, and a host of other awful units were rendered obsolete. Then I went off and did my Medical Physics, and learned pCi and rem, and, God help us, Roentgens; and then I got beaten up by a curmudgeonly state regulator who refused to talk in other than Bq and Sv (and rightly so, as SI was now enshrined in national legislation). There were a few cases of mixed up units and accidentally ablated thyroids (not on my watch: I was counting mSv in a uranium mine..) All I can say to our US colleagues is: try to embrace and encourage the transition: make it as fast as possible: other countries have done it; it will in the end save you immense brain energy on essentially wasted work; and you (and the rest of the world) will then ultimately breathe a huge sigh of relief. Mark Sonter From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 19 03:26:51 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:26:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? Message-ID: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Mr Sandy Perle, Thank you very much for the interesting news item on divers. Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! I have a question. Do you know whether they wear on line radiation monitors? It appears so. Is it possible for achieving dose control by making these workers practice their trade under simulated conditions? Doing any work under water may require special skill. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group, Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy Room No 18 Ground Floor, North Wing Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094 E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 25486081 (O) 91+22 27706048 (R) 9869016206 (mobile) ___________________________________________________________ The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 19 07:52:48 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:52:48 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? In-Reply-To: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B05CB0.801.25FA35AE@sandyfl.cox.net> Dear Dr. Parthasanathy, I am familiar with many US facilities where the divers do wear direct reading electronic dosimeters that are transmiting data to a central system that is monitored by health physics, along with voice communication in order to provide effective communication and information to and from the divers. This type of work as well as others often involves mock- up training i order to reduce the overall expected dose for the individual as well as cumulative dose. Regards, Sandy On 19 Jan 2007 at 9:26, parthasarathy k s wrote: > I have a question. Do you know whether they wear on line radiation monitors? It appears so. Is it possible for achieving dose control by making these workers practice their trade under simulated conditions? Doing any work under water may require special skill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Fri Jan 19 08:32:46 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:32:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear r Message-ID: In a fomer life, I was an underwater construction safety officer and inspector, and can say that almost everything done underwater is rehearsed and practiced. Since an underwater facemask acts like a magnifying lens, eye-hand coordination takes some practice. Luke McCormick From sandyfl at cox.net Fri Jan 19 09:30:52 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:30:52 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Diver Pics using remote electronic dosimeter and communication monitoring Message-ID: <45B073AC.4020.1416CC27@sandyfl.cox.net> Dear Dr. Parthasanathy, I've forwarded to you 3 images from diver set-up using remote electronic dosimetry and communication monitoring provided by GDS sister-company, MGP, courtesy of Keith Spero. The 3 images are from a nuclear plant in 2001: First image: Prepping diver with vest for electronic dosimetry &multiplexer... Second image: Into the dive suit (connecting Airline & Audio with Telemetry Antenna) Third image: Real-time monitoring from the dive platform... 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From DGMiller at enercon.com Fri Jan 19 13:03:59 2007 From: DGMiller at enercon.com (Dustin G Miller) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:03:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Available Room at Hilton Knoxville for Midyear HPS Meeting Message-ID: <000301c73bfc$94514560$3a04000a@enercon.com> Due to a late cancellation, I have one room that has become available at the Hilton Knoxville for the HPS Midyear Meeting. Is there anyone out there that would like to have this room at the HPS price of $99 per night for Saturday to Thursday (Jan 20th to Jan 25th)? The check out date may be changed to Wednesday and the check-in date may be changed without cost if there is a "weather" delay. I will have the room put in your name and you would change the payment information when you arrive. The room should be a King Non-smoking room or 2 queens Non-smoking. Email me directly and not to RadSafe, please. Otherwise, I look forward to meeting some of you at the meeting!! Dustin G. Miller Radiation Safety Officer Enercon Calibration Laboratory ENERCON Services, Inc. dgmiller at enercon.com www.enercon.com From alanpeg at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 17 09:08:50 2007 From: alanpeg at sbcglobal.net (alanpeg at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:08:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> Message-ID: <004b01c73a49$65d88220$81cd3c4b@Staples451> Before retirement I often did peer review. I would send comments such as "you would make your point more convincingly if you plotted ..." or "you really have two papers here. Please rewrite so that one is on subject A and the other is on subject B." Sometimes the authors thanked the anonymous reviewer, often not. The writing style of many scientists (including me) is often terrible and, if I could help clarify the writing, I felt I was doing a service. Al Rosenfield Columbus Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Terry" > Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for helping > you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. From terryj at iit.edu Fri Jan 19 14:05:33 2007 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:05:33 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health In-Reply-To: <004b01c73a49$65d88220$81cd3c4b@Staples451> References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> <004b01c73a49$65d88220$81cd3c4b@Staples451> Message-ID: I would argue that thanking an anonymous reviewer for helping make a point is completely different from thanking reviewers by name for "the opportunity to speak with and learn from Drs. Chris Busby and Michel Fernex at the Hamburg conference. Their contributions to this paper stem from their long-term, on-going, related research as well as, more particularly, to the helpful and thoughtful comments they gave as peer reviewers of the submitted manuscript." It is a practice of mine to suggest reviewers for my papers (when journals request this information) that I haven't worked with in the past. I have no idea who actually reviews the papers that I submit but I would find it somewhat unseemly if I only had friends and colleagues review my work. Jeff On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:08 AM, alanpeg at sbcglobal.net wrote: > Before retirement I often did peer review. I would send comments > such as "you would make your point more convincingly if you > plotted ..." or "you really have two papers here. Please rewrite so > that one is on subject A and the other is on subject B." Sometimes > the authors thanked the anonymous reviewer, often not. The writing > style of many scientists (including me) is often terrible and, if I > could help clarify the writing, I felt I was doing a service. > > Al Rosenfield > Columbus Ohio > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Terry" > >> Wow, I am not sure how that you can thank your peer reviewers for >> helping you in an article and still call it peer reviewed. > From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 14:10:58 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:10:58 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Peer Review Criteria - Environmental Health In-Reply-To: <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> References: <011501c7392f$d3666de0$70425142@roger1> <08735462-B938-42EF-807F-94F6F183DBBC@iit.edu> Message-ID: <007e01c73c05$eff7b580$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> <> Terry: You can thank the anonymous peer reviewers in the acknowledgments of the paper if you are so inclined, which I have done in the past. Occasionally they may reveal their identity to you at a later time, but usually not. But your point is well taken that "peer review" involves a process that works best when anonymous; so that the critique is less likely to be interpreted as a "personal attack" and that the reviewer is less likely to be compromised. D. McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque From maurysis at peoplepc.com Fri Jan 19 17:18:37 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:18:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How? Message-ID: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> This brief article is related to radiation safety and risk to the extent that anthropogenic global warming (GW) is related to nuclear power vs. other means of power production. This anecdotal article sums the issue well aside from the fact that all of us know excellent scientists who, without pay, are convinced mistakenly of the human role in GW. The idea of decertifying GW Skeptics is about as silly as adults can be. Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) PS What was polar bear population 20-30 years ago compared with most recent survey? ======================== AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION January 19, 2007 Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano at epw.senate.gov After Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 "In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education. Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188 The Weather Channel Mess January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed Well, well. Some ?climate expert? on ?The Weather Channel? wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent ?global warming? is a natural process. So much for ?tolerance?, huh? I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can?t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at ?The Weather Channel? probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. *The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe. If you don?t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue. In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science. WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast. I have nothing against ?The Weather Channel?, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won?t go. From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jan 19 21:52:17 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:52:17 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070119201917.009e87e0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 19, 2007 (See RADSAFE, Jan. 17:) Steven Dapra (SD): Do you [James Salsman] have a citation (other than Hindin) for those alleged excess Basrah cancers? James Salsman (JS): Sure, I have plenty. Here's one from a Mount Sinai Pathologist: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/fasy_jun_14_03.pdf < Eric Daxon: The citation is an undated presentation (not a published paper) that appears to have other presentations embedded in it. The data were taken when Saddam was still in power and there are several limitations the most important of which are a lack of exposure assessment (levels of uranium exposure were not measured in neither the parents nor the children), the lack of a control group (comparable measurements were not made in other cities, and census data were used for the denominator as opposed estimates of the populations in the cities at the time. The discussion of biological plausibility that DU was the cause does not include a discussion of dose. The logic used could be applied tom many other toxins - most notably mustard gas. Comments from SD about the presentation: The presentation is not dated, however one of the early pages is a photograph of the head table with a date of Jan. 14-16, 2003, and a sign or banner stating that this was a "Symposium for Peace." The Mt. Sinai pathologist (last name Fasy) appears to have prepared this presentation, which looks like a slide show or (more likely) a Power Point presentation. I looked at the nuclearpolicy.org website and it has a link to some slides by Fasy. Most of the presentation is tables of statistics with no source material for them; and photographs of deformed children. (Rather unpleasant to look at.) Near p. 34 the presentation acknowledges that there was not independent measure of exposure, and that there was no control city for Basrah, the city that was studied. Near p. 44 we find the only citation in the presentation. It is a paper titled "Radiation Risk Of Low Fluences of Alpha Particles May Be Greater Than We Thought." (Zhou, et al., PNAS 98:14410-14415; 2001) Around pp. 45-50 the author gives some superficial facts about uranium chemistry. Around p.53 a slide acknowledges that some of the neural tube defects may be caused by a folic acid deficiency. Presumably this is a reference to some of the deformed children. Technically, JS's "citation" is a citation. Because the presentation has no citations for any of its data, it is worthless. And of course, the presentation admitted itself that it has some limitations no control city, for example. That's a significant deficiency, wouldn't you say, James? If you are reading this, James, you said you had "plenty" of citations. How about one that is somewhat scholarly? (A word of warning to RADSAFErs. If you have a dial-up modem this presentation has a lot of color and pictures, and is very slow and cumbersome.) Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From lars.ingeman at telia.com Sat Jan 20 02:24:37 2007 From: lars.ingeman at telia.com (Lars Persson) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:24:37 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dale Preston Message-ID: Have you heard of epidemiologist Dale Preston - he worked in Japan at RERF? I have lost contact wth him. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 From Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us Sat Jan 20 02:43:57 2007 From: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us (Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:43:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dale Preston References: Message-ID: <819D4259707E404C934FBF454FF36AEE08F215@ES-MSG-002.es.govt.state.ma.us> Hello Lars, See: Dale Preston, PhD Hirosoft International 1335 H Street Eureka, CA 95501 preston at hirosoft.net Regards, Jim Muckerheide -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Lars Persson Sent: Sat 1/20/2007 3:24 AM To: Radsafe Message Cc: Grace Lossman Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dale Preston Have you heard of epidemiologist Dale Preston - he worked in Japan at RERF? I have lost contact wth him. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Jan 20 10:04:58 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:04:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> 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 > > -----Urspr?ngliche 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 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 10:13:35 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <272596.27084.qm@web81809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <826534.8316.qm@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, I believe that I offered copies of the original paper when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one to Jim. Did you need a copy? I think that you not only chery-picked the sentences, but also do not understand what was written. You may understand the differences between solid tumors and leukemias. There are also differences between cancer incidents and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would bias the data. --- howard long wrote: > Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > hear from. > > As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most > significant part of the > Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its > ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report > finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by > official records) when 126 would be expected in > those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 > rem, 40 rad) over 20 years . > > This confirms amazing evidence for safety and > effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will > employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds > of new nuclear power plants in the USA then. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > 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).? > > > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > > of mortality data. > > No answer to, > > Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis > > Against Cancer? by Chen, Luan et al on the same > > population, published in J Am. Phys. & Surg. 9:1 > > Spring 2004 available at www.AAPSonline.org > > Therein, Death Cause Statistics Abstract of the > > Health and Vital Statistics for the population of > > Taiwan published yearly by the Department of > Health > > showed, > > ? ? only two leukemia and five solid cancer > > deaths were observed.? Chen et al [Luan]comment, > > ?Based on the ICRP model, 70 excess leukemia and > > solid cancer deaths would be reasonably expected > > after 20 years, in addition to a number of > > spontaneous cancer deaths.? > > > > Leukemia, lymphoma and thyroid cancer incidences > > do seem higher with that dose of radiation. > Chang?s > > table III shows: Observed 39, Expected 14.7. The > > absence of deaths [except for 2 leukemia] in 20 > > years of mortality statistics by Chen, suggests > less > > severe and more treatable disease, perhaps made so > > by the radiation. > > > > John, who is confused or attempting to obfuscate > > these clear results? Me? You? The Environmental > > establishment? > > > > Viva hormesis! > > > > Howard Long > > > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > Dr. Long, > > As you are aware, the NSWS has been questioned as > a > > reliable study, and the recently published study > of > > the Taiwan apartment dwellers do not support your > > beliefs. Neither work involves a "one tail test." > > > > Is your comment about the Kyoto paper supposed to > > confuse you message any more than it already it? > > > > --- howard long wrote: > > > > > John, > > > Is your comment from judging others' actions by > > > your own? > > > > > > In fact, the Taiwan establishment and NSWS > > > establishment not only used a one tail test, > > showing > > > only harm and not benefit, they even distorted > the > > > abstract to give the opposite impression of a > > > critical review of the data in the papers, like > > the > > > Kyoto writer of their paper on global warming. > > > > > > Dr. Cameron did write me before he died and used > > > some of my suggestions to make his language > > > unmistakable, that with p<0.001 (or more 0s in > > > there) the life expectancy was improved by the > > extra > > > radiation. That is a historic conclusion, one > > hidden > > > by your bureacracy, presumably to protect your > > jobs. > > > > > > Howard Long > > > > > > John Jacobus wrote: > > > Assuming you sent the information before Dr. > > > Cameron > > > died, what did he conclude? Of course, the > results > > > of > > > the NSWS were questioned so what does that > > indicate? > > > > > > Poor epidemiological studies should be consided > > good > > > enough if the results are what you want? > > > > > > --- Jerry Cuttler wrote: > > > > > > > I asked Bernie Cohen what a 40% reduction in > > > > mortality of the NSWs meant in terms of > > increased > > > > life expectancy. > > > > I recall Bernie's calculation that indicated a > > 2.8 > > > > year increase in life expectancy. I sent > > Bernie's > > > > calculation to John Cameron. > > > > Jerry > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ > ?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.? > -- John F. Kennedy > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > > === 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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Sat Jan 20 10:47:29 2007 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 08:47:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How? References: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: Maury&Dog and Marc Morano wrote and Jim Dukelow interpolates some comments: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Maury Siskel Sent: Fri 1/19/2007 3:18 PM To: Mailing List for Risk Professionals; radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Electric power. How? This brief article is related to radiation safety and risk to the extent that anthropogenic global warming (GW) is related to nuclear power vs. other means of power production. This anecdotal article sums the issue well aside from the fact that all of us know excellent scientists who, without pay, are convinced mistakenly of the human role in GW. The idea of decertifying GW Skeptics is about as silly as adults can be. Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) PS What was polar bear population 20-30 years ago compared with most recent survey? ======================== AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION January 19, 2007 Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano at epw.senate.gov After Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 "In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education. Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188 The Weather Channel Mess January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed Well, well. Some "climate expert" on "The Weather Channel" wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent "global warming" is a natural process. So much for "tolerance", huh? [JSD comment -- There is a more generous possible interpretation of Heidi Cullen's suggestion that the AMS should not be "certifying" broadcast meteorlogist that do not believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The AMS, like the Health Physics Society and many other professional societies, has developed a number of consensus position papers on science policy issues, in an attempt to give the wider society and its leaders the benefit of their considered position on the scientific issues involved. In July 2005, the AMS issued a position paper, , that simply endorses the "Joint Academies Statement: Global Response to Climate Change", issued by the national academies of science of Braxil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Joint Academies Statement is available at . In February 2003, the AMS issued a position paper, "Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences" . This position paper is one of the nicer short summaries of the state of climate science (as of early 2003) and the conclusions that ought to be drawn from a balanced consideration of what we knew about climate. End JSD comment] I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. [JSD comment: The Romans had a name for this argument -- ad hominem. End JSD comment] *The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe. [JSD comment: The Romans also had a name for this argument -- non sequitur. The fact, admitted by all who study climatology, that climate is naturally variable on every time scale, due to variability in insolation and volcanic eruptions and to the internal dynamics of the complex, non-linear, climate dynamical system, neither confirms nor refutes the separate assertion that man's interactions with the global environment are leading to global warming and other climate changes. End JSD comment] If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue. In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science. WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast. I have nothing against "The Weather Channel", but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won't go. [JSD comment -- What Heidi Cullen and number of others within the climatology community (see and do a search on "AMS certification") are saying is that the AMS should not give its "Seal of Approval" to weather broadcasters who deny the accepted consensus on global climate change. Cullen and the others are not contesting Morano's right to state his beliefs, they are simply saying he should not be able to do it with the AMS imprimatur. End JSD comments] 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 hflong at pacbell.net Sat Jan 20 11:08:49 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:08:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <826534.8316.qm@web54304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <834360.20640.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> JJ, 1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer). 2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, I believe that I offered copies of the original paper when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one to Jim. Did you need a copy? I think that you not only chery-picked the sentences, but also do not understand what was written. You may understand the differences between solid tumors and leukemias. There are also differences between cancer incidents and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would bias the data. --- howard long wrote: > Do you still offer to send the whole article on-line > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. Any > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > hear from. > > As Muckerheide also pointed out, the most > significant part of the > Chang-establishment-environmentalist article was its > ABSENCE of dispute of Chen, Luan et al report > finding only 6 total cancer deaths observed (by > official records) when 126 would be expected in > those ~7,271 people exposed to av 0.4 Sv (40 cSv, 40 > rem, 40 rad) over 20 years . > > This confirms amazing evidence for safety and > effectiveness of a new treatment that I predict will > employ more HPs 20 years from now than the hundreds > of new nuclear power plants in the USA then. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > 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).? > > > > More seriously misleading is the complete absence > > of mortality data. From radbloom at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 13:01:58 2007 From: radbloom at comcast.net (Cindy Bloom) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:01:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: SI units In-Reply-To: <45B08363.6090707@tpg.com.au> References: <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> <200701190443.l0J4hdRn016240@mail10.tpgi.com.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20070120135838.03754948@mail.comcast.net> And I learned that a ton was 2000 pounds (versus 2240 pounds), but when I got older I found out there are short tons and long tons and both are called commonly called a ton. At 06:37 PM 1/19/2007 +1000, Mark Sonter wrote: >Deary me! > >I remember as a kid learning 12 inches equals 1 foot, 3 ft equals 1 yard >5-and-a-half yards one rod pole or perch, 16 ounces equals 1 pound, 2240 >pounds one ton, etc etc; not to mention 32 poundals one pound force, and >something about slugs...and horsepower, BTUs, bushels, and acre-feet; but >maybe I'm wrong. > >No wonder NASA lost the Mars lander, if it was trying to work in both >imperial and metric.... > >And then at university came the blessed discovery of first the cgs system >of units and then the kgs system, now SI. > >Then when I was teaching physics in Papua New Guinea, we, following >Australia, 'went metric', and at last gallons (two types, US and >Imperial), ounces (two types, Troy and Avoidupois), Fahrenheit, psi, and a >host of other awful units were rendered obsolete. > >Then I went off and did my Medical Physics, and learned pCi and rem, and, >God help us, Roentgens; and then I got beaten up by a curmudgeonly state >regulator who refused to talk in other than Bq and Sv (and rightly so, as >SI was now enshrined in national legislation). There were a few cases of >mixed up units and accidentally ablated thyroids (not on my watch: I was >counting mSv in a uranium mine..) > >All I can say to our US colleagues is: try to embrace and encourage the >transition: make it as fast as possible: other countries have done it; it >will in the end save you immense brain energy on essentially wasted work; >and you (and the rest of the world) will then ultimately breathe a huge >sigh of relief. > >Mark Sonter From fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jan 21 04:42:37 2007 From: fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:42:37 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russian nuclear sub may be raised with the help of British experts Message-ID: <001b01c73d48$de264c60$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> Sunday Times reports British to help raise Russian nuclear sub http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2557885,00.html A RUSTING Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the Barents Sea with the loss of nine crewmen may be raised from the ocean bed next summer with the help of British experts. A Ministry of Defence salvage team will examine the vessel's two nuclear reactors before deciding whether it can be raised from a depth of more than 900ft. The K-159, a November-class submarine commissioned in 1962, sank when it was hit by a storm while being towed to be scrapped in September 2003. The Russian government was embarrassed by its loss, 40 miles off the coast of the Arctic Circle city of Murmansk. Its reactors are filled with three-quarters of a ton of spent uranium. The vessel is lying at more than twice the depth from which the Kursk - the nuclear submarine that sank in 2000, killing its 118-man crew - was raised. "There's an element of fear of the unknown here," said Morgyn Davis, project team leader for salvage and marine at the Defence Logistics Organisation, whose team is consulting the Russian authorities about the K-159. We have towed nuclear submarines before and we have practical experience with nukes, which obviously very few nations have. " The Norwegian government, which was given responsibility by the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial nations for overseeing the post-cold war clean-up of ageing military equipment in the Arctic, has come in for criticism over the sinking. Norway largely financed the disastrous Russian towing operation in which four rusting pontoons, built in 1942, were used as a support structure for the submarine. After the sinking, Britain stepped in and offered its services, playing a key role in towing two remaining November-class submarines safely across the Barents Sea. The British team will now work with Norwegian and Canadian diving experts and Dutch salvage engineers. Currently engaged in keeping the oil tanks of the sunken battleship Royal Oak from leaking into Scapa Flow, Davis's team last raised a submarine in 1985. It was also involved with a British company whose submersible rescued seven Russians in the mini-submarine Priz off Kamchatka in the Russian Far East in August 2005. "We've worked closely with the Russian government and we think we understand what's involved with the K-159," said Davis. "The first thing to do is to get down to the wreck in remote-control submersibles, cut the pontoon wires around the submarine and put sensors on to check for radiation. We think it is flooded with water, so raising it like that, from that depth, would be very difficult." If the hull is intact the team may pump in compressed air to allow the K-159 to rise with the assistance of balloons. If the vessel is too badly damaged it may just be entombed in concrete and left on the seabed. According to some reports the hatches were open at the time of the sinking - to allow the crew to get air. Shortly after the accident, retired Admiral Eduard Baltin revealed that the K-159 had been taking water during its last mission in 1983. He said that placing men on the crumbling submarine "was like putting them in a barrel full of holes". The families of the submariners who died welcomed the news that Britain may help raise the K-159. They have fought to have the vessel brought back to the surface since 2003 and are now suing the Russian government for compensation. "The defence ministry has been promising to raise the sub for three years now, so it's high time it happened," said Valentina Lappa, the widow of the K-159's commander, Sergei Lappa. "We've been treated with utter disregard. We have no place to mourn our loved ones. There may still be some remains in the submarine. Our men deserve a proper burial. I have no husband and no tombstone, only a terrible void." Fred Dawson fwp_dawson at hotmail.com From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 21 14:51:04 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:51:04 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Foes blast nuclear plant, NRC Message-ID: <45B38BE8.25685.3E9D7A@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Foes blast nuclear plant, NRC Waste disposal at Yucca Mountain unsafe Lawmakers to consider bill for building new nuclear plant Jordan seeks nuclear power for peaceful means Radiation release, false data prompt Hanford safety review Dirt near nuclear plant not dangerous =========================== Foes blast nuclear plant, NRC BERKELEY Asbury Park Press - Jan 21 - George Cox doesn't see the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant as a local issue. Rather, the township resident sees the concerns many have about the plant and other nuclear facilities -- such as safety and security from terrorism -- as issues that could potentially affect the entire globe. "We're all in the same boat," Cox said. "The whole planet could be affected by this." Cox was one of more than 50 people who turned out Saturday morning to hear a discussion by three activists who oppose the relicensing. The forum, held at the Ocean County Library's Berkeley branch, was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Ocean County. The organization's leaders have also taken a stand against extending the plant's operations. The speakers raised many of the issues that opponents of the plant have cited, such as the contention that the plant is no longer safe due to corrosion of its radiation barrier and other factors and that it is ill-prepared for a terrorist attack. But they also said there are problems in the relicensing process itself. For instance, Paul Gunter, who directs the reactor watchdog project of the Nuclear Information and Resources Service, accused the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission of being too sympathetic to the nuclear industry to objectively evaluate plant safety. "The issue of lack of federal regulatory oversight, not just at Oyster Creek but as a national issue, is as compelling as the deterioration of containment at Oyster Creek," Gunter told the audience. Corrosion of the drywell liner -- or radiation barrier -- has been one of the most scrutinized issues of the relicensing application. Portions of the liner have been found to be significantly thinner than when the plant was constructed in the late 1960s, which opponents of the plant have argued poses an unacceptable safety risk. Richard Webster, an attorney with the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic who is representing renewal opponents from the Shore area, also said on Saturday that Oyster Creek's design is fundamentally unsafe. As the first commercial nuclear plant in the nation, the plant was built at a time when there was still much to be learned about nuclear power and that the federal government no longer allows plants of Oyster Creek's design to be constructed, Webster said. "You can be in favor of nuclear power and still want to see Oyster Creek closed down," he said. AmerGen officials weren't invited to the forum. However, the company maintains that the plant operates safely and can continue to do for another 20 years. Rachelle Benson, a plant spokeswoman, said $1.2 billion in upgrades have been made to the plant since it was built. "Oyster Creek is safe," she said. "If we weren't safe, we wouldn't continue to operate." ------------------ Waste disposal at Yucca Mountain unsafe Myrtle Beach On-line Jan 21 - The Jan. 6 opinion piece by State Sen. William Mescher, "Nuclear energy could ease power concerns," is just plain wrong when it states that the reason the federal government's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program for spent nuclear fuel is on the brink of collapse is a NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) reaction on the part of the state of Nevada. In fact, it is Yucca Mountain's intrinsic and unfixable flaws and the federal government's shoddy and politically motivated science that have left the nation and Nevada with a site that is incapable of isolating deadly radioactive waste for the long time period necessary. Another fact Mescher missed is the reality that Yucca Mountain is not needed for the so-called nuclear renaissance. Spent fuel is perfectly safe and secure at existing and new power plants, with improved dry storage technologies making such storage even safer and more economical. It is certainly much safer than having tens of thousands of shipments of deadly radioactive waste traversing the nation's highways and railroads over a period of three decades or more to an unsafe disposal site in Nevada. If NIMBY is, in fact, at work in this regard, the irrational push by commercial nuclear utility companies to get spent fuel out of their backyards and into an unsuitable and unsafe site in Nevada is a prime example. -------------- Lawmakers to consider bill for building new nuclear plant Topeka Lawrence Journal World Jan 21 - As the state tries to chart an energy course, Kansas lawmakers will consider a measure aimed at providing incentives to build a nuclear power plant. The legislation - HB 2038 - is one of numerous proposals in the hopper on energy issues, which has become a major topic for the 2007 Legislature. A public hearing on the measure is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday before the House Energy and Utilities Committee. State Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, a member of the committee, said there are no plans currently to build a nuclear plant in Kansas. The bill, he said, "is a recognition that as we look at energy independence for the state, nuclear, renewable energy and coal all have a place," Sloan said. He added that for the first time in years, "there are noises nationally of restarting this nation?s nuclear program." Driving that in part is the rising cost of fossil fuels and the health implications of building new plants powered by climate changing sources, such as coal. State officials currently are reviewing a request to build three 700-megawatt coal-fired plants in western Kansas. The legislation would exempt from property taxes any new nuclear generation or new facility at the Wolf Creek nuclear plant near Burlington. The owners of Wolf Creek, which started operating in 1985, have recently applied for a 20-year extension of its operating license, but say there are no plans to build additional capacity there. "We are not looking at any kind of expansion at Wolf Creek," said Gina Penzig, a spokeswoman for Westar Energy, which owns 47 percent of the plant. "The capital costs are just too large for a utility our size." An extension of the plant?s license would extend the facility?s use from 2025 to 2045. Sloan said if nuclear energy becomes economically and politically feasible, then the legislation would help lay the groundwork for an effort to expand nuclear power. While many countries have increased dependence on nuclear power, nuclear energy development practically halted in the United States because of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania and the problem of where to store high-level nuclear waste. Wolf Creek officials have said the plant site has enough space to store its waste through 2025, and hope that by then the federal government will have approved a national storage site. However, a proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been stalled for years by environmental groups and Nevada officials. Bill Griffith, president of the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said the group is adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. He said the expense of nuclear power and the unresolved issue of a permanent storage site make it untenable. "So much can be done with efficiency and renewables," Griffith said. "We have just barely touched energy efficiency and wind. Why even talk about nuclear?" It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different. In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming. Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long- term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations. Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease. Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic. The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year. ----------------- Jordan seeks nuclear power for peaceful means JERUSALEM (AFP) - Jordan wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful means, King Abdullah II said in an interview. "The Egyptians are looking for a nuclear program. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are looking at one, and we are actually looking at nuclear power for peaceful and energy purposes. We've been discussing it with the West," he told Israel's Haaretz daily newspaper. "I personally believe that any country that has a nuclear program should conform to international regulations and should have international regulatory bodies that check to make sure that any nuclear program moves in the right direction," he told the liberal daily. "The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region. Where I think Jordan was saying, 'we'd like to have a nuclear- free zone in the area,' after this summer, everybody's going for nuclear programs," the Jordanian king said. Israel is considered the sole, albeit undeclared, nuclear power in the region. But following Iran's development of a nuclear project, several Arab countries have announced their desire to acquire nuclear technology. --------------- Radiation release, false data prompt Hanford safety review RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) Jan 19 - A radiation leak just days after the discovery that an employee had falsified records halted some cleanup efforts at the Hanford nuclear reservation so workers could take a "safety break." The safety review Wednesday affected about 1,000 employees and subcontractors of Washington Closure Hanford, which is cleaning up contaminated areas near former reactor sites along the Columbia River. Workers returned to their jobs Thursday, Washington Closure spokesman Todd Nelson said. On Tuesday, radioactive tritium contamination was found to have spread outside a tent where radiological work was being performed near the closed B and C reactors on the nuclear reservation's north side. The levels of contamination were too low to require reporting and were not believed to have affected worker health, Nelson said. It is too early to say whether the U.S. Department of Energy will fine the company, Nelson said Thursday. "They're going to have to say," he said. "We're taking aggressive action to get work going and make sure it doesn't happen again." DOE spokeswoman Colleen French did not immediately return a call for comment from The Associated Press on Thursday. Washington Closure and Energy Department officials were working on a decontamination plan for the tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that spreads easily because it binds with oxygen. The spread of tritium and the problem with landfill compacting records discovered last week "make us concerned about the conduct of operations," said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the cleanup project. EPA will discuss its concerns with DOE and Washington Closure officials, he said. Tritium, which is used in hydrogen bombs, was produced at Hanford reactors from 1949-1952 until its production was moved elsewhere. The leak occurred after workers tapped a small canister Friday that was among debris retrieved from a burial ground that held waste from Hanford's B Reactor and nearby buildings. They discovered tritium gas inside. Work inside the radiological tent was halted Monday after tritium contamination was found. Additional tests found the contamination had been tracked outside the tent. Washington Closure has about 700 workers and its subcontractors have about 300. The company is in charge of cleaning 761 waste sites and burial grounds contaminated by radioactive and chemical wastes. The radiation contamination comes on the heels of the discovery last Friday that a subcontractor employee had falsified records at a low- level radioactive waste landfill. S.M. Stoller, which operates the landfill, said that one employee had been recording compaction test data even though he had not performed the test at times over the past year. The test ensures that compacting of waste is adequate so that contents won't settle and possibly affect the integrity of an engineered cap that will cover the landfill. The Energy Department's primary concern has been working with Washington Closure to ensure employees are safe and the environment is protected, French told the Tri-City Herald on Wednesday. The agency is looking at the circumstances surrounding the tritium contamination, she said. "While this is tough work, worker safety is the department's priority and any action or process breakdown that calls that into question is simply unacceptable," she said. "That's what we'll be looking at as we continue to gather facts and examine the causes." --------------- Dirt near nuclear plant not dangerous PADUCAH Lexington Hearald Leader Jan 21- The dirt and rubble piles in the creeks and ditches around the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant are not contaminated by radiation that could endanger the public, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Surveyors from the federal department inspected more than 30 miles around the plant and, in most cases, found no contamination above natural radiation in the soil, said Bill Murphie, manager of the Energy Department's project office overseeing the nuclear plants in Paducah and Piketon, Ohio. "None of these piles have shown any evidence of levels of potential contamination unacceptable to and threatening the public," Murphie said. The investigation, done with state and federal environmental regulators, grew out of a discovery in November of seven mounds of low-level radioactive dirt east of the plant in the West Kentucky Wildlife Area. Those mounds had the highest radioactivity levels of any found, but were essentially harmless, Murphie said. "If you sat there on the dirt continuously for three days, your dose (exposure) would be equivalent to a dental X-ray," he said. The dirt piles also had traces of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. PCBs and radiation are common contaminants of the uranium enrichment plant. Before they were banned, PCBs were in oily insulators for the plant's massive electrical system. The search has found 100 dirt piles and 50 mounds of concrete rubble around the plant or in the surrounding wildlife area, Murphie said. Much of the dirt is believed to have come from dredging Little and Big Bayou creeks 20 to 30 years ago, and some of the rubble piles came from old plant construction work, he said. "In most cases, no contamination was found," he said. "There were a few detectable levels above background (natural radiation). 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sun Jan 21 21:20:53 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:20:53 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? In-Reply-To: <20070119092651.41216.qmail@web26405.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c73dd4$5abe23c0$49197254@pc1> Dear collegue, Since I assume that you have a wide knowledge about not only the "Indian subcontinent", but also about countries in the far east I would seriously like to invite you to comment not only to me, but also to the RADSAFE community about the status of SI units in the Far East. I know that at least a few years ago Japan still officially had the outdated old units, but all my collegues I met during a month of intensive visits to many institutions there, that all my collegues and friends used SI-units. How is it in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Korea (from my visits I know that the scientists use SI-units there as well as in China), etc. etc. I would appreciate your input to this discussion. Sincerely Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! From rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk Mon Jan 22 00:39:44 2007 From: rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk (Cheng Kit-man) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:39:44 +0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors; intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? In-Reply-To: <000001c73dd4$5abe23c0$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <000d01c73df0$1d783110$51950d0a@rhu.dh.gov.hk> In Hong Kong SAR China, we introduced metrication to our radiation regulations in 1982. We have been applying primarily SI to radiation measurement and reporting since. Clement K M CHENG Radiation Health Unit, DH Direct Line: +852 2977 1888 E-mail: rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?hofer Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:21 AM To: 'parthasarathy k s'; 'Sandy Perle'; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors;intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? Dear collegue, Since I assume that you have a wide knowledge about not only the "Indian subcontinent", but also about countries in the far east I would seriously like to invite you to comment not only to me, but also to the RADSAFE community about the status of SI units in the Far East. I know that at least a few years ago Japan still officially had the outdated old units, but all my collegues I met during a month of intensive visits to many institutions there, that all my collegues and friends used SI-units. How is it in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Korea (from my visits I know that the scientists use SI-units there as well as in China), etc. etc. I would appreciate your input to this discussion. Sincerely Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! _______________________________________________ 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 maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jan 22 02:05:12 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:05:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Electric power. How? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B47038.5080900@peoplepc.com> Hi Robert, Nawww, Maury wrote that piece; I only collaborated with a little editing here and there. Among other features, however, I did ensure that he said the piece was anecdotal. He never suggested that I should rouse myself from my food bowl -- neither of us sleeps in my food bowl and neither of us is given to brutish yelling nor to assuming that other humans are poor and benighted requiring some kind of enlightenment. -- he likes rib eye steaks and I really love Milk-Bones. Your choice of words makes me wonder if you think I'm a little pig-headed. Were you unhappy with your dog when you were a youngster? We do really try hard to be lovable. Maury taught me that we all make mistakes; that we often differ, but that those characteristics are OK -- we still try to stay cool and not hurt each other. So far in my own 13 years, I've never bitten anyone or jumped on a toddler to push them over ... don't think he has either -- in fact, he's older than dirt and can't jump at all anymore. I understand that human bites are really dangerous! I had no knowledge of this Marc Morano -- we were merely attracted to the content of his writing. We are familiar with the views of Dr. Gray and of John Christy as well as the conflicting, but scholarly, opinions of many on these Lists. We simply interpret the science differently. I'd like to note in passing my canineocentric skepticism of Spann's claims about other meteorologists; but that's OK too. It happens. Maury referenced my polar bear friends because yes, the data are readily available suggesting that their numbers were severely diminished 20-30 years ago when they were still hunted. However, they seem now to be thriving since the change in hunting status. Thus, I'm very dubious about enriching the Fish and Wildlife agencies by unnecessarily placing my brethren on endangered species lists. You guys like to watch the bears -- we enjoy watching your antics. (I'll have to look up the citation for these data if required) Finally, please note that there seems little argument now about global warming. There is, however, intense disagreement about the genesis and future course of that warming -- given that you guys don't fare too well on the weather forecasts for ten days from now. Best arfs to all, Dog&Maury (maurysis at peoplepc.com) PS. Maury lets me read his email until I get my own address. Best, Jake (Dog) ========================== Robert Beck wrote: >Dear Dog, > >I assume you are the author of the series of posts signed "Maury&Dog" rather than this Maury person, whoever he may be, given the nature of the series. > >It is most dog-like how you doggedly rouse yourself from your food bowl to loyally send some enlightenment to us poor, benighted humans and we do appreciate it for what it's worth. > >However, it needs to be pointed out that you are making the classic caninocentric intellectual mistake by assuming that people, like dogs, respond to repeated, brutish yelling. You would do better to > ----------------snipped---------------- From jsalsman at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 04:54:34 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:54:34 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers Message-ID: The original peer-reviewed citation to the Med J Basra U is: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm Sincerely, James Salsman From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Mon Jan 22 07:01:19 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:01:19 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> References: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA011079FF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> 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 -----Urspr?ngliche 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 > > -----Urspr?ngliche 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 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." -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From Morten.Sickel at nrpa.no Mon Jan 22 09:33:59 2007 From: Morten.Sickel at nrpa.no (Morten Sickel) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:33:59 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russian nuclear sub may be raised with the help ofBritish experts In-Reply-To: <001b01c73d48$de264c60$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> References: <001b01c73d48$de264c60$0200a8c0@DG47BM0J> Message-ID: <2326C830ADA651438DC694248E5FEF60F9847C@mailix.NRPA.LOCAL> I don't know the general journalistic standards of the sunday times, but Norway was by no means involved in the towing of K-159. We were, on the other hand togheter with UK within the AMEC cooperation involved in the sucessfull transport of another November class sub, 291 on a heavy lift vessel late last summer. Morten Sickel Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Fred Dawson Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 11:43 AM To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russian nuclear sub may be raised with the help ofBritish experts Sunday Times reports British to help raise Russian nuclear sub http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2557885,00.html A RUSTING Russian nuclear submarine that sank in the Barents Sea with the loss of nine crewmen may be raised from the ocean bed next summer with the help of British experts. A Ministry of Defence salvage team will examine the vessel's two nuclear reactors before deciding whether it can be raised from a depth of more than 900ft. The K-159, a November-class submarine commissioned in 1962, sank when it was hit by a storm while being towed to be scrapped in September 2003. The Russian government was embarrassed by its loss, 40 miles off the coast of the Arctic Circle city of Murmansk. Its reactors are filled with three-quarters of a ton of spent uranium. The vessel is lying at more than twice the depth from which the Kursk - the nuclear submarine that sank in 2000, killing its 118-man crew - was raised. "There's an element of fear of the unknown here," said Morgyn Davis, project team leader for salvage and marine at the Defence Logistics Organisation, whose team is consulting the Russian authorities about the K-159. We have towed nuclear submarines before and we have practical experience with nukes, which obviously very few nations have. " The Norwegian government, which was given responsibility by the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial nations for overseeing the post-cold war clean-up of ageing military equipment in the Arctic, has come in for criticism over the sinking. Norway largely financed the disastrous Russian towing operation in which four rusting pontoons, built in 1942, were used as a support structure for the submarine. After the sinking, Britain stepped in and offered its services, playing a key role in towing two remaining November-class submarines safely across the Barents Sea. The British team will now work with Norwegian and Canadian diving experts and Dutch salvage engineers. Currently engaged in keeping the oil tanks of the sunken battleship Royal Oak from leaking into Scapa Flow, Davis's team last raised a submarine in 1985. It was also involved with a British company whose submersible rescued seven Russians in the mini-submarine Priz off Kamchatka in the Russian Far East in August 2005. "We've worked closely with the Russian government and we think we understand what's involved with the K-159," said Davis. "The first thing to do is to get down to the wreck in remote-control submersibles, cut the pontoon wires around the submarine and put sensors on to check for radiation. We think it is flooded with water, so raising it like that, from that depth, would be very difficult." If the hull is intact the team may pump in compressed air to allow the K-159 to rise with the assistance of balloons. If the vessel is too badly damaged it may just be entombed in concrete and left on the seabed. According to some reports the hatches were open at the time of the sinking - to allow the crew to get air. Shortly after the accident, retired Admiral Eduard Baltin revealed that the K-159 had been taking water during its last mission in 1983. He said that placing men on the crumbling submarine "was like putting them in a barrel full of holes". The families of the submariners who died welcomed the news that Britain may help raise the K-159. They have fought to have the vessel brought back to the surface since 2003 and are now suing the Russian government for compensation. "The defence ministry has been promising to raise the sub for three years now, so it's high time it happened," said Valentina Lappa, the widow of the K-159's commander, Sergei Lappa. "We've been treated with utter disregard. We have no place to mourn our loved ones. There may still be some remains in the submarine. Our men deserve a proper burial. I have no husband and no tombstone, only a terrible void." Fred Dawson fwp_dawson at hotmail.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 larry.romanowich at brucepower.com Mon Jan 22 09:38:28 2007 From: larry.romanowich at brucepower.com (ROMANOWICH Larry(L) - BRUCE POWER) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:38:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy Message-ID: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7@BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> Hi: Does anyone have a good working description of how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons? Thanks. Larry Romanowich Bruce Power (519) 361-2673 ext 1565 ************************************************************************************************** *** The contents of this email and any attachments *** are confidential and may be privileged. *** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. *** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the *** sender to that effect, don?t forward the message to anyone *** and delete the message from your computer. *** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience. ************************************************************************************************** From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 22 09:41:19 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:41:19 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] =?utf-8?b?TmV3IG51Y2xlYXIgcG93ZXIg4oCYd2F2ZeKAmSA=?= =?utf-8?b?4oCUIG9yIGp1c3QgYSByaXBwbGU/?= Message-ID: <45B494CF.22025.4496D58@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: New nuclear power `wave? - or just a ripple? German nuclear phase-out will hit emission target Nuclear Areva targets clean power Truck with radioactive material swept away by swollne creek Russia, Algeria plan cooperation on nuclear power Qatar - Seven more stations to monitor radiation ================================== New nuclear power `wave? - or just a ripple? How millions for lobbying, campaigns helped fuel U.S. industry's big plans In a debate certain to be replayed over and over again in the next few years, residents of Lacey Township, N.J., debate the future of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant -- the nation's oldest operating nuclear facility -- as its operators seek a 20-year extension of its operating license. Buoyed by billions of dollars in subsidies pushed through Congress by the Bush administration, the U.S. nuclear power industry says 2007 is the year its plans for a "renaissance" will reach critical mass. "We see a wave," said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry?s chief lobbying arm, pointing to letters of intent by a dozen firms to seek licenses for as many as 31 new nuclear power plants. "We definitely believe it?s going to be a whole new era of new plant construction in this country." Kerekes credits improvements in plant design and efficiency and the ability to operate without spewing carbon into the air - a key advantage amid mounting concern about global warming - as chief reasons for the resurgence. But critics say the real catalyst has been well-funded lobbying by the industry. They believe tax dollars spent to jump-start the dormant industry would be better devoted to alternative energy sources like wind and solar power. "If this were a renaissance, you wouldn?t need to be enticing giant corporations with subsidies in order to get them to build reactors they claim are economically viable," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for the environmental group Greenpeace, a staunch foe of nuclear energy. A remarkable turnaround Regardless of which side is eventually proved correct, the mere discussion of building dozens of new plants is a remarkable turnaround for an industry that less than 10 years ago was widely viewed as the energy sector?s unsafe and expensive also-ran. And it?s a textbook case of how the wheels of government can change direction quickly when enough money, influence and political will are applied. Nuclear power proponents say the interest in new plants is just one sign that the technology may finally be on the verge of achieving the widespread acceptance and use they have long envisioned. Among them: The relicensing of four dozen U.S. commercial reactors. The emergence of well-known environmentalists as supporters of nuclear technology. Groundbreaking for a new uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico. A breathtakingly ambitious Bush administration plan for a global nuclear fuel cartel to light up the developing world with electricity while avoiding the threat of nuclear proliferation. Ardent foes of nuclear energy like Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resources Service respond that these actions all are the result of pro-nuclear work by industry supporters in Congress and the Bush administration, not a genuine watershed in how investors and the public view nuclear power. "There?s a big difference between a letter of intent and the filing of an application," he said of the new plants, predicting that problems with waste disposal, safety and security will ultimately stall what he refers to as a nuclear power "relapse." And while key committee chairmanships will remain in the hands of strong pro-nuclear lawmakers, the retaking of Congress by the Democrats could also present some roadblocks, especially on the central issue of waste, he said. That lawmakers are once more considering such issues shows how far the nuclear energy needle has moved since the mid-1990s. Three Mile Island: The last straw After its birth as an outgrowth of weapons programs in World War II, the nuclear energy industry battled design problems, cost overruns, safety issues and environmental foes for years to wind up with the 103 U.S. reactors that remain in commercial operation today from California to New Hampshire. As construction delays and costs escalated, the meltdown at Pennsylvania?s Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the spring of 1979 was the last straw for those who held the purse strings to new reactor construction. No new commercial reactors have been ordered since, although previously ordered plants continued to be built and come online until 1996. The 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia, which is blamed for about 60 deaths by the World Health Organization, further tarnished the technology?s image. At that point, "any talk about a new plant (in the U.S.) would have been dismissed as childish optimism," admits nuclear power?s chief congressional cheerleader, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. While accidents and economics halted nuclear expansion in the U.S., they did not have the same impact elsewhere. Of the 322 operating electricity-generating reactors currently in operation outside the United States, 171 began operating in the 1980s, 48 in the 1990s and 28 so far this century, according to the NEI. Twenty-nine more plants are under construction outside the country, and 10 nations get more than 40 percent of their electricity from nuclear reactors, led by France at 78.5 percent. In the U.S., chastened nuclear operators focused on improving safety and efficiency at existing plants. They were successful: There have been no notable U.S. accidents since Three Mile Island and the U.S. reactor fleet has produced at about 90 percent of licensed capacity since 2001, up considerably from efficiency figures of the early 1980s. Nuclear plants today produce about 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States. Industry improvements are "an outgrowth, in all honesty, of the Three Mile Island accident," NEI's Kerekes said, "because the steps that were taken after that do a better job of sharing information in our industry and applying best practices." Industry gets a second wind The industry?s first big step in its transformation from bastard stepchild to energy panacea and clean air savior came in 1997. That?s when Domenici delivered what he calls a "storied speech on nuclear power" at Harvard. The veteran senator was well-acquainted with nuclear issues by virtue of representing New Mexico, the birthplace of nuclear weapons and the home of two of the nation?s nuclear laboratories. Long fascinated by "gee-whiz-bang technical stuff," in the words of one acquaintance, and mindful of the nuclear industry?s improving efficiency record, Domenici became convinced the technology was not getting a fair shake. Urged on by a number of true believer aides that included Alex Flint, now the industry?s chief lobbyist, and Pete Lyons, now a Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, Domenici urged U.S. policy-makers to undo "bad decisions" of the past and harness "the full potential of the nucleus." The Domenici speech was followed up by a 1998 forum that gathered 60 participants from industry, government and academia to draft a plan to put nuclear power back on the nation?s energy agenda. With those talking points in hand, the industry saw its best opening in years in the 2000 presidential election and backed the Bush-Cheney ticket with nearly $270,000 in contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The victorious Republicans welcomed industry representatives to their energy transition team and later private discussions by Vice President Dick Cheney?s task force on energy. Familiar names from the 1998 forum popped up on the energy transition team: Flint, Domenici's former aide who was in between Senate staff jobs and working as a lobbyist for the industry; Flint?s new boss, former Louisiana Sen. Bennett Johnston, a strong ally of the nuclear industry while in Congress; and Joe Colvin, then president of NEI. At least another half-dozen of their industry colleagues also were involved. Bush administration ties But nuclear interests had long had the attention of Bush and Cheney, themselves major players in the oil and gas industry. One of the biggest names on the Bush energy transition team was Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the electric power industry and its nuclear reactor owners. Not only was Kuhn the president?s Yale classmate and longtime friend, he was one of Bush?s biggest fund-raisers. A study by Common Cause found that in the six years that bracketed the 2000 election, Kuhn?s organization and its members gave $41 million to political campaigns, three-fourths of it to Republicans. Cheney also had close ties to players with stakes in the nuclear sector. When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, the company?s portfolio included Nuclear Utility Services. His close friend, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, another big Republican fund-raiser, worked as a lobbyist on nuclear issues. And Cheney?s wife, Lynne, had served on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, which earned millions from the federal government managing the Sandia Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico. Once in office, Cheney?s energy task force worked quickly and behind closed doors. Kuhn had regular input, though he was not a member of the group. As the administration?s energy policy began to emerge in the spring of 2001, its support for the nuclear power industry was beyond "my wildest dreams," Christian H. Poindexter, chairman of the Constellation Energy Group, later told the New York Times. A number of the policy?s final recommendations, including broad administration support for "the expansion of nuclear energy," streamlining the regulatory process and opening the way to reprocessing spent fuel, had been included in the action plan drafted by the 1998 forum that followed Domenici?s Harvard speech. At a press conference in the spring of 2001 to herald the administration?s energy plan, Domenici congratulated Bush and Cheney for "being courageous and realistic" on the nuclear front and embarked on a four-year effort to turn the plan into law. Task force records remain secret Cheney's conduct of the task force sessions in secret angered journalists and others. Groups at opposite ends of the political spectrum sued over what Tom Fitton of the conservative group Judicial Watch, one of the plaintiffs, called an "unprecedented assertion of executive branch supremacy," but were largely unsuccessful in forcing the release of records they sought. Six months after unveiling its energy plan, the administration forged ahead with the "Nuclear Power 2010 program," which the Department of Energy described as a cost-sharing demonstration project by government and industry to get a new generation of nuclear reactors up and running by "early in the next decade." On Capitol Hill, however, energy legislation languished until Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2003, giving Domenici the chairmanship of the Senate Energy Committee. He hired back Flint, his former aide, from the nuclear lobbying ranks to direct the committee?s work and after 2? years of horse-trading, parliamentary maneuvering and secret conference committee meetings, the bill finally became law in August 2005. Flint has since returned to work for the industry as its chief lobbyist. Domenici, meanwhile, led the fight to build a new uranium enrichment plant in his state to help fuel the presumed nuclear resurgence. On June 23, 2006, it became the first nuclear facility to win a new NRC license in 30 years. Both have declined repeated requests to be interviewed by MSNBC.com. The senator also has become a strong supporter of the Bush administration?s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a futuristic and controversial plan for the United States and other nuclear "haves" to supply technology to "have-nots." The plan envisions the reprocessing of spent fuel, banned for decades by previous administrations because it was feared it could lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. Billions pour into `renaissance? Nuclear industry perks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were spotlighted when President Bush signed the bill at Sandia National Lab in Domenci's home state of New Mexico. With his signature, billions in federal assistance flowed from Bush?s pen into the nuclear "renaissance," including: $3 billion in research subsidies. More than $3 billion in construction subsidies for new nuclear power plants. Nearly $6 billion in operating tax credits. More than $1 billion in subsidies to decommission old plants. A 20-year extension of liability caps for accidents at nuclear plants. Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new power plants. Critics say the energy bill amply rewarded the industry for years of investment in campaign contributions and lobbying. "There no question that the utility industry lobbying and campaign contributions has had a huge influence," said Tyson Slocum of the anti-nuclear group Public Citizen. "... These are business people and business people do not part with money easily unless they are making investments. Politics is not a charity, it?s not tax deductible. The return on that investment dwarfs anything that they could get on Wall Street." But NEI's Kerekes said the legislation reflects the energy realities of the new century. "That would be a wonderful myth to peddle," he said, arguing that nuclear power found new favor on Wall Street and in Congress on its own merits. "Unless they?re going to accuse us of stoking concerns about global climate change over the past 15 or 20 years, I think that argument becomes pretty hollow pretty quickly." Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the vehemently anti-nuclear group Greenpeace and one of a number of well-known environmentalists who now back nuclear power, agrees that nuclear energy earned a second look. Greenpeace founder embraces nuclear energy "I honestly believe that the concern for emissions is why people are saying, `Hey we should be building more nuclear,?" said Moore, whose Vancouver, B.C.-based, consulting firm is now retained by the nuclear industry to improve its image. While the effect of the industry's campaign contributions and lobbying efforts in the years before the energy bill's passage are debatable, the amount of money invested is remarkable by any measure. Numerous reports from watchdog groups provide some details, but the fragmented nature of campaign finance disclosure and lobbying reports makes it difficult to determine cumulative figures. Many contributors, such as General Electric (owner of NBC Universal, which in turn is a partner with Microsoft in MSNBC.com), have numerous business concerns beyond nuclear energy. Others, like the U.S. Enrichment Corporation and NEI, are exclusively focused on nuclear energy. But even a partial accounting is eye opening. MSNBC.com culled these statistics from campaign finance data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics via federal reports: Companies in the energy and natural resources sectors, which includes nuclear power, and their employees, have donated $212.2 million to the campaigns of federal candidates since 2000 alone, three-fourths of it to Republicans. Employees and political action committees of 23 large companies involved in efforts to build new U.S. nuclear reactors gave nearly $41 million to federal candidates from 1998 through this year. The donations accelerated as nuclear power regained favor, totaling $3.5 million in the 1998 election cycle, $4.6 million for 2000, $9.5 million for 2002, $11.3 million for 2004 and more than $12 million in 2006. Lobbying expenses reported by the same 23 firms from 1998 through 2005 exceeded $292.5 million. Four members of Congress singled out by Bush at the signing ceremony as instrumental in the energy bill's passage have been major recipients of nuclear industry largesse. Since 1989, Domenici has received $384,923 from electric utilities with big stakes in nuclear power, and his list of donors includes at least three dozen firms on the membership roster of the NEI. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who succeeded Domenici as chairman of the Senate Energy Committee in January, got $406,576 from electric utilities in the same period and five of his top seven donors are tied to the nuclear industry. Former House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, received $1 million from electric utilities and his Lone Star colleague on the panel, Republican Ralph Hall, got $536,670. Probe of energy task force promised While there is little expectation that the Democratic-controlled Congress will seek to substantially roll back provisions of the energy bill, which was approved by an overwhelming majority in both houses, skeptics say some elements of the onrushing "nuclear renaissance" could face new scrutiny. In particular, the new chairman of the House Energy Committee, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., has vowed to investigate the Cheney energy task force, saying it was "carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies." Dingell himself has been a favorite recipient of campaign contributions from the nuclear power industry over the years. Dr. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and other critics say the industry now faces the challenge of proving its economic argument. The only way to do that, he said, is by demonstrating that the resurgence will result in the construction of more than "a small number of reactors, exactly the number that receive subsidies under the Energy Policy Act." But Adrian Heymer, NEI?s senior director for new plant deployment, said the extent of the rebound will soon be clear; applications to build a majority of the 30-plus new nuclear reactors are expected by year's end. He also brushed aside complaints that the streamlined NRC review process for the new license applications shuts out important opportunities for public comment and participation. "There?s more opportunity for public involvement, a lot more information is available earlier to the public," he said. Besides, he added, there may be little opposition to some of the plants, slated to be built on existing nuclear sites and actively sought by community leaders who look favorably on the economic benefits of large construction projects and the permanent jobs the plants will bring. Don?t count on it, countered Gunter. "The anti-nuclear movement has been seasoned; we?re a lot more sophisticated and far more educated now as to the hazards and folly of nuclear power," he said. "None of the concerns that brought about the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s have disappeared. They?ve only been magnified. We have no better clue as to how to manage nuclear waste now than we did in 1975." Waste disposal remains key issue All parties agree that any large-scale nuclear renaissance will depend on answering the thorny political and technical questions surrounding the handling of spent fuel. The industry and administration?s current bid to get the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada licensed are seen as dead by many observers because the new Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, has always firmly opposed the facility. ----------------- German nuclear phase-out will hit emission target Germany's plan to phase out nuclear energy will make it miss its CO2 emission targets, raise electricity prices, cause more blackouts and "dramatically" increase Berlin's dependence on imported Russian gas, an independent study has warned. The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) is a serious indictment of chancellor Angela Merkel's decision, despite personal misgivings, to stick to the phase-out deal agreed by the previous government in 2000. It will add to the increasingly acrimonious debate within the government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy amid rising concern about global warming and the safety of energy supplies. Michael Glos, the economics minister and a political ally of Ms Merkel, has campaigned vigorously for a revision of the nuclear phase- out deal, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister. The paper also highlights the quandary facing the chancellor, who would have to choose between the three key goals of Germany's energy policy - to reduce emissions, to cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel, and to keep energy prices in check. "Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report, said. "It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today's nuclear plants." A spokesman for the environment ministry said Germany's goal of cutting CO2 emission by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said it would be easy." Backers of nuclear fuel also point out that the phase-out has left the country isolated as holder of the European Union's rotating presidency. Berlin could have difficulties hammering out a compromise on a future European energy policy at the next European council summit in March. With nuclear providing 25 per cent of Germany's electricity - and taking into account rising electricity demand and the fossil-fuel plants that are scheduled for replacement - DB calculates that 42 Gigawatt of new plants will need to be built by 2022. Since lignite and coal-powered plants are highly polluting, most of these would have to be gas-powered. Based on these assumptions, CO2 emissions by the power sector will rise by 16 in the decade from 2010 while Russian gas imports will increase from today's 35 per cent of the total to 50 per cent. Even assuming Germany's ambitious emission targets for the industrial and transport sectors can be fulfilled, total greenhouse gas emissions will fall by only 31 per cent between 2010 and 2020, well short of the environment ministry's goal. There are also doubts, too, about Berlin's emission goals for the non- energy sectors, since these are based on cuts achieved shortly after 1990, when half the fall in emissions was accounted for by the collapse of industrial activity in the former east-Germany. An alternative policy, Mr Lewis said, would be to extend the life of nuclear power stations from 32 to 60 years. A special tax on the profits from these plants could be reinvested into research on "capture and storage" technology that makes coal-powered plants clean. "I see the outline of a possible compromise between Ms Merkel and the SPD," he said, "since it would solve the energy policy dilemma while giving a future to domestically-produced coal, which matters a lot to the Social Democrats." ---------------- Nuclear Areva targets clean power Wind farms are expanding as clean energy gains in appeal French firm Areva - the largest maker of nuclear reactors - has tabled a $1bn (?506m; 772m euro) bid for leading clean energy firm Repower of Germany. Areva said it would pay 105 euros a share for the wind turbine firm, a move that would allow it to tap into the booming wind energy sector. Climate change has fuelled a greater commercial interest in clean energy, as firms try to reduce carbon emissions. News of the unsolicited offer pushed Repower shares 20% higher. The 105 euros a share offer represents a 17% premium on the firm's closing price on Friday. Areva said the deal would give it access to the technology, financial means, and expertise to speed up development especially in off-shore projects. Repower is one of Germany's major wind turbine producers and is present in Europe, Japan, China, India and Australia. Areva's move comes after it said its operating income would be considerably lower for 2006 than in 2005, but that it would "easily remain well in the black". News of the deal also gave a boost to fellow companies in the wind power sector. Denmark's Vestas, the world's largest maker of turbines saw the value of its shares rise 3% while shares in Spain's wind power firm Gamesa rose 1.7%. --------------- Truck with radioactive material swept away by swollne creek McALESTER, Okla. The search resumes tomorrow for a pickup truck carrying radioactive material that was swept from a bridge over a swollen creek. Authorities blamed runoff from melting ice and snow and heavy weekend rains for the accident near McAlester today. No one was hurt. Pittsburg County Undersheriff Richard Sexton says a pickup truck carrying radioactive materials used in pipeline scanning equipment was swept from a bridge and disappeared in swollen Coal Creek. The truck's two occupants escaped unharmed, but efforts to locate the truck and its radioactive cargo were suspended tonight due to darkness. Sexton says officials hope the creek's level will fall enough tomorrow to reveal the truck's whereabouts. A container containing the material is bolted to the truck. --------------------- Russia, Algeria plan cooperation on nuclear power ALGIERS Jan 22 -- Algeria and Russia want to cooperate in developing nuclear energy in Algeria, Russian industry and energy minister Victor Khristenko said in a statement carried by the Algerian news agency APS. "The [Russian] minister expressed satisfaction that Algeria and Russia agreed on the principle of future development of cooperation in the field of nuclear energy," the statement said late Sunday. The remarks following the signing of a "memorandum of understanding and cooperation" on energy. Khristenko said: "We have agreed within the framework of the memorandum to begin contacts between experts in the two countries to study the possibilities of bilateral cooperation and to determine the areas of possible cooperation in this [nuclear] context and I hope that we can begin this work soon." Algeria has been operating two experimental nuclear reactors since 1995. One of these is at Draria, Algiers, and the other at Ain Ouessara in the central south of the country. Both are inspected regularly by the International Atomic Energy Agency. On January 9, in remarks to a regional African conference on nuclear matters, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika defended the right of African countries "to benefit from scientific and technological progress made in the [civil] nuclear field." Algerian and Russian officials said that the memorandum provided assurance that joint projects would be followed up at every stage in the process of the exploration, production, marketing, and transportation of hydrocarbons. Algerian energy and mines minister Chakib Khelil had said beforehand that he would give approval "as soon as possible" for the development of a gas field at Illizi in the Sahara Desert. This resource was discovered by Algerian company Sonatrach in association with Russian companies Rosneft-Stroytransgaz. Algerian authorities say that the investment required is estimated at $3 billion to $4 billion. Development of this gas field "will show that Russian companies can compete with other companies and achieve very positive results in Algeria," Khelil said. He hoped that this example of cooperation with Sonatrach would be followed by other Russian companies such as Gazprom or Lukoil in the activities of exploration and production. Khristenko has been visiting Algeria since Friday to strengthen cooperation between the two countries, particularly in the gas sector. ----------------- Qatar - Seven more stations to monitor radiation Gulf Times Jan 22 - Qatar is to have seven more nuclear accidents and radiation emergency early warning stations. Like the existing four such stations, the new facilities will be set up with the International Atomic Energy Agency?s help. It will provide a grant of $120,000 this year and a similar amount in 2008, according to a team of IAEA experts, now visiting Qatar. Besides helping Qatar develop its human resources with eight scholarships, the agency will also provide four experts and organise four scientific trips. This was announced at a press conference at the Supreme Council for Environment and Natural Reserves (SCENR). SCENR secretary-general Khalid Ghanem al-Ali said that all "organisations and agencies in Qatar were doing their best to augment their capabilities to achieve maximum protection from the dangers of radiation". The IAEA team included Dr Galmoni Balqasem, member of the IAEA; Dr Tom Ryan, radiation safety expert from Ireland; Dr Adlien Isloe, from France; and Ibrahim Shaddad, an expert from Sudan. Also present at the press conference was Dr Ahmed al-Khatibeh, adviser on radiation protection at SCENR. This is the second visit by the IAEA team to Qatar. The previous one was in 2003. Khalid al-Ali pointed out that no country in the world could do without radioactive materials that are used for peaceful purposes such as in medicine and industry. The IAEA officials expressed appreciation for efforts by Qatar in the effective use of radioactive materials for peaceful purposes. Now, Qatar can increase its capabilities in this context since it was among the best in the region in terms of monitoring radiation. The IAEA has agreed to implement five projects, including the monitoring centres, in nuclear application in Qatar. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From lboing at anl.gov Mon Jan 22 10:16:12 2007 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:16:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Decommissioning Training Course - Las Vegas, NV - March 2007 Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DF887@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> Argonne National Laboratory will be conducting its "Facility Decommissioning" training course in Las Vegas, NV, March 26-29, 2007. All the details can be found at http://www.dd.anl.gov/ddtraining/index.html. 'Early bird' discounts available for early registrants! Larry Boing Lawrence E. (Larry) Boing Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 P-630.252.6729 F-630.252.7577 lboing at anl.gov http://www.dd.anl.gov/ http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/ From gordon.riel at navy.mil Mon Jan 22 12:58:37 2007 From: gordon.riel at navy.mil (Riel, Gordon K CIV NSWCCD W. Bethesda, 6301) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:58:37 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons Message-ID: One word answer: Yes Short answer: A cylindrical polyethylene moderator of about 22 lb, or about 10 kg, slows fast neutrons so that a thermal neutron detector in the center will count in proportion to the dose equivalent (within a factor of four or so) for neutrons of any energy from thermal to 14 MeV. A partial thermal neutron shield around a three inch central cylinder helps to shape the response. If you want more, just ask gordon.riel at navy.mil Dr. Gordon Riel, PE, CHP (301) 261-7735, FAX 2252 NSWCCD 6301 Bethesda, MD 20817-5700 Message: 4 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:38:28 -0500 From: "ROMANOWICH Larry\(L\) - BRUCE POWER" Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy To: Message-ID: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7 at BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi: Does anyone have a good working description of how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons? Thanks. Larry Romanowich Bruce Power (519) 361-2673 ext 1565 From HAROLD.W.ANAGNOSTOPOULOS at saic.com Mon Jan 22 13:42:24 2007 From: HAROLD.W.ANAGNOSTOPOULOS at saic.com (Anagnostopoulos, Harold W.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:42:24 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Copy of DOE Document - Recycled Uranium Message-ID: RADSAFERs; I'm looking for a copy of A Preliminary Review of the Flow and Characteristics of Recycled Uranium Throughout the DOE Complex 1952-1999, DOE-F001-F001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March, 2000. I did the requisite internet search, with frustrating results. I found several links to a DOE site, which no longer work. Use of the search feature on the DOE home page was also unsuccessful. Any information would be appreciated. Harold.W.Anagnostopoulos at saic.com Thanks, - Harry Harry Anagnostopoulos, CHP Senior Health Physicist SAIC 8421 St. John Industrial Dr. St. Louis, MO 63114 314-770-3059 From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 22 14:45:58 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:45:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Power Message-ID: <45B4DC36.18045.650FE3@sandyfl.cox.net> Nuclear Power - One of Humankind?s Biggest Mistakes By Jim Bell www.jimbell.com, jimbellelsi at cox.net Nuclear Power was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking to justify leaving them nuclear power?s toxic legacy -- a legacy they will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations. And why did we do it? To power our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them. Our creation of nuclear power will be especially difficult for our descendants to understand because they will know that in the nuclear era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power everything in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake. On its own, nuclear power?s toxic radioactive legacy should be enough to give any thinking person sufficient reason to want to eliminate it as quickly as possible and do everything to protect our descendants from the radioactive wastes already created. The human family has been at war with itself for the majority of its history. Human history is full of successful, advanced and sophisticated civilizations that utterly collapsed. To the informed, even our current civilization(s) don?t feel very solid. Plus there are earthquakes, tsunami?s volcanoes, severe weather, terrorism, and just plain human error. This given, who can guarantee that anything as dangerous and long-lived as nuclear waste can be kept safe for even 100 years much less the hundreds to hundreds of thousands of years it will take before some of these wastes are safe to be around. And even if an insurance company did guarantee its safety, what is their guarantee worth? What could they do to protect us and future generations if San Onofre?s spent fuel storage pond lost its coolant water. If this happened an almost unquenchable radioactive fire would spontaneously erupt, spewing radioactive materials wherever the wind blew for weeks if not months -- rendering Southern California a dangerous place to live for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. Notwithstanding the above, the nuclear industry is lobbying the public and the government to continue supporting them politically and economically so the industry can expand. Its latest rational is that nuclear power will produce fewer greenhouse gases than what would be produced using fossil fuels to make electricity. This is true if one only looks at what happens inside a reactor. It?s not true when accounting for all the fossil fuel energy consumed during nuclear power?s fuel cycle, and what it takes to build, operate and dismantle plants when they wear out. Additionally, even if nuclear power was ended today, fossil fuel energy must be consumed for millennia in order to protect the public from the radioactive residues that nuclear power has already generated. An increasing number of former industry and non-industry experts are saying that at best nuclear power releases slightly fewer greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been burned to make electricity directly. In his 2002 book, Asleep at the Geiger Counter, p. 107-118, Sidney Goodman, (giving the industry the benefit of the doubt on a number of fronts and assuming no serious accidents or terrorism), concludes that the net output of the typical nuclear power plant would be only 4% more than if the fossil fuels embodied in it had been uses directly to produce electricity. This means, best-case scenario, replacing direct fossil fuel generated electricity with nuclear generated electricity will only reduce the carbon dioxide released per unit of electricity produced by 4%. Goodman is a long practicing licensed Professional Engineer with a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering. Other experts believe that nuclear power will produce about the same amount of energy as was, is, and will be consumed to create, operate and deal with its aftermath. This case was made in an article published in Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol.13, No. 1, 1988, P. 139, titled "The Net Energy Yield of Nuclear Power." In their article the authors concluded that even without including the energy that has or would be consumed to mitigate past or future serious radioactive releases, nuclear power is only "the re-embodiment of the energy that went into creating it." In its July/August 2006 edition, The Ecologist Magazine, a respected British publication, featured a16-page analysis of nuclear power. One of the conclusions was that nuclear power does not even produce enough electricity to make up for the fossil fuels consumed just to mine, mill and otherwise process uranium ore into nuclear fuel, much less all the other energy inputs required This is not surprising given that typical U-235 ore concentrations of .01% to .02%, require mining, crushing and processing a ton of ore to end up with 1/2 oz to 1 oz of nuclear reactor fuel. To put this in perspective, the typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plants uses around 33 tons or over 1 million oz of nuclear fuel each year. As a teenager I saw a TV program that showed a man holding a piece of metal in the palm of his hand. He was saying that if what he held was pure uranium it would contain as much energy as the train full of coal that was passing by him on the screen. I became an instant "true believer" in nuclear power. I thought if something that small can produce the same amount of energy as all that coal, there will be plenty of energy and therefore plenty of money to address any dangers that using it might pose. Unfortunately, to get that level of energy from a small amount of pure or near pure uranium it would require that it be exploded as an atomic bomb. Of the uranium used in a reactor, only a fraction of the energy in pure uranium gets used. That?s why we are left with depleted uranium and other long-lived wastes. The nuclear industry says that nuclear power is safe, a big net energy producer, and that it will be cheap and easy to keep its wastes out of the environment and out of the hands of terrorists. But if these claims are true, why has an industry that supplies only 8% of our country?s total energy and 20% of its electricity consumed hundreds of billions of tax dollar subsidies since its inception? The 2005 Federal Energy Bill continues this trend. According to U.S. PIRG, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Public Citizen and the Congressional Research Service the recently passed 2005 Federal Energy Bill includes "a taxpayer liability of $14 to $16 billion" in support of nuclear power. If nuclear power is so safe and wonderful, why does it require the Price Anderson Act? The Price Anderson Act puts taxpayers on the hook if the cost of a major radioactive release exceeds $10.5 billion. According to a Sandia National Laboratory analysis, this puts taxpayers on the hook for over $600 billion to cover the damage that a serious radioactive release would cause. Another Sandia Laboratory study focusing just on the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York, concluded the damage caused by a serious release from that plant could cost up to a trillion dollars. Needless to say, any serious radioactive release from any U. S. plant would wipe out any net energy gain by nuclear power if -- there ever was one. Realizing the potential cost of a serious radioactive release, manufacturers, insurers and utilities, were unwilling to build, insure or order plants. They only got seriously involved after the Congress assigned these cost to the taxpaying public. On page 7 of a report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research titled The Nuclear Power Deception, they included the follow 1996 quote from then NRC Commissioner James Asselstine, "given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect a meltdown within the next 20 years, and it is possible that such as accident could result in off-site releases of radiation which are as large as, or larger than the released estimates to have occurred at Chernobyl." Bare in mind, a meltdown is only one of several things that could happen with nuclear power to cause a serious radioactive release. As I said in the beginning, nuclear power is a mistake. Especially considering we already have all the technologies and know-how needed to make us completely and abundantly renewable energy self- sufficient. Solar energy leaves no radioactive residues for our children or future generations. Additionally, although not completely environmentally benign yet, solar energy collection systems can be designed to last generations, be perpetually recyclable and leave zero toxic residues behind. If San Diego County covered 24% of its roofs and parking lots with PV panels, it would produce more electricity than the county consumes. This assumes that 3 million resident use, on average, 10 kWh per capita per day after installing cost-effective electricity use efficiency improvements. For details read my free books at www.jimbell.com. They are also available in most local libraries. For ourselves, our children and future generations, let?s move into the solar age. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Mon Jan 22 14:55:15 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:55:15 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Kudankulam plant Message-ID: <45B4DE63.4871.6D8E82@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Kudankulam plant Berlin warned on phasing out nuclear energy Michigan Attorney General Opposes Sale Of Palisades Nuclear Plant =================================== Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Kudankulam plant Kudankulam (Tamil Nadu), Jan 22 (RIA Novosti) Russia will supply nuclear fuel to the Kudankulam nuclear power plant it is helping to build in the second quarter of 2007, a top Russian official said Monday. Atomstroyexport, Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, has been building the Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu since 2002 in line with a 1988 agreement between India and the Soviet Union and an addendum signed in 1998. The plant is designed to have a capacity of 2,000 MW. 'In the second quarter of this year, we will deliver nuclear fuel to the first power unit of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant,' said the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power Sergei Kiriyenko, currently on a visit to India said. He added that the first delivery had already been coordinated with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Kiriyenko said Russia was prepared to provide the Kudankulam plant with nuclear fuel throughout its entire operational life, which is expected to begin later this year. 'Russia believes that India has an unimpeachable reputation in the nuclear non-proliferation sphere, and therefore we are going to push for an end to relevant sanctions against India,' said Kiriyenko. India, one of the world's eight confirmed nuclear powers, has never been party to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has been under US, Japanese and European sanctions since 1998 when it tested nuclear weapons. Kiriyenko visited the construction site of the plant and said it was his second visit in the past 10 months, adding that a great deal of work had obviously been done since then. He also said the Russian and Indian partners had agreed to accelerate the plant's construction in a bid to finish it ahead of schedule. Russia has offered India a government loan on favourable terms for the Kudankulam project. -------------------- Berlin warned on phasing out nuclear energy Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns. The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) will add to the pressure on Angela Merkel, chancellor, to renegotiate the phase-out deal agreed by the previous government in 2000, \despite her pledge not to reopen the controversial debate. Rising concern about global warming and energy security have sparked a lively dispute in Ms Merkel's Christian Democrat-led grand coalition government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy. Michael Glos, the conservative economics minister, has campaigned vigorously against the phase-out, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister. Without nuclear energy, the bank says, the chancellor faces a painful choice between the three goals she has set herself - to reduce emissions, cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel and keep energy prices in check. "Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report, said. "It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today's nuclear plants." A spokesman for the environment ministry said Germany's goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said it would be easy." The SPD has yet to show any willingness to renegotiate the nuclear exit deal. Rainer Wend, a Social Democratic MP and member of parliament's economics committee, said: "If we must import more Russian gas, then so be it. Russia is a reliable supplier." Backers of nuclear energy point out that the phase-out has left Berlin isolated as holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, which complicates Ms Merkel's task of drafting a European energy policy at the next European Council summit in March. With nuclear covering 25 per cent of Germany's electricity needs - and taking into account rising electricity demand and the need to replace old fossil-fuel plants - DB calculates 42,000MW of new plants will be needed by 2022. ------------------- Michigan Attorney General Opposes Sale Of Palisades Nuclear Plant (AP) Jan 22 - Michigan?s attorney general is opposing Consumers Energy?s proposed sale of the Palisades Nuclear Plant near South Haven. Attorney General Mike Cox says ratepayers would pay at least $62 million more for electricity than they otherwise would have paid if the sale doesn?t go through. He also is questioning whether the sale would deplete funding needed to decommission the plant and pay for cleanup in 2031, and is urging state regulators to slow down the review process. Entergy Corp., a New Orleans-based utility holding company, wants to buy the plant for $380 million. It?s currently owned by CMS Energy Corp. in Jackson. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From swagh at anl.gov Mon Jan 22 15:00:44 2007 From: swagh at anl.gov (Wagh, Sulbha S.) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:44 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Copy of DOE Document - Recycled Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Harold, http://www.hanford.gov/information/foia/rl-2000-43/Report.pdf Here it is at the url above ...(SEE OTHER TITLES IN THIS OCLC RECORD below...it is the document you want) Swati Wagh Technical Librarian Argonne National Lab swagh at anl.gov Title: Review of generation and flow of recycled uranium at Hanford. Author(s): Mecca, James E. Joy, Angel Splett, Gail M. Ellingson, Lupe Stutheit, Ricky L. Corp Author(s): United States.; Dept. of Energy.; Richland Operations Office. ; Fluor Hanford, Inc. Publication: Richland, Wash. : U. S. Dept. of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Year: 2000 Language: English Contents: vol. II. pt. 1. Hanford Site site assessment team report. Report No: DOE/RL-2000-43; DOE/EH-0617 Note(s): "June 30, 2000."/ Report: DOE/RL-2000-43/ DOE/EH-0617 Other Titles: Cover title :; Recycled uranium :; the flow and characteristics of recycled uranium throughout the DOE complex, 1952-1999 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Anagnostopoulos, Harold W. Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:42 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Copy of DOE Document - Recycled Uranium RADSAFERs; I'm looking for a copy of A Preliminary Review of the Flow and Characteristics of Recycled Uranium Throughout the DOE Complex 1952-1999, DOE-F001-F001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March, 2000. I did the requisite internet search, with frustrating results. I found several links to a DOE site, which no longer work. Use of the search feature on the DOE home page was also unsuccessful. Any information would be appreciated. Harold.W.Anagnostopoulos at saic.com Thanks, - Harry Harry Anagnostopoulos, CHP Senior Health Physicist SAIC 8421 St. John Industrial Dr. St. Louis, MO 63114 314-770-3059 _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Mon Jan 22 15:37:00 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:37:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Message-ID: <45B4E82C.31613.93C817@sandyfl.cox.net> On 22 Jan 2007 at 15:59, J. Marshall Reber wrote: > At what point below does your quote of Jim Bell end? The entire piece is Jim's posting. I don't agree with any of his positions, but told him I would post it for him. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From wwebber2004 at comcast.net Mon Jan 22 17:12:14 2007 From: wwebber2004 at comcast.net (Bill) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:12:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Power In-Reply-To: <45B4DC36.18045.650FE3@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45B4DC36.18045.650FE3@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <45B544CE.70706@comcast.net> Substitute ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY for NUCLEAR POWER and it makes for an interesting read. > [Advanced Technology] - One of Humankind?s Biggest Mistakes > By [Theodore Kaczynski] > > [Advanced technology] was a mistake and remains a mistake. If the human > family survives it, our descendants will wonder what we were thinking > to justify leaving them [advanced technology]?s toxic legacy -- a legacy they > will be dealing with for hundreds if not thousands of generations. > > And why did we do it? To [produce] our lights, TVs, radios, stereos, air > conditioners, etc. and the tools we used to make them. > > Our creation of [advanced technology] will be especially difficult for our > descendants to understand because they will know that in the [pre-industrial] > era, we already had all the technologies and know-how needed to power > everything [we needed] in ways that are perpetually recyclable, powered by free > solar energy and which leave zero harmful residues in their wake. ... > The use of nuclear power from fission only makes sense if it is better and more efficient then the alternatives. One way to reduce the waste and improve the efficiency is to recycle the uranium instead of just throwing it away. To control Global Warming the release of green house gases must be reduced by ALL of the worlds countries including USA, EU, Russia, China, and India. To make the USA less dependent on foreign threats and free up oil for poorer nations, we must reduce our use of oil without increasing our release of green house gases. [It is not enough to just reduce our use of foreign oil since in a world market there is no difference between foreign and domestically produced oil]. One way to do this is by increasing the efficiency of our transportation systems. William Webber Webber Consultants From jk5554 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 21:44:43 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:44:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B4E82C.31613.93C817@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material to be posted to Radsafe? Such material is easily available on the internet, and I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have been heavily exposed to such opinions during their college years and while reading newspapers etc. On this topic, I'd like Jim Bell and his ilk to look at this cartoon: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/01/polar-bears-for-nuclear-energy.html Anti-nuclear activists who loudly brag that 390 Megawatts of solar energy can "save the planet" are either numerically illiterate or, frankly, they're just not telling the truth. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/california.html A lot of times, anti-nuclear activists will proclaim their concern about global warming when, in fact, their actions have served to block the development of the energy source that is the largest displacer of fossil-fuel carbon emissions. Hydroelectric dams are a close second....solar is pitifully small, even compared with wind power, much less hydroelectric or nuclear. Ruth --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 22 Jan 2007 at 15:59, J. Marshall Reber wrote: > > > At what point below does your quote of Jim Bell > end? > > The entire piece is Jim's posting. I don't agree > with any of his > positions, but told him I would post it for him. > > 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 cox.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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Tue Jan 23 06:31:21 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:31:21 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - In-Reply-To: <006c01c73e7a$58cb5000$0200a8c0@saturn> References: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01106CCC@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> <20070120160458.15723.qmail@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA011079FF@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> <006c01c73e7a$58cb5000$0200a8c0@saturn> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA01172A3E@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Don, if indeed continuous irradiation at the chronic exposure rates typical for the Taiwan sample population did suppress carcinogenesis by (i) accelerated cellular damage repair, (ii) by enhanced apoptosis of irreparable cells, (iii) by enhanced tissue homeostatic control due to a bystander effect and (iv) by raising the defences of the immune system due to as yet enigmatic mechanisms then - after approach to a stationary equilibrium level - you would expect what the earlier report claims to have seen. You would also expect that the thereby reduced cancer rate approaches again (from below) the normal cancer incidence rate after cessation of such a protective radiation exposure - what appears to be compatible with the later report. Given that and the data(!) of the later report one might muse whether one had done better to let these people continue to live in their flats - with the exception of the most highly exposed and of school children. Unfortunately both reports present insufficient information to assess what other reasons might contribute to their discrepancy. The earlier lacks adequate data for me to assess technical aspects of epidemiology, the second only presents parameter fit values to support its claim but no data to assess the fit quality (Chisquare statistics and the like for me are only sufficient if you are estimating the parameters of an analytical model WELL founded in theory or first principles - and even then I would insist to see the scatterplot of the residuals if the result had any impact on my own work). So without proper methods (Chen 2004) and proper/complete data (Hwang 2006) the door remains wide open for speculations of any kind. Your conclusion about follow-up studies of course remains appropriate! 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Don Higson [mailto:higsond at bigpond.net.au] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2007 00:09 An: Facius, Rainer; crispy_bird at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - John, Rainier Bearing in mind: - the earlier report from Chen, Luan et al that a dramatic reduction of cancer incidence apparently took effect almost immediately, and - the fact that there is still plenty of time for increases in the incidence of solid tumours due to the exposure to radiation from Co-60, do you find it conceivable that there might have been short-term hormesis, followed by carcinogenesis in the longer-term? Follow-up studies certainly appear to be essential. Don Higson ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 12:01 AM Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed "had lower incidences of all cancers - "Environmental - 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 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 09:22:10 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:22:10 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c73f02$4605d3e0$49197254@pc1> Dear Ruth and RADSAFERs, I join your questions, because I think that we are bombarded with "nuclear" nonsense enough in everyday life. Anybody who wants to read this s**t can find enough web sites to download it. I read a few sentences and then deleted it, because I am bored by the continuously repeated nonsense that such agitators distribute. If this person would like to forward his thoughts to RADSAFE he could subscribe to the list (just a few keyboard strokes) and distribute it under his own name. I have problems to understand that Sandy Perle, whom I once esteemed as a highly reputable and remarkable collegue, has distributed this nonsense - without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Ruth Sponsler Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. J?nner 2007 04:45 An: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material to be posted to Radsafe? Such material is easily available on the internet, and I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have been heavily exposed to such opinions during their college years and while reading newspapers etc. On this topic, I'd like Jim Bell and his ilk to look at this cartoon: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/01/polar-bears-for-nuclear-energy.h tml Anti-nuclear activists who loudly brag that 390 Megawatts of solar energy can "save the planet" are either numerically illiterate or, frankly, they're just not telling the truth. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profile/california. html A lot of times, anti-nuclear activists will proclaim their concern about global warming when, in fact, their actions have served to block the development of the energy source that is the largest displacer of fossil-fuel carbon emissions. Hydroelectric dams are a close second....solar is pitifully small, even compared with wind power, much less hydroelectric or nuclear. Ruth --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 22 Jan 2007 at 15:59, J. Marshall Reber wrote: > > > At what point below does your quote of Jim Bell > end? > > The entire piece is Jim's posting. I don't agree > with any of his > positions, but told him I would post it for him. > > 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 cox.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/ > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Tue Jan 23 09:55:22 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (=?UTF-8?B?U2FuZHkgUGVybGU=?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:55:22 +0000 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Message-ID: <1868291452-1169567773-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-251391394-@bxe035-cell01.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> My posting was clear and my position on nuclear power is clear and has not waivered in 35 years .. Your statement "I have problems to understand that Sandy Perle, whom I once esteemed as a highly reputable and remarkable collegue, has distributed this nonsense - without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts." Ios ludicrous. Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless From Efforrer at aol.com Tue Jan 23 14:10:41 2007 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer at aol.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:10:41 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Requirements in California Message-ID: Can anyone enlighten me as to the educational requirements that the state of California has to add someone as an RSO on a license. Gene Forrer From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 15:42:14 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:42:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45B4E82C.31613.93C817@sandyfl.cox.net>, <806091.79100.qm@web32511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> On 22 Jan 2007 at 19:44, Ruth Sponsler wrote: > Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material > to be posted to Radsafe? > > Such material is easily available on the internet, and > I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have > been heavily exposed to such opinions during their > college years and while reading newspapers etc. Hi Ruth, Your points are well taken. The primary reason I went ahead and posted the information was because of all the pro-nuclear and nuclear renaissance, as well as concerns raised by the current NRC Chair. Otherwise, I agree that the posting would not add any value to the dialogue. On another issue, Marshall Reber and I have corresponded and I definitely concur that I should have put Mr. Bell's entire article in quotes to categorically make it understood that all of the posting was his beliefs, and not mine. I treated this posting as other news postings, and don't use quotes. I do however understand that this is not a case of posting a news article from the wire services, and, should have used the quotes. However, my pro-nuclear support should not have been questioned, as was the case in one posting. My 35+ years supporting the nuclear option is well documented and I apologize to nobody regarding that. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 16:34:57 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:34:57 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> Sandy, This post is really interesting. You write to Ruth "Your points are well taken." To me, who supported the opinion of Ruth, you wrote that my "statement".... "Ios ludicrous (your spelling)" and you distributed it as well to the list. What is the difference - that Ruth is obviously a US-citizen and I am not? Come on, Sandy. This is an international list and not a list restricted to US citizens. From somebody who travels such a lot one would expect a little broader view on radiation protection than the narrow US one you obviously propagate since some time (thinking of your comments on SI units....). I think it is about the time that you return to your status of a widely accepted and well reputated scientist, who's "news" I have distributed even to my own Austrian list of news from the radiation protection world. Best wishes and best regards from a country which is almost exactly 10% of the "all important Nambia", has very little oil and no uranium. Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Sandy Perle Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. J?nner 2007 22:42 An: radsafe at radlab.nl; Ruth Sponsler; jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear On 22 Jan 2007 at 19:44, Ruth Sponsler wrote: > Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his material > to be posted to Radsafe? > > Such material is easily available on the internet, and > I'm sure that almost all the members of this list have > been heavily exposed to such opinions during their > college years and while reading newspapers etc. Hi Ruth, Your points are well taken. The primary reason I went ahead and posted the information was because of all the pro-nuclear and nuclear renaissance, as well as concerns raised by the current NRC Chair. Otherwise, I agree that the posting would not add any value to the dialogue. On another issue, Marshall Reber and I have corresponded and I definitely concur that I should have put Mr. Bell's entire article in quotes to categorically make it understood that all of the posting was his beliefs, and not mine. I treated this posting as other news postings, and don't use quotes. I do however understand that this is not a case of posting a news article from the wire services, and, should have used the quotes. However, my pro-nuclear support should not have been questioned, as was the case in one posting. My 35+ years supporting the nuclear option is well documented and I apologize to nobody regarding that. 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 cox.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 sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 16:57:42 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:57:42 -0500 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net>, <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net> On 23 Jan 2007 at 23:34, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > This post is really interesting. You write to Ruth "Your points are well > taken." To me, who supported the opinion of Ruth, you wrote that my > "statement".... "Ios ludicrous (your spelling)" and you distributed it as > well to the list. What is the difference - that Ruth is obviously a > US-citizen and I am not? The difference is this: Ruth questioned why I posted the Jim Bell statement. I provided a reason why I did, and, I also understand Ruth's points. Franz in his post questioned whether I supported what Mr. bell stated, in this comment, "without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts." Ruth didn't question what I believed in. Ruth only questioned whether or not I should have posted Mr. Bell's comments in the first place. I suggest that Franz get off his "anti-everyone" kick if they aren't from anywhere other than the USA. His anti-USA rhetoric is really beneath him. Consider the personal attack on Mr. Suleiman the other day. Mr. Suleiman's birth country, where he was raised and where he lived is of no importance on this list. The attack was quite distasteful, but that has been the norm these days from our Austrian colleague. Franz needs to learn to debate the issues and not attack the messenger. Franz needs to recognize that is someone asks a question that he feels is not an intelligent question, then he needs to recall a time where he did not know all the answers. Franz is the Simon Cowell of Radsafe. Sandy Perle From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 17:44:27 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:44:27 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units, seen on a global scale Message-ID: <002301c73f48$74094bf0$49197254@pc1> There has been recently a debate on RADSAFE (again) about the SI units, some US hardliners stating that the US will never go to SI. I asked on RADSAFE about the use of SI-units in India and in the far east. I have received one message only ? thank you Cheng. So I consulted Google and there I found a link to Wikipedia. I usually do not rely much on Wikipedia, but the information I found there seems to be quite reliable, especially the part on the USA. Citations: ? the worlds most widely used system of units, both in everyday commerce and in science?, ? . Industrial use of SI is increasing ..!, and the most important citation: ?With very few exceptions the system is used in every country of the world.? Wikipedia (SI) has a link to the use of SI units in the USA and not only that I recognize the various attempts of going metric I see from Wikipedia, that actually quite a lot of measures are not only defined on metric terms, but actually used. I recognize, that there the use of km instead of miles on the highway from Tuscon to Nogales, which I was several times surprised to see, is mentioned. Regarding radiation protection SI units I may mention that at the time of the Chernobyl accident Austria still had not introduced officially the SI-units and it was a terrible problem to convert and compare the contamination with other European countries, all of which used SI-units since long. It is difficult for a scientist to understand, why the US is not following more than 90% of the world population to introduce SI units. I am sure that within the next 50 years the US will be completely ?SI? and the young people will not know about miles, yards, rem, pCi, psi etc. Best regards Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 17:56:59 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:56:59 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] SI units, seen on a global scale In-Reply-To: <002301c73f48$74094bf0$49197254@pc1> References: <002301c73f48$74094bf0$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <45B65A7B.9273.932261@sandyfl.cox.net> On 24 Jan 2007 at 0:44, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > I am sure that > within the next 50 years the US will be completely "SI" and the young people > will not know about miles, yards, rem, pCi, psi etc. On this we are in agreement. Sandy Perle Senior Vice President, Technical Operations Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 Fax:(949) 296-1144 E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Tue Jan 23 18:01:05 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:01:05 -0600 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> <002001c73f3e$bd35a440$49197254@pc1> <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070123175814.07af5a50@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 04:57 PM 1/23/2007, Sandy Perle wrote: >.... >Franz is the Simon Cowell of Radsafe. Pretty unfair comment, Sandy: From what little I have seen of SC (From "snips" on CNN, etc: I wouldn't waste my time with the actual program!), his criticisms are generally justified..... ;~) Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 18:03:07 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:03:07 -0500 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20070123175814.07af5a50@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net>, <45B64C96.29213.5CDE79@sandyfl.cox.net>, <6.2.0.14.2.20070123175814.07af5a50@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> Message-ID: <45B65BEB.27862.98C04F@sandyfl.cox.net> On 23 Jan 2007 at 18:01, Doug Aitken wrote: > From what little I have seen of SC (From "snips" on CNN, etc: I wouldn't > waste my time with the actual program!), his criticisms are generally > justified..... My sincere aplogies to Mr. Cowell! 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jan 23 18:04:12 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:04:12 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <20070123232149.OCXE24316.centrmmtao01.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> Message-ID: <002801c73f4b$351cde90$49197254@pc1> Thanks Mitchell, for providing another good laugh to me. Please keep on with your comments, because they provide some funny sunshine in the dark winter-times we have in Austria. I am also glad about that you force me to consult my dictionary for your words like "thug" and "banter" because we did not learn these words at school and I never came across them in my later life. I mentioned earlier that I am always eager to learn. Of course there is a good question whether these words are worth learning. With my very best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mitchell W. Davis [mailto:radiation at cox.net] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. J?nner 2007 00:22 An: 'Sandy Perle'; radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Ruth Sponsler'; jmarshall.reber at comcast.net; 'Franz Sch?nhofer' Betreff: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear Bravo Sandy!!! I have said on several occasions that Franz's anti-American and Pro-anybody who is NOT American attitude should not be tolerated on radsafe. I have taken many a tongue lashing from that Austrian thug (but I enjoyed the banter) and I am glad to see others are sick of it as I am. Mitchell W. Davis, RRPT Midland, TX United States of America (Friend of all Franz's worldwide) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:58 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Ruth Sponsler'; jmarshall.reber at comcast.net; Franz Sch?nhofer Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear On 23 Jan 2007 at 23:34, Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: > This post is really interesting. You write to Ruth "Your points are well > taken." To me, who supported the opinion of Ruth, you wrote that my > "statement".... "Ios ludicrous (your spelling)" and you distributed it as > well to the list. What is the difference - that Ruth is obviously a > US-citizen and I am not? The difference is this: Ruth questioned why I posted the Jim Bell statement. I provided a reason why I did, and, I also understand Ruth's points. Franz in his post questioned whether I supported what Mr. bell stated, in this comment, "without making it clear from the first moment, that he had been asked to distribute it and that he did not support those thoughts." Ruth didn't question what I believed in. Ruth only questioned whether or not I should have posted Mr. Bell's comments in the first place. I suggest that Franz get off his "anti-everyone" kick if they aren't from anywhere other than the USA. His anti-USA rhetoric is really beneath him. Consider the personal attack on Mr. Suleiman the other day. Mr. Suleiman's birth country, where he was raised and where he lived is of no importance on this list. The attack was quite distasteful, but that has been the norm these days from our Austrian colleague. Franz needs to learn to debate the issues and not attack the messenger. Franz needs to recognize that is someone asks a question that he feels is not an intelligent question, then he needs to recall a time where he did not know all the answers. Franz is the Simon Cowell of Radsafe. Sandy Perle _______________________________________________ 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 cox.net Tue Jan 23 18:13:00 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:13:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip Message-ID: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip Nuclear power climate change risk Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival, Official Says German warned on nuclear energy phase-out Arrests over nuclear site protest Westminster students arrested for nuclear plant breach Nuclear plant sees safety system failure; problem fixed Syrian activist defends Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy RTI, Duke, UNC Asheville to Study Chernobyl Radiation Impact Radiation-exposed workers to march ========================================== Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip NEW DELHI (AFP) - Russia's president will offer India nuclear power plants in a major pitch for a slice of the nation's lucrative atomic energy market when he begins a visit to New Delhi, officials said. President Vladimir Putin, seeking to counter growing US ties with India, Moscow's former Cold War ally, is bringing a large contingent of ministers, business people and officials on his two-day trip. The visit's aim is to boost the "strategic relationship" and bring new momentum to a long friendship, said Putin, who will be guest of honour at India's annual Republic Day parade on Friday marking the country's founding as a republic. "We intend to help India directly in construction of atomic energy facilities for peaceful use," Putin said in an interview with the Press Trust of India (PTI). The passage last year of a landmark US-Indian deal allowing New Delhi access to civilian nuclear technology after decades of isolation has unleashed an international race to supply energy-hungry India's atomic energy market. Moscow, which still supplies over 70 percent of India's military hardware, also hopes to sign a slew of defence deals, including on joint production of a fifth-generation supersonic fighter jet and a multi-role transport aircraft. "Many very serious and very substantial" agreements will be signed during Putin's trip, said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, kicking off his own five-day visit to India in the southern high-tech city of Bangalore. Russia says it has sold arms worth 10 billion dollars to India in the past five years and that deals worth a similar amount are in the pipeline with the country which is modernising its outdated defence equipment. India's military, the world's fourth-largest with around 1.3 million people in uniform, is in the market for new fighters and trainer jets, submarines, radar equipment and weaponry. Ivanov added Russia plans to would "actively" participate in an Indian Air Force tender for 126 multi-purpose fighters, a contract valued at close to 10 billion dollars, which pits Lockheeds F-16 warplane and Boeings F/A-18E/F Super Hornet up against fighters from Russia, France and Sweden. "India is pursuing a hedging strategy in its relations with Russia. They are trying not to over-rely on the US either politically, militarily or otherwise as the Russians have always proven to be fairly reliable in the past," Bharat Karnad, analyst at New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research, told AFP. Putin's visit "will strengthen and take bilateral relations between the two time-tested friends to new heights," said India's Minister of State for Planning, M.V. Rajasekharan. Russia will sign a preliminary deal with India to build four nuclear power plants as well as propose to supply four nuclear reactors, reports said. "An agreement... is being prepared for signing on the construction at the Kudankulam nuclear power station (in Tamil Nadu) of additional reactors and also construction of atomic stations at new sites in India," Ivanov also said in Moscow, according to the Interfax news agency. The reactors would be for the flagship nuclear plant Russia is building in southern Tamil Nadu state due to start operation this year and which already has two Russian 1,000-megawatt reactors. Nuclear power now just supplies a scant percentage of the energy needs of India which has been eagerly seeking new fuel supplies to feed its fast-growing economy. India and energy-rich Russia are also expected to discuss boosting cooperation in oil exploration and production. -------------- Nuclear power climate change risk BBC Jan 23 - The government is soon to release its criteria for possible new sites A new study into the potential impact of climate change on Britain's nuclear power stations highlights the threat of rising seas and increasingly severe storms, BBC News learns. Specialists from the Met Office were commissioned by the nuclear power company British Energy to assess the risks of global warming. All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on the coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to guarantee supplies of cooling water. But the Met Office researchers have forecast global warming is likely to bring three changes which could combine to pose serious risks - rising sea-levels, increased wave height and increased height of storm surges. Constant maintenance The study concludes none of the current generation of power plants are at risk. But the findings have implications for the planning of the next generation of British nuclear power stations. "We would locate the station within the site in such a position that we don't perhaps have to work quite so hard in maintaining these hard defences." David Norfolk, British Energy At Sizewell in Suffolk, for example, site of Britain's most modern reactor, the prediction is for the most severe storm surges to be 1.7 metres higher in 2080 than at present. And at Dungeness in Kent, the storm surge increase could be up to 0.9 metres. Already the Dungeness plant, which is sited on land only two metres above sea-level, is protected by a massive wall of shingle which needs constant maintenance in the winter. Waves erode so much of it that 600 tons of shingle has to be added every day. 'Hard defences' Met Office researcher Rob Harrison, who led the study, told the BBC "very large potential changes are in prospect" what we're trying to do is avoid a catastrophic effect. "There's no immediate concern but in the future the extremes may become more severe, especially with the combination of bigger waves and surges. It's reassuring that British Energy are being proactive about this." The Met Office study finds the rise in storm surge heights will be most extreme along the coast of south-east England - the shorelines at Dungeness and Sizewell bearing the brunt of the effects. One option for the nuclear operators is to build stronger sea defences. Another is to site future power stations further inland. David Norfolk, a member of British Energy's strategy team, said any new power plant could be located further from the sea to provide more of a buffer for any flooding. "We would locate the station within the site in such a position that we don't perhaps have to work quite so hard in maintaining these hard defences - put it further back so we have more land, more space to absorb any water that comes over, to attenuate the energy of the sea." The study follows a similar Met Office investigation last year into the impact of climate change on conventional power plants. -------------- Lack of Budget Could Hurt Nuclear Energy Revival, Official Says WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - The senior member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned on Monday that the failure of Congress to pass a detailed budget for the current fiscal year could damage the nuclear renaissance that the government tried so hard to encourage with the energy bill of 2005. No one has applied for permission to build a power reactor since the 1970s. But with the incentives offered by the federal government in 2005, utilities are considering building about 20 reactors, and several of them are expected to apply for authorization this year. The commission member, Edward McGaffigan Jr., said that if the commission received applications this year, "we basically are going to have to put them on the shelf, because we?re not going to have the folks to work on the applications until well into calendar year 2008." Congress passed only 2 of the 11 spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, 2006, those covering the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department. The rest of the government has been operating under a "continuing resolution," a stopgap measure that finances most agencies at the previous year?s levels. Democrats say they plan to extend that resolution through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. According to the nuclear commission, under a continuing resolution its budget would be lower by $95 million, or about 12 percent, compared with the level approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees but never by the full Congress. Most of the commission?s budget comes from fees paid by companies licensed to use radioactive material. The agency has been arguing on Capitol Hill that giving it the amount already approved by the Appropriations Committees would require only $13 million of general tax revenues. Mr. McGaffigan said that if the commission could not process applications, some companies wanting to build would decide to wait. But he said that "some, seeing the instability, may disappear" and build coal plants instead. Earlier this month, Mr. McGaffigan, saying he had metastatic melanoma, told the White House that he would serve only until a successor could be confirmed. He spoke Monday at a meeting with reporters organized by Platts, an energy information company. Mr. McGaffigan also said that the Energy Department should begin looking for alternatives to Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, for disposing of nuclear waste. When he came to the commission in 1996, he said, the opening of the repository was said to be 14 years away; now it is probably 20 years away. "There?s just tremendous uncertainty," he said, "and each year that passes, we?re not going to get any closer to Yucca under the current circumstances." He said the government should look for a site where there was local cooperation. ------------------ German warned on nuclear energy phase-out Germany will miss its CO2 emission targets, face rising electricity prices and become "dramatically" more reliant on Russian gas if it keeps to its policy of phasing out nuclear energy, a new study warns. The 60-page paper by Deutsche Bank (NYSE:DB - news) will add to the pressure on Angela Merkel, chancellor, to renegotiate the phase-out deal agreed by the previous government in 2000, despite her pledge not to reopen the controversial debate. Rising concern about global warming and energy security has sparked a lively dispute in Ms Merkel's Christian Democrat-led grand coalition government about the wisdom of renouncing nuclear energy. Michael Glos, the conservative economics minister, has campaigned vigorously against the phase-out, triggering equally vigorous opposition from Sigmar Gabriel, the Social Democratic environment minister. Without nuclear energy, the bank says, the chancellor faces a painful choice between the three goals she has set herself - to reduce emissions, cut reliance on Russian fossil fuel and keep energy prices in check. "Shutting down nuclear is inconceivable as a serious policy," said Mark Lewis, energy analyst and author of the report. "It will mean missing your carbon emission targets and lead to gas-powered plants replacing today's nuclear plants." The environment ministry said Germany's goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 40 per cent of their 1990 level by 2020 "can be achieved without nuclear energy. But of course, nobody ever said it would be easy". The SPD has yet to show any willingness to renegotiate the nuclear exit deal. Rainer Wend, a Social Democratic MP and member of parliament's economics committee, said: "If we must import more Russian gas, then so be it. Russia is a reliable supplier." Backers of nuclear energy point out that the phase-out has left Berlin isolated as holder of the European Union's rotating presidency, which complicates Ms Merkel's task of drafting a European energy policy at the next European Council summit in March. With nuclear covering 25 per cent of Germany's electricity needs - and taking into account rising electricity demand and the need to replace old fossil-fuel plants - DB calculates 42,000MW of new plants will be needed by 2022. Since lignite and coal-powered plants are highly polluting, most of these would have to be gas-powered. Even so, CO2 emissions by the power sector will rise by 16 per cent in the decade from 2010, while Russian gas imports will increase from today's 35 per cent of the total to 50 per cent. ---------------- Arrests over nuclear site protest AWE is the headquarters of Britain's nuclear development programme Eight people were arrested after they chained themselves together as part of a protest at a nuclear weapons factory. The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) site at Aldermaston, Berks, has been the scene of several protests recently. Five men and three women were arrested on the A340 on suspicion of unlawful obstruction of the highway. Campaigners are angry at the government's decision to give the go- ahead to a new system to replace Britain's existing Trident submarines. Thames Valley Police said all eight were in custody. --------------- Westminster students arrested for nuclear plant breach The Fulton Sun - REFORM, Mo. - Two Westminster College students are out on bond after allegedly breaching security last week at the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant. Shawn K. Milligan, 22, of St. Louis, and Corey A. Meyer, 19 of Cape Girardeau, were taken into custody at the plant by the Callaway County Sheriff's Department and charged with first-degree trespassing. Law enforcement officials would not divulge the reason the students gave for being at the facility, but did state that the incident is not considered to be connected with any terrorist act. Both the FBI and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission were contacted as part of standard procedure. The Callaway County Sheriff's Department handled the investigation. "They gave us a story, but that's something we can't discuss at this time," said Callaway County Sheriff Dennis Crane on Friday. "All we can say is that they were trespassing, they both bonded out on $500 each, and that no other charges are expected." Crane also confirmed that a soft air pistol was found in the subjects' vehicle. According to CCSD reports, the incident occurred at approximately 8:20 p.m. when AmerenUE security observed the two subjects drive into a fenced-in area of the plant and take pictures via a cell phone. The area is not considered a high-security area of the plant, but it does have restricted access, Ameren officials said. "People have access to this area, but they have to have authorization to be there, and these two did not," explained Michael Cleary, AmerenUE communications executive. The photos, he said, contained images of the plant's cooling tower and were deleted. "It's hard to speculate why they were there. Whatever their motives were, they were trespassing on our property," Cleary said. "We hope this incident will help others in the community know that operations at the nuclear power plant are critical and the boundaries must be respected." Milligan and Meyer are scheduled to appear in Callaway County Circuit Court in February. Westminster officials Monday acknowledged the arrests and stated their intentions to take appropriate actions once the investigation is concluded. "The situation is under investigation by law enforcement officials and the college is reviewing the situation as well under our disciplinary procedures," said Rob Crouse, director of college relations at Westminster. ------------------ Nuclear plant sees safety system failure; problem fixed MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was threatened with shutdown late Monday when a safety system was determined not to be working properly, but the problem was fixed within several hours, officials said. A special Nuclear Regulatory Commission report was triggered when staff at the Vernon reactor discovered at about 7 p.m. Monday that a high-pressure coolant injection system flow control gauge had malfunctioned, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. The gauge was showing flow through the system of 200 gallons per minute when there was nothing flowing through the system, Sheehan said. "If 1,000 gallons a minute were needed, you may think you're putting in a thousand gallons a minute when you're actually putting 800," Sheehan said of the inaccurate reading. "That's not a good situation." With the malfunction, Vermont Yankee began operating under "limiting conditions of operation," meaning that the plant was going to have to shut down if the problem was not fixed within 14 days, Sheehan said. "As of 8 a.m. (Tuesday) the system was operable again," he added. Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said control room technicians noticed the problem at about 7 p.m. and notified the NRC. The system was declared inoperable while it was re-calibrated, but it could have been operated manually by control room technicians, Smith said. "That system was available to provide its safety function but operators would have to do it manually," Smith said. The system was fixed by 1:40 a.m. Tuesday, Smith said. Sheehan said the risk from the malfunction was low, because the plant has several redundant safety systems. But the watchdog group New England Coalition wasn't buying it. "'No problem, be happy, we got other safety equipment,' is no answer," said Raymond Shadis, technical adviser with the group. He said the plant, owned by Mississippi-based Entergy Nuclear "is already running at reduced margins of safety," due to last year's 20 percent increase in power output. He said operating the plant under limiting conditions of operations "is like driving for only a few hours while repairing your car's brakes. Except in this instance they are taking the whole neighborhood for a ride. ------------------ Syrian activist defends Iran's right for peaceful nuclear energy IRNA - A Syrian political activist said on Tuesday that Iran is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Deputy Secretary General of ruling Syrian Baath Party Abdullah al- Ahmar in a meeting with a delegation from Iran's Parties House in Damascus on Tuesday condemned pressures on Iran to prevent its access to peaceful nuclear energy. Al-Ahmar said Washington is supporting the Zionist Regime, which possesses nuclear warfare, while opposing Iran's natural rights. Head of Iran's Parties' House Ayatollah Hossein Moussavi Tabrizi too referred to support of Iranian government and nation for Syria in the face of foreign pressures and for the country's campaign to restore its sovereignty over occupied Golan heights from the Zionist Regime. Tabrizi said any threat against Syria would be a threat against Iran and all the regional states. He underlined the need for solidarity among Muslim and Arab nations to confront aggressive policies of the Zionist Regime and support the rights of Arabs. Participants in the meeting discussed relations between Syrian Baath Party and Iran's Parties' House, the policies and aggressive acts of Zionist Regime in the occupied lands, crisis in Lebanon and Iraq and the US threats against Iran and Syria as well as the Palestinian nation's struggles against the occupiers and their right for establishment of an independent state with Qods being its capital, repatriation of refugees and release of all captives and prisoners from Zionist Regime's prison cells. The two sides voiced support for Iraqi people and the political process to end Iraq occupation, guaranteeing national unity and territorial integrity of the country and forge national reconciliation there. He stressed support for the aspirations of Muslims and Arabs and the right for legitimate resistance against occupiers as well as guaranteeing security and stability in Lebanon and liberation of the occupied parts of the country. The Iranian delegation arrived in Damascus late Monday at the invitation by the leader of the ruling Baath Party of Syria. Some Iranian parties and organizations are in the delegation. The Iranian delegation is to have meetings with the ruling coalition, the national progressive parties, in Syria. The talks between the two sides are aimed at promoting ties between Iranian and Syrian parties to cement relations and cooperation between Tehran and Damascus -------------- RTI, Duke, UNC Asheville to Study Chernobyl Radiation Impact RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, - Three North Carolina research institutions are teaming with a Ukrainian group to study the effects and treatment of radiation, including the health effects on workers at the Chernobyl nuclear power site in the Ukraine. An accident at the Chernobyl plant in 1986 led to the deaths and injuries of thousands of people. Results of the program will be used to protect workers and people who might be affected by radiation. RTI International, Duke University Medical Center and the University of North Carolina at Asheville will be working with the Research Center for Radiation Medicine of Ukraine. The $5 million project is being funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Researchers hope to secure additional funding. "There is a unique opportunity to do medical and genetic measurements on these workers before, during and after exposures to various levels of ionizing radiation," said Geoff Ginsburg of Duke University's Center for Genomic Medicine. "This will help develop diagnostics and treatments to protect people who work with nuclear materials, and also to protect the public in case of a release of radiation, such as a nuclear terrorism attack." The project director is Michael Samuhel of RTI. "Once the baseline medical and genetic data become available, opportunities open up for medical research by universities, government agencies and companies that are concerned not only about radiation exposures, but also about diseases such as cancer that have genetic components," Samuhel said. ----------------- Radiation-exposed workers to march JOHANNESBURG - Radiation-exposed workers will march to the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) near Atteridgeville on Wednesday to demand that the corporation speed up their compensation, lobby group Earthlife Africa said on Tuesday. Workers, who are suffering from cancer, myetoma, asthma and other occupational related illnesses, are expected to assemble at the corner of Church Street and Masupa in Atteridgeville at 10am and arrive at Gate 3 of Pelindaba (Necsa) at 11am. Madibeng Municipality has granted permission for the march and therefore all affected workers, their families and community must support the cause, said Alfred Sepepe, the convener of the march. Earthlife Africa said most were very ill, out of work and penniless. "A 16th person among the 208 who were reviewed in terms of a health study commissioned by Earthlife Africa Johannesburg died during the first week in January," the lobby group said. Earthlife Africa said it began its investigation two years ago into unsafe practices of the nuclear giant after several workers were diagnosed with "unquestionable occupational-related diseases" which has since been referred to the Compensation Commissioner, but that Necsa still has not submitted the documentation required by law to the Commissioner. The lobby group said at least 52 more people were diagnosed with 72 probable diseases, which means several people have more than one occupational disease, but require additional expensive tests for a clarification. "Further information has repeatedly been requested from Necsa/Pelindaba for a significant number of other workers involved in this study who could not be definitively diagnosed because their Necsa medical files are gaping with inadequate information or have not surfaced," it said. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Tue Jan 23 19:20:01 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:20:01 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip In-Reply-To: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: Sandy Does "All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on the coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to guarantee supplies of cooling water." mean that the "pebble bed" reactor at Winfrith is no longer operating. Winfrith is a long way from "the coast". When I worked there in the 1970's that reactor was ( I think) putting power into the grid when it worked, and was talked about as the "next generation" of reactors. 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 ***** From jk5554 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 19:21:30 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:21:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All - I believe that the current NRC chair, Dale Klein, has some concerns about his agency's manpower requirements to meet the challenge of new licensing. Overall, he's quite positive about the prospect of new nuclear construction in the U.S. Some NRC Commissioners' speeches are here: http://www.tropicalmedicine101.com/staging/ A big part of the personnel problem is that there was a decline from about 1980-1999 in the number of nuclear engineering students in colleges. The reason for that decline was the perceived lack of marketability of a nuclear engineering degree, which was connected with the activities of anti-nuclear pressure groups that attempted to invalidate nuclear power as a viable energy generation option. However, it's important to talk about the much broader issue of energy options and decisions. At this time, with the wider and broader realization that fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide releases are contributing to climate change problems, the "environmental movement" has a great big problem on its hands. The renewable resources that the "environmental movement" promotes [wind, solar energy, and biomass] simply do not have the multiple thousands of megawatts of capability to displace Europe or America's demand for fossil-fuel fired electricity. A simple electricity generation chart shows that nuclear energy, followed by hydroelectric, is the largest source of non-fossil-fuel electricity. Non-hydroelectric renewable sources are only 2.3% vs 6.5% for hydroelectric and 19.3% for nuclear energy. The chart is at this link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html If the "environmental movement" is truly concerned about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, they will have to realize that they need to support nuclear energy...unless they want to support very controversial new dam sites [many of which aren't to be found, anyway]. On the personal note - these are not personal comments directed at any particular person on the list. It's directed at the clueless anti-nuclear crowd who asked a list member to forward the same hackneyed material they anti-nuclear crowd has been distributing for the past 25 years. The net effect of their blockades, frivolous lawsuits, and "nuclear phaseouts" in both Europe and the United States has been to increase fossil fuel use and to increase the associated environmental problems including sulfur dioxide [acid rain], mercury pollution [from coal emissions], particulate emissions [largely from coal], and carbon dioxide emissions [from all fossil fuels, including natural gas as well as coal]. Right now, Germany is running into a serious problem with its emissions reduction goals because of its official "nuclear phaseout" policy. Deutsche Bank just released a report about this issue: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa778212-aa17-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html On the other hand, France is well on its way to meeting emissions reduction goals. http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/AFP/2006/01/17/1157945?extID=10051 [although this is a fragment, it contains the relevant information]. The "environmental movement" in both Europe and the U.S. has a huge decision to make: If they think that wind power and solar can substitute for fossil fuels by themselves, they will need to endorse covering the landscape with enormous numbers of wind turbines and solar panels, because these are low-density energy sources. Or, they can continue implicitly endorsing fossil fuels along with the associated pollution problems. Or, they can drop their anti-nuclear bias and start to move constructively to reduce pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions. It's not a matter of Europe vs. the U.S. This is a worldwide issue. The developed world has to take leadership and help other countries like coal-dependent China to ease their enormous pollution problems. Some countries have good energy policies while others have bad policies. Personally, I think that transportation policies are quite good throughout most of Europe. I think that electricity generation policy is excellent in France, Sweden, and Switzerland; reasonably good in Denmark; and quite bad in Germany and Italy. I think that transportation policies in the U.S. are bad, while electricity generation policies are fair. I can give links to material about my assessments/opinions of energy policies in various countries if anyone wants them. There. I've tried to raise the level of debate on this post. I believe that the original post was intended to spark a discussion on the list about energy alternatives, rather than an argument about "Austria" vs. the U.S." If anyone has more interest in the topic of EU carbon emissions reduction goals and nuclear energy policies in countries such as France, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, they can visit my blog and search for the name of the country. http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com ~Ruth --- Sandy Perle wrote: > On 22 Jan 2007 at 19:44, Ruth Sponsler wrote: > > > Who is Jim Bell and why is he requesting his > material > > to be posted to Radsafe? > > > > Such material is easily available on the internet, > and > > I'm sure that almost all the members of this list > have > > been heavily exposed to such opinions during their > > college years and while reading newspapers etc. > > Hi Ruth, > > Your points are well taken. The primary reason I > went ahead and posted the information was > because of all the pro-nuclear and nuclear > renaissance, as well as concerns raised by the > current NRC Chair. Otherwise, I agree that the > posting would not add any value to the > dialogue. > > On another issue, Marshall Reber and I have > corresponded and I definitely concur that I > should have put Mr. Bell's entire article in quotes > to categorically make it understood that all > of the posting was his beliefs, and not mine. I > treated this posting as other news postings, > and don't use quotes. I do however understand that > this is not a case of posting a news > article from the wire services, and, should have > used the quotes. However, my pro-nuclear > support should not have been questioned, as was the > case in one posting. My 35+ years > supporting the nuclear option is well documented and > I apologize to nobody regarding that. > > 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 cox.net > > Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ > Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html From sandyfl at cox.net Tue Jan 23 19:35:24 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:35:24 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market during Putin trip In-Reply-To: References: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net>, Message-ID: <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> On 23 Jan 2007 at 17:20, John R Johnson wrote: > Sandy > > Does "All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on the > coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to guarantee > supplies of cooling water." mean that the "pebble bed" reactor at Winfrith > is no longer operating. Winfrith is a long way from "the coast". > > When I worked there in the 1970's that reactor was ( I think) putting power > into the grid when it worked, and was talked about as the "next generation" > of reactors. Hi John, Per the following, I believe that this site is now in decommissioning: "Winfrith was established by the UKAEA in 1958 as an experimental reactor research and development site. During its history, eight research reactors of various types have operated on the site. Winfrith also had a number of other facilities including fuel manufacture and examination, plutonium laboratories, nuclear waste treatment and storage and radioactive laboratories. The last reactor closed in 1995. Five of the reactors have been removed from the site; the three remaining have had fuel removed and are in various stages of decommissioning. Parts of the Winfrith site have been delicensed and it is expected that the remaining decommissioning will be completed by 2020." 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From jk5554 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 19:57:55 2007 From: jk5554 at yahoo.com (Ruth Sponsler) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:57:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Error in my post In-Reply-To: <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <880147.29500.qm@web32507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There was an error in this link. The correct form is below. Apologies! > > Some NRC Commissioners' speeches are here: > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/speeches/2006/ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 24 02:58:20 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:58:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in ...... SI Units in India? Message-ID: <98510.36066.qm@web26403.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Dr Schoenhofer, My apologies for not reading your message promptly. From the title of your message, I did not realize that your query was on SI units. I have only limited contact with the countries such as thailand, Bangladesh, Korea in the region; but I had occasion to meet scientists from these countries during many review meetings and conferences (some of them in Vienna) I have attended.I believe that everyone without exception use SI units. Yes, Indian scientists accepted SI units without much difficulty. Old timers (the species have almost vanished!!)are still comfortable with roentgens, rads and curies! Occasionally they argue that many are not able to comprehend SI units. The major incentive for change came from insistence of journals. I belong to a generation of scientists who competed among themselves by publishing articles in international journals. Initially, some of these journals wanted that we must use SI units or use both units. I was the editor of the AMPI Medical Physics Bulletin the earlier publication of the Association of Medical Physicists of India for several years.The Bulletin is now a journal. I was also in the editorial board of the bulletin of Indian Association of Radiation Protection and other publications.We have always encouraged the use of SI units. In 1975, two senior colleagues wrote an interesting paper titled " SI Units for radiation measurements:For or Against" in the Indian Journal of Radiology. I was very much involved in sorting out the "riddle" of rad and gray, rem and sievert, curie and becquerel. By about the middle of the eighties most of us were conversant with SI units. Once I reproduced in the AERB Newsletter, the publication from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, a few quotes from newspapers and journals to illustrate their confusion over radiation units. Two leading dailies in India used "gm" of radiation in place of rad! I could not understand till date the basis of this confusion. It was amusing to realize that there was confusion at all levels. When "Nature" wrote an an article to clarify the position, it defined "curie" incorrectly.(Nature,1985) For "The washigton Post",radiation and radioactivity were synonymous!(The Washington Post,May 2,1986) "The Nuclear Engineering International" bemoaned that even experts seemed a little unsure at times. July 1986 issue of the journal stated thus: "Chernobyl is off the front pages at last, but the confusion over the units in which it is measured lingers on... Data on contamination was rapidly made available in European countries after the accident, but nobody in the media or the public understood what the blast of becquerels, sieverts, rems, absorbed doses, dose equivalents (and from the Soviet Union itself, roentgens, of all things) really meant.Even the experts seemed a little unsure at times." On June 12, 1986 the New Scientist wrote thus: "Confusion over units of radiation continues, the weighty opinion of Lord Marshall of Goring, chairman of Britain's Central Electricity Generating Board, being that sieverts and becauerels are incomprehensible. " I am a rads and rems man myself" he confessed in Geneva. Marshall also condemned the use of becquerels per litre to measure the concentrations of radio-iodines in milk. The people of Britain, he roundly declared, not only do not understand becquerels, but they do not understand litres either". Immediately after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station, we had occasion to interact with some of the best brains in the legal profession.There was a prolonged litigation on imported (allegedly contaminated) butter from Ireland. Lawyers prefer clear and unambiguous language. Many scientists are not good communicators. We had to explain the basis of arriving at the limits of radionuclides in foodstuffs. The discussion covered Bq, Sv and radionuclides such as Sr-90, Cs-137! End of the day one of the eminent lawyers handling the case declared " I do not understand or believe a word of what you say, but I will defend the case". We were mortified. When the metric system was introduced in the United Kingdom, I was a student. We were confused. We felt that we were shortchanged in all cash transactions! It took some time to identify the then newly introduced Pence and the existing shilling and penny! On the of the mementos Professor Spiers (who was then head of the medical physics department, Leeds university) presented me was a scroll detailing the conversion into the metric system. I wrote this long message primarily to show that the introduction of "SI units" had its ups and downs. This was happening in all countries. I am not surprised to see that after several decades history repeats itself. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group, Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy Room No 18 Ground Floor, North Wing Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094 E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 25486081 (O) 91+22 27706048 (R) 9869016206 (mobile) ----- Original Message ---- From: Franz Sch?nhofer To: parthasarathy k s ; Sandy Perle ; radsafe at radlab.nl; powernet at hps1.org Sent: Monday, 22 January, 2007 8:50:53 AM Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Why some divers want to work in nuclear reactors;intersting story Do they work under simulated conditions? Dear collegue, Since I assume that you have a wide knowledge about not only the "Indian subcontinent", but also about countries in the far east I would seriously like to invite you to comment not only to me, but also to the RADSAFE community about the status of SI units in the Far East. I know that at least a few years ago Japan still officially had the outdated old units, but all my collegues I met during a month of intensive visits to many institutions there, that all my collegues and friends used SI-units. How is it in India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Korea (from my visits I know that the scientists use SI-units there as well as in China), etc. etc. I would appreciate your input to this discussion. Sincerely Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA Refreshing change away from the SI Units debate ! ___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From C.S.Vos at uu.nl Wed Jan 24 04:35:48 2007 From: C.S.Vos at uu.nl (Vos, C.S. (Kees)) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:35:48 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear enterprises RGM1/1 Message-ID: <02BA5F570D0016418ACC9A5ABDB333B60A1FA3@uu01msg-exb04.soliscom.uu.nl> Badly seeking: the (scanned) manual of the 'Radioactive Gas Monitor" Nuclear Entrerprises RGM1/1. Kees From lboing at anl.gov Wed Jan 24 08:29:26 2007 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:29:26 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutin trip In-Reply-To: <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net>, <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DF9A5@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> All- I believe the UKAEA sites at both Harwell and Winfrith are undergoing major site nuclear delicensing push. The IAEA recently published a report that addresses examples of site reuse following decommissioning - an interesting aspect of the decommissioning process now starting to get more attention - "Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities after Decommissioning" Technical Reports Series #444. Its available on the web at www.iaea.org and then you can follow links to the 'Publications' page. Also check the UKAEA website - they have lots of information there as well. Hope this helps. Larry Boing lboing at anl.gov -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Sandy Perle Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:35 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl; John R Johnson Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutin trip On 23 Jan 2007 at 17:20, John R Johnson wrote: > Sandy > > Does "All of the UK's working nuclear power stations are located on > the coast - sites originally chosen for their remoteness and to > guarantee supplies of cooling water." mean that the "pebble bed" > reactor at Winfrith is no longer operating. Winfrith is a long way from "the coast". > > When I worked there in the 1970's that reactor was ( I think) putting > power into the grid when it worked, and was talked about as the "next generation" > of reactors. Hi John, Per the following, I believe that this site is now in decommissioning: "Winfrith was established by the UKAEA in 1958 as an experimental reactor research and development site. During its history, eight research reactors of various types have operated on the site. Winfrith also had a number of other facilities including fuel manufacture and examination, plutonium laboratories, nuclear waste treatment and storage and radioactive laboratories. The last reactor closed in 1995. Five of the reactors have been removed from the site; the three remaining have had fuel removed and are in various stages of decommissioning. Parts of the Winfrith site have been delicensed and it is expected that the remaining decommissioning will be completed by 2020." 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 cox.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 jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 09:26:47 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:26:47 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers, and more uranium trioxide gas proof Message-ID: I'm sorry, the URL in my earlier message below is for congenital malformations (birth defects). The original citations for the Basra cancers are here: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm and: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm The only thing that varies in those three URLs is the digit in between hyphens. In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID 5527739) is at: http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf --please see section (f) on page 836, which indicates that about half of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion measured. Volatility of uranium trioxide (a/k/a uranyl oxide) gas: http://www.bovik.org/du/vol_uo3g.png --the plotted data points include those from Alexander (2005): http://www.bovik.org/du/Alexander2005.pdf and another Ackermann et al. (1956): http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1743156 and the DOF-adjusted R^2 corresponds to the 95% confidence interval shown. For the burning temperature of the shower-of-sparks which is the result of DU munitions use on hard targets, please see: http://bovik.org/du/scans/mb-388.jpg in particular figures four and six on page 392: http://bovik.org/du/scans/mb-392.jpg Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/22/07, James Salsman wrote: > The original peer-reviewed citation to the Med J Basra U is: > > http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm From robert.atkinson at genetix.com Wed Jan 24 09:31:49 2007 From: robert.atkinson at genetix.com (Robert Atkinson) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:31:49 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutintrip References: <45B65E3C.8288.A1CE4D@sandyfl.cox.net>, <45B6718C.31806.ED376A@sandyfl.cox.net> <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DF9A5@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> Message-ID: <260B27D627B0C84E864BAC459B702555061B4D@exch01.GENETIX.LOCAL> See, http://www.ukaea.org.uk/sites/winfrith_decommissioning_progress.htm for Winfrith info. Robert G8RPI. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Boing, Lawrence E. Sent: 24 January 2007 14:29 To: Sandy Perle; radsafe at radlab.nl; John R Johnson Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Russia to pitch for Indian nuclear market duringPutintrip All- I believe the UKAEA sites at both Harwell and Winfrith are undergoing major site nuclear delicensing push. The IAEA recently published a report that addresses examples of site reuse following decommissioning - an interesting aspect of the decommissioning process now starting to get more attention - "Redevelopment of Nuclear Facilities after Decommissioning" Technical Reports Series #444. Its available on the web at www.iaea.org and then you can follow links to the 'Publications' page. Also check the UKAEA website - they have lots of information there as well. Hope this helps. Larry Boing lboing at anl.gov -------------------------------------------------------- Genetix Limited - Queensway, New Milton, Hampshire, BH25 5NN Registered in England No. 2660050 www.genetix.com Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily Genetix Ltd (Genetix) or any company associated with it. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify Genetix by telephone on +44 (0)1425 624600. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. This mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Genetix network. Genetix will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages as a result of any virus being passed on, or arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party. -------------------------------------------------------- From C.S.Vos at uu.nl Wed Jan 24 10:05:32 2007 From: C.S.Vos at uu.nl (Vos, C.S. (Kees)) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:05:32 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Nuclear enterprises RGM1/1 References: <02BA5F570D0016418ACC9A5ABDB333B60A1FA3@uu01msg-exb04.soliscom.uu.nl> Message-ID: <02BA5F570D0016418ACC9A5ABDB333B60A1FA9@uu01msg-exb04.soliscom.uu.nl> I'm sorry for the 'badly' requested information and not giving a full name and address. I'm desperately seeking the manual... Kees Vos RSO University Utrecht The Netherlands kees_kever at hotmail.com ________________________________ Van: Vos, C.S. (Kees) Verzonden: wo 24-1-2007 11:35 Aan: radsafe at radlab.nl Onderwerp: Nuclear enterprises RGM1/1 Badly seeking: the (scanned) manual of the 'Radioactive Gas Monitor" Nuclear Entrerprises RGM1/1. Kees From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 11:05:51 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:05:51 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's citation for Basrah cancers, and more uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124085108.02e7b5c0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >I'm sorry, the URL in my earlier message below is for congenital >malformations (birth defects). The original citations for the Basra >cancers are here: > >http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm >and: >http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm These articles are totally worthless. There is no statistically significant difference among the annual data for any of the diseases that are listed. Also, the suggested depleted uranium exposures are hypothetical and the etiological connection is imaginary. 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 11:39:07 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:39:07 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the >combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID >5527739) is at: > http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf >--please see section (f) on page 836, which indicates that about half >of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the >aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion >measured. *********************************** In aerosol science the word fume refers to small airborne particles produced by condensation of vapors. The definition given on page 6 in the textbook AEROSOL SCIENCE by W.C. Hinds (Academic Press 1982) states" "Fume: A solid-particle aerosol produced by the condensation of vapors or gaseous combustion products. Particle sizes are generally less than 1 um. Note that this definition is different from the popular use of the term to refer to any noxious contamination the atmosphere." Mr. Salsman's lack of knowledge in this field has led to his misunderstanding of the article by Carter and Stewart. The vapors formed in that study existed only instantaneously at temperature exceeding 2000 degrees Celsius. Carter and Steward studied the insoluble airborne particles formed by vaporization of plutonium and uranium. Their main conclusion was that extremely hot events can lead to the formation of airborne particles of the insoluble metal oxides. No gaseous forms of plutonium metal or uranium metal or their oxides exist at normal ambient temperature Otto 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 11:49:19 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:49:19 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's even more uranium trioxide gas spoofs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124094412.02e86dd0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >Volatility of uranium trioxide (a/k/a uranyl oxide) gas: > http://www.bovik.org/du/vol_uo3g.png >--the plotted data points include those from Alexander (2005): > http://www.bovik.org/du/Alexander2005.pdf >and another Ackermann et al. (1956): > http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1743156 >and the DOF-adjusted R^2 corresponds to the 95% confidence interval shown. ************************************************** As the first reference shows, temperatures well above 2000 Kelvin are required to produce and maintain uranium trioxide gas. If a person was to try to inhale air at 2000 Kelvin, the presence of uranium oxide vapor would be a minor concern...... 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 crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 11:54:58 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:54:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] non-lead based apparel in Diagnostic Radiology In-Reply-To: <20070116172247.57020.qmail@web81702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <209231.22134.qm@web54302.mail.yahoo.com> Michael, Have you considered the cost of lead disposal? --- michael olex wrote: > Hello all, > > Does anyone have any strong feelings regarding the > use of non-lead based apparel in a diagnostic > radiology department. We're mainly looking at > Xenolite-NL due to the weight, lack of disposal > issues, and performance. However, I'm a little > hesitant due the transmission through the Xenolite > at energies above 100 kVp. > > Does anyone use this regularly and have any words of > wisdom to offer? > > Mike Olex, MS > Medical Physicst > molex77 at yahoo.com > > > "There is nothing permanent except CHANGE" > -Heraclitus > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:41:43 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:41:43 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Basrah cancers Message-ID: Dr. Raabe, at what confidence level would the increases reported in Basrah be significant? I ask because you imply that you have already done the math. On 1/24/07, Otto Raabe wrote, in regard to: >... > http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm > and: > http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm > These articles are totally worthless. There is no statistically significant > difference among the annual data for any of the diseases that are listed. > Also, the suggested depleted uranium exposures are hypothetical and the > etiological connection is imaginary. > > 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 jsalsman at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 14:59:11 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:59:11 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: Dr. Raabe, Are you suggesting that as a gas diffuses and cools below the point at which it is volatile, more than half of it will condense "instantaneously?" That is absurd. The condensation process can take hours to days for a molecule the mass of uranium trioxide, and those molecules which condense on the surface of dust, for example, are almost as immediately soluable in lung fluid as gas molecules. There is nothing in Carter and Stewart to suggest that the process is "instantaneous" or even particularly quick. Carter and Stewart write, "droplets of ... uranium ... which burn in air ... lose about one half of their internal mass which is emitted violently as a vapor." Not a fume, a gas vapor. A vapor is a collection of individual gas molecules. Do you have any support at all for your assertion that their gaseous state is "instantaneous"? Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/24/07, Otto Raabe wrote: > > At 07:26 AM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: > > In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the > combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID > 5527739) is at: > http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf > --please see section (f) on page 836, which indicates that about half > of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the > aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion > measured.*********************************** > In aerosol science the word fume refers to small airborne particles > produced by condensation of vapors. The definition given on page 6 in the > textbook AEROSOL SCIENCE by W.C. Hinds (Academic Press 1982) states" "Fume: > A solid-particle aerosol produced by the condensation of vapors or gaseous > combustion products. Particle sizes are generally less than 1 um. Note that > this definition is different from the popular use of the term to refer to > any noxious contamination the atmosphere." > > Mr. Salsman's lack of knowledge in this field has led to his > misunderstanding of the article by Carter and Stewart. The vapors formed in > that study existed only instantaneously at temperature exceeding 2000 > degrees Celsius. Carter and Steward studied the insoluble airborne particles > formed by vaporization of plutonium and uranium. Their main conclusion was > that extremely hot events can lead to the formation of airborne particles of > the insoluble metal oxides. > > No gaseous forms of plutonium metal or uranium metal or their oxides exist > at normal ambient temperature > > Otto > > > > 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 jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Wed Jan 24 15:05:15 2007 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:05:15 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Equal time - a negative view on Nuclear In-Reply-To: <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45B63AE6.5284.17BE2F@sandyfl.cox.net> <662911.40893.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20070124145526.042ce590@us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com> At 07:21 PM 1/23/2007, Ruth Sponsler wrote: >..........The net effect of their >blockades, frivolous lawsuits, and "nuclear phaseouts" >in both Europe and the United States has been to >increase fossil fuel use and to increase the >associated environmental problems including sulfur >dioxide [acid rain], mercury pollution [from coal >emissions], particulate emissions [largely from coal], >and carbon dioxide emissions [from all fossil fuels, >including natural gas as well as coal]. Ruth: You forgot the radioactive emissions (from burning fossil fuels with NORM) : http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html A carefully ignored (by some!) fact???? Doug Doug Aitken Office Phone 281 285-7966 QHSE Advisor Home Phone 713 797-0919 D&M Operations Support Cell Phone 713 562-8585 Schlumberger Technology Corporation From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Wed Jan 24 15:40:59 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:40:59 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Basrah cancers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 12:41 PM 1/24/2007, James Salsman wrote: >Dr. Raabe, at what confidence level would the increases reported in >Basrah be significant? *********************************** Dear Mr. Salsman, I use alpha=0.05, which was not achieved with those data. Even if they were significantly different, there is no evidence that they are connected in any way to depleted uranium in the environment, There are many factors that affect disease incidence including weather, diet, and especially improved disease surveillance. I suspect that you have already convinced yourself of the imaginary risks of depleted uranium, and you are just searching for things that will support your dogmatic position. By selecting only things that seem to support your position and discarding things that obviously conflict with it, you will never benefit from information on this forum. 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 crispy_bird at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 15:45:38 2007 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:45:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <834360.20640.qm@web81807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <898357.76135.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Why would cancer death incidents be better than cancer incidents? Because there are few deaths than diagnoses due to better treatment? Of because the values fit your beliefs? I assume that you heard the cancer rates have also fallen in the last few years. But I do not think that is due to ALARA. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550925 (If you would like a copy of this article, let me know.) Your conjecture that higher leukemia rates in the apartment dwellers is due to higher doses in the early years is interestomg. Does that not raise the question the more solid tumors may be found in future years? That was the finding of the LSS from the atomic bomb survivors. You correctly noted that I mistyped the sentence regarding current childhood leukemia rates. I thought is survival rate was about 70%, but am pleased it is 80%. And my generation was the last to be threatened by polio. If so, this exposure population would mirror the bomb victum study. I was sure that you cherry-picked the sentences. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear you admit it. --- howard long wrote: > JJ, > 1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, > Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than > diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer). > 2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were > higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. > Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > I believe that I offered copies of the original > paper > when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one > to > Jim. Did you need a copy? > > I think that you not only chery-picked the > sentences, > but also do not understand what was written. You may > understand the differences between solid tumors and > leukemias. > > There are also differences between cancer incidents > and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was > 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have > the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) > > Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would > bias the data. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Do you still offer to send the whole article > on-line > > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. > Any > > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > > hear from. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From hflong at pacbell.net Wed Jan 24 17:43:02 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:43:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Environmental - In-Reply-To: <898357.76135.qm@web54303.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <422574.84649.qm@web81808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 1. doctors usually can determine and usually report cause of deaths better than diagnosis. 2. Selection, "cherry picking" is how one defines a population. False statement that it represents another is dishonest. Howard Long John Jacobus wrote: Dr. Long, Why would cancer death incidents be better than cancer incidents? Because there are few deaths than diagnoses due to better treatment? Of because the values fit your beliefs? I assume that you heard the cancer rates have also fallen in the last few years. But I do not think that is due to ALARA. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/550925 (If you would like a copy of this article, let me know.) Your conjecture that higher leukemia rates in the apartment dwellers is due to higher doses in the early years is interestomg. Does that not raise the question the more solid tumors may be found in future years? That was the finding of the LSS from the atomic bomb survivors. You correctly noted that I mistyped the sentence regarding current childhood leukemia rates. I thought is survival rate was about 70%, but am pleased it is 80%. And my generation was the last to be threatened by polio. If so, this exposure population would mirror the bomb victum study. I was sure that you cherry-picked the sentences. Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear you admit it. --- howard long wrote: > JJ, > 1. TOTAL death rate (not just childhood cancers, > Chen, Luan) is a much more definite measure than > diagnoses (The Chang paper you offer). > 2. I believe the leukemia-lymphoma diagnoses were > higher, perhaps because of very high exposure early. > Leukemia-lymphoma cures obviously were over 80%. > > Howard Long > > John Jacobus wrote: > Dr. Long, > I believe that I offered copies of the original > paper > when it appear, and I believe that I even sent one > to > Jim. Did you need a copy? > > I think that you not only chery-picked the > sentences, > but also do not understand what was written. You may > understand the differences between solid tumors and > leukemias. > > There are also differences between cancer incidents > and death. When I was young, childhood leukemia was > 98% fatal. Not it is about 70% fatal (I may not have > the right values, but I am sure the point is clear.) > > Thus, to consider only fatal childhood cancers would > bias the data. > > --- howard long wrote: > > > Do you still offer to send the whole article > on-line > > reference to Radsafe readers, John? > > My printed cc is all I can easily locate. Yes, I > > did "cherry pick" the contradictory statements. > Any > > Radsafer who finds them NOT contradictory after > > reading the whole article, and the abstract NOT > > misleading, (downright dishonest), I would like to > > hear from. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++ ?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.? -- John F. Kennedy -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 _______________________________________________ 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 sergio at bgu.ac.il Thu Jan 25 09:27:06 2007 From: sergio at bgu.ac.il (Dr. Sergio Faermann) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:27:06 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: <0A3A4D16E9B98F46BBD412EE0A649EAF02A2334B@sont05.soroka.clalit.org.il> Dear colleagues As we are going to install our first PET/CT I would like to know what are the tasks of a medical physicist and if a full position is justified.The Nuclear Medicine Institute has 2 working gamma-cameras. Thanking you in advance Sergio Faermann, Ph.D. From WesVanPelt at Verizon.net Thu Jan 25 09:27:50 2007 From: WesVanPelt at Verizon.net (Wes) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:27:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article on Utah Radiation In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <008a01c74095$607e8e80$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Radsafers, While the press often exaggerates the effects of radiation exposure, here is an article that gets it right. The reporter, Lee Benson, quotes Blaine Howard, a retired HP. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650225525,00.html Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. From WesVanPelt at Verizon.net Thu Jan 25 09:52:40 2007 From: WesVanPelt at Verizon.net (Wes) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:52:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] KI tablets for persons doing radioiodinations with I-125 In-Reply-To: <0A3A4D16E9B98F46BBD412EE0A649EAF02A2334B@sont05.soroka.clalit.org.il> References: <0A3A4D16E9B98F46BBD412EE0A649EAF02A2334B@sont05.soroka.clalit.org.il> Message-ID: <00c401c74098$d8556430$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Radsafers, I am curious to know if any radiation safety programs make use of potassium iodide (KI) in the event of an accidental (or routine?) uptake of I-125 when handled in the lab. This would be most likely when performing radioiodination reactions to label proteins or antigens. Issues I am thinking about include: Possible adverse side effects from KI in some individuals. Is a physician's prescription needed? Would a "patient consent" form be advisable or required? At what action level (intake or radiation dose) would KI be administered? Would blocking thyroid uptake with cold KI invalidate thyroid bioassay measurements? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. From lboing at anl.gov Thu Jan 25 10:04:40 2007 From: lboing at anl.gov (Boing, Lawrence E.) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:04:40 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article on Utah Radiation In-Reply-To: <008a01c74095$607e8e80$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124132742.033810a0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <008a01c74095$607e8e80$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Message-ID: <637FE1FE13221C4F8BFC590A42B847893DFA53@NE-EXCH.ne.anl.gov> Wes - I also noted this article and I commend those of us in the technical community who stand up and educate others to dispel inaccurate information. Larry Boing -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Wes Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:28 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: benson at desnews.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article on Utah Radiation Radsafers, While the press often exaggerates the effects of radiation exposure, here is an article that gets it right. The reporter, Lee Benson, quotes Blaine Howard, a retired HP. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650225525,00.html Best regards, Wes Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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 luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Thu Jan 25 10:56:27 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:56:27 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations Message-ID: In a past life I worked in University research settings, and the RSO had set up a Thyroid counting station for our researchers to come in once a week when using I-125. I question whether checking the reading at the thyroid was correct. Most of the I-125 we got in was in the form of a radiolabeled chemicals such the DNA precursurs. My understanding of uptake is that the moleule will follow its pathway differently than the element. i.e. instead of going to the thyroid like iodine would, it might go whole body or concentrate in another specific organ. Is my thinking correct? Luke McCormick From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jan 25 11:02:02 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:02:02 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC0@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> It has always been my understanding that Iodine, regardless of the form, is absorbed by the thyroid. I am unaware of any other organ with a higher affinity for Iodine than the thyroid. Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Mccormick, Luke I Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:56 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In a past life I worked in University research settings, and the RSO had set up a Thyroid counting station for our researchers to come in once a week when using I-125. I question whether checking the reading at the thyroid was correct. Most of the I-125 we got in was in the form of a radiolabeled chemicals such the DNA precursurs. My understanding of uptake is that the moleule will follow its pathway differently than the element. i.e. instead of going to the thyroid like iodine would, it might go whole body or concentrate in another specific organ. Is my thinking correct? Luke McCormick _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jan 25 11:53:37 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:53:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Luke Your thinking is correct. There are lots of references/papers available; for example, you can look at an old one of mine "Recycling And Metabolic Models For Internal Dosimetry: With Special Reference to Iodine". J. R. Johnson. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1989); pp. 57-58. 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 Mccormick, Luke I Sent: January 25, 2007 8:56 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radioiodinations In a past life I worked in University research settings, and the RSO had set up a Thyroid counting station for our researchers to come in once a week when using I-125. I question whether checking the reading at the thyroid was correct. Most of the I-125 we got in was in the form of a radiolabeled chemicals such the DNA precursurs. My understanding of uptake is that the moleule will follow its pathway differently than the element. i.e. instead of going to the thyroid like iodine would, it might go whole body or concentrate in another specific organ. Is my thinking correct? Luke McCormick _______________________________________________ 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jan 25 12:09:37 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:09:37 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070125100917.02f02600@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 12:59 PM 1/24/2007, you wrote: >Are you suggesting that as a gas diffuses and cools below the point at >which it is volatile, more than half of it will condense >"instantaneously?" That is absurd. ******************************************* When the oxide molecule forms by "burning" liquified plutonium or uranium it has different chemical and physical characteristics that the pure metal. Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide particles. These particles rapidly coalesce into chain aggregates as shown in the micrographs in the paper by Carter and Stewart or my own studies referenced below. This is virtually an instantaneous process since the melting and vaporization temperatures of the oxides are much higher than those of the pure metals. Hence, the "vapor" form of the oxides only exists momentarily, if at all,and only if the reaction is hot enough to reach the oxide melting point. I have conducted these types of experiments and characterized the particles produced by laser vaporization of plutonium. The vapor oxidation and particle formation is virtually instantaneous. The vapor phase exists only in the superheated zone. [Raabe, O.G., S.V. Teague, N.L. Richardson and L.S. Nelson. Aerodynamic and dissolution behavior of fume aerosols produced during the combustion of laser-ignited plutonium droplets in air. Health Physics 35: 663-674 1978.]. 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 jsalsman at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 12:36:06 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:36:06 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: Dr. Raabe, I find this very difficult to believe: > Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and > results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide > particles. How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and head toward a surface? Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and Stewart contains no such mass measurements. What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, and where are they documented? Sincerely, James Salsman From welch at jlab.org Thu Jan 25 13:01:04 2007 From: welch at jlab.org (Keith Welch) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:01:04 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Message-ID: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 25 13:19:04 2007 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (bobcherry at satx.rr.com) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:19:04 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: Apparently Mr. Salsman has misplaced his physical chemistry textbook and forgotten the part about phase diagrams. Bob C ----- Original Message ----- From: James Salsman Date: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof To: Otto Raabe Cc: radsafelist > Dr. Raabe, > > I find this very difficult to believe: > > > Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion > process and > > results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid > oxide> particles. > > How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and > head toward a surface? > > Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart > supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and > Stewart contains no such mass measurements. > > What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, > and where are they documented? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Thu Jan 25 13:45:47 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:45:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c740b9$6e4854f0$49197254@pc1> James, I decided a long time ago not to comment on your postings to RADSAFE, but let me now ask you, how long you want to keep up this ridiculous arguing against the most important and world-wide known experts on such questions? I think that I previously already told you that you are neglecting the most simple rules of science, you are wasting your time by searching for more and more pseudo-confirmations which heavily disagree with scientific research. You have finally lost any connection to the real problems of this world. Even if a few persons of the US-troops would have died from DU (which I categorally deny!!!!!) this would be nothing compared to those who have died by "normal" action and not to talk about the "enemy" forces killed. Don't you read the statistics about casualities of the US army in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Just a "little" to add: how about the more than ten-fold casualities of civilians in both countries? James Salsman, I doubt that this is your correct name, (I mentioned this some time ago!) I rather assume that you are hiding your real identity behind this name, because you do not reveal your identity and your affiliation as recently the list owner requested in his reminder of good conduct at RADSAFE. I would appreciate if you came out with your real identity and your background and if you would accept that this list is an international one. I would appreciate as well if you would comment on the topics of civilian casualities compared to purported DU sufferors mostly regarding Iraq, but probably also for Afghanistan. Of course you will not provide us with data, because this might involve heavy and timne consuming work on the Internet and it seems that you rely on s**t you receive from some groups by internet. I would propose for you, to simply stop posting to RADSAFE. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von James Salsman Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. J?nner 2007 19:36 An: Otto Raabe Cc: radsafelist Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof Dr. Raabe, I find this very difficult to believe: > Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and > results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide > particles. How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and head toward a surface? Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and Stewart contains no such mass measurements. What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, and where are they documented? Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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 AWEAVER at research.usf.edu Thu Jan 25 13:49:51 2007 From: AWEAVER at research.usf.edu (Weaver, Adam) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Control Tech Job Opening Message-ID: <4ABCA739AEECE74CA7CF1C598111DF29070BCB39@BUKU.fastmail.usf.edu> Radiation Control Technician at the University of South Florida - Tampa FL Date Posted: 01/17/07 Deadline to Apply: 02/01/07 Annual Salary: $26,000 - $30,000 Duties: This position conducts radiation surveys with a Geiger Counter, and wipe test of laboratories and equipment at USF; conducts weekly radioactive waste collection from USF research labs; and performs close-out surveys of rooms, areas, or equipment prior to salvage, repair, or routine maintenance as assigned by RSO. Minimum Qualifications: High school diploma and two years of work experience with radioactive materials, hazardous waste or work in a research laboratory. Requires valid Florida Driver?s License. Appropriate college coursework or vocational/technical training may substitute at an equivalent rate for the required experience Preferred Qualifications: AA degree in Arts and Sciences/Natural Sciences; ability to walk up to 3 miles a day, and lift up to 50 pounds. Send completed USF Application for Employment to: (Cover Letter & Resume may be included): Linda Mulligan lmulligan at research.usf.edu ? (813) 974-7516 or University of South Florida Attn: Linda Mulligan 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC35 Tampa, FL 33612-4799 Web link to USF employment application: http://usfweb2.usf.edu/HR/Employment/USPSbyTitle.html Thanks Adam S. Weaver, MS, CHP Radiation & Laser Safety Officer University of South Florida 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., MDC35 Tampa, FL 33612-4799 813-974-1194 (phone) 813-974-7091 (fax) From Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com Thu Jan 25 15:17:55 2007 From: Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com (Flanigan, Floyd) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:17:55 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Message-ID: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC1@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Granted, I cannot claim to speak from personal experience when it comes to Shipyards, but I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with many people from that sector. To the best of my recollection, none of them ever related anything about either the selection process for workers involving any kind of family cancer history screening for screening applicants, nor did any relate anything about workers being removed from the "yards" after being diagnosed with cancer. I have personally worked with several cancer patients, some who died while working nuke. Mostly in the D.O.E. world. None of them were asked to leave their positions post diagnosis. So, from what I can relate, no. The two selection/exclusion factors from your post are not, in my experience, true. Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Keith Welch Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:01 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab _______________________________________________ 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 welch at jlab.org Thu Jan 25 15:42:40 2007 From: welch at jlab.org (Keith Welch) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:42:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC1@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> References: <7A9B2084CC9CEC45828E829CBF20D638013AAFC1@enex02.ft.nmcco.net> Message-ID: <45B92450.2090004@jlab.org> Thanks Floyd. Just a clarification. I didn't mean that workers were removed from employment at the yard after being diagnosed; just removed from rad-worker status, and therefore possibly excluded from making it into the exposed cohort. I used to work at a shipyard also, and I knew one or two folks who were cancer patients while employed there. My recollection is that the first thing that happened in that event was to "take them off badge". What I'm wondering is how that might (if at all) have affected the probability of that person being included in the "exposed" cohort. I wonder what the selection criteria were. I was also told anecdotally of people who were excluded from nuclear worker status by pre-screening for family history. Keith Flanigan, Floyd wrote: > Granted, I cannot claim to speak from personal experience when it comes > to Shipyards, but I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with > many people from that sector. To the best of my recollection, none of > them ever related anything about either the selection process for > workers involving any kind of family cancer history screening for > screening applicants, nor did any relate anything about workers being > removed from the "yards" after being diagnosed with cancer. I have > personally worked with several cancer patients, some who died while > working nuke. Mostly in the D.O.E. world. None of them were asked to > leave their positions post diagnosis. So, from what I can relate, no. > The two selection/exclusion factors from your post are not, in my > experience, true. > > Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P. > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Keith Welch > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:01 PM > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had > lower incidences of all cancers - " > > Folks, > I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But > recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about > this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on > > its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to > mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, > but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker > effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health > insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich > victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but > assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different > socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt > with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the > shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for > > nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history > > of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and > therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they > were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based > > in fact? > > Keith Welch > Jefferson Lab > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cox.net Thu Jan 25 18:59:49 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:59:49 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Groups sue to shut down Idaho nuclear reactor Message-ID: <45B90C35.17032.AC24E8@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Groups sue to shut down Idaho nuclear reactor Canada pushes nuclear power to get at oil sands Putin promises India more nuclear power Uranium an unsettling reminder of nuclear material on black market Belarus to Go Nuclear 21 Years After Chernobyl Nuclear energy's French connection Five charged over nuclear protest (AEHI) Seeks to Purchase Operating Nuclear Plant in the U.S. Officials: No harmful radiation at Piketon site ================================== Groups sue to shut down Idaho nuclear reactor BOISE, Idaho Idaho Press Tribune Jan 25 - - Two nuclear watchdog groups have sued the U.S. Department of Energy in federal court to shut down a nuclear reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory and force the agency to conduct an environmental review before trying to extend the reactor's life. The Advanced Test Reactor is one of three materials test reactors built at the 890-square-mile complex headquartered in Idaho Falls. Built in 1967, the reactor bombards materials with neutrons to speed the effects of radiation and reveal weaknesses that might develop in materials over time. Last year, the Energy Department launched a 10-year, $200 million program to extend the life of the reactor to 2040. The decision followed a proposal to consolidate U.S. production of plutonium-238 for NASA and national security agencies in the 250-megawatt reactor. Plutonium-238 is not used in nuclear weapons. But because of the heat it generates during a lengthy decay period, the highly toxic material is used as a long-lasting power supply for deep-space satellites and in surveillance devices that are placed underwater or on land. The 40-year-old reactor is already well past its design life, and any program to extend its use will generate significant quantities of radioactive waste, much of which has no identified path for disposal, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Idaho. "Absent major safety upgrades and very significant expenditures, extending the ATR's operation poses unacceptable risks to the residents of southeastern Idaho and western Wyoming and endangers two of the nation's most cherished national parks, Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park," the lawsuit said. The complex sits about 90 miles west of Jackson, Wyo., which is just south of the two national parks. The lawsuit was filed by nonprofit Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free of Jackson, Wyo. and its executive director, Mary Woollen; nonprofit Environmental Defense Institute of Troy; Aberdeen resident Debra Stansell; and John Peavey of Carey, a former Idaho senator for 21 years. Energy Department officials refused to discuss the lawsuit or the program to extend the reactor's life. "The reactor has contributed significantly to the development of the Navy's nuclear fleet, as well as safely producing medical and industrial isotopes," spokesman Tim Jackson said in a statement. "The department intends to assure that ATR continues to operate safely now and in the future." Beginning in 2003 and concluding in 2006, several teams reviewed the reactor and found that while its current condition and staff were sufficient to support safe near-term operations, the viability of long-term operations was in doubt. A March 2006 report on the plan also detailed a 115,000-hour backlog of deferred maintenance and engineering, at an estimated cost of $5 million. The report, prepared for the Energy Department, was released to The Associated Press by the Yellowstone watchdog group, which obtained it through an information request. However, the reactor was shut down for three months last fall for a scheduled maintenance outage as part of the extension program. Maintenance activities included replacement and refurbishment of more than 350 parts and more than 200 technical safety inspections, among other things. Mark Sullivan, a Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free lawyer, said the facility should immediately be shut down until federal officials can assure residents it is safe. In the meantime, he said, the Energy Department must conduct an environmental assessment and at least consider the alternatives to extending the reactor's life. "You have to address the 40 years of inadequate safety requirements," Sullivan said. "But we feel before the government enacts that program, they should at least weigh their alternatives. In fact, they're required to." ------------------ Canada pushes nuclear power to get at oil sands OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada may need to turn to nuclear energy to get heavy crude out of the ground at its vast oil sands deposits if it doesn't want to add seriously to the problem of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Thursday. "We shouldn't be afraid to look at all forms of clean energy, and if it can dramatically reduce greenhouse gases -- ... it has that potential -- we should be open to it," Lunn told Reuters. The decision to use nuclear power at the oil sands will ultimately not be made by the federal government, but Ottawa can encourage a certain direction, and it also has the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which are blamed for climate change. Lunn said discussions are already taking place with the oil industry and the province of Alberta, where the oil sands are located, and that he would meet with the province's energy minister soon. The issue is a hot topic in Alberta, where the oil industry is looking to cut the use of the large volumes of natural gas used to power the separation of oil from sand. The use of nuclear power as an alternative has been rejected several times over the years. A privately held company, Energy Alberta, is pitching the concept of building a nuclear power plant near Fort McMurray, Alberta, where the industry is concentrated, and has said it could have a proposal within the next few months. One method of extracting the tar-like bitumen from the oil sands is to inject steam into the ground to make it flow more easily. Currently, industry burns relatively clean natural gas to make the steam needed to get the gooey crude. This is a process one oil economist has likened to using gold to make lead, using up supplies that can be used in the chemical industry or for heating homes, and in any case emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy does not produce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, though many environmentalists and other critics oppose its use because of the danger posed by the plants' radioactive waste, which must be stored. "Listen, you believe in reducing greenhouse gases or you don't; you believe in climate change, and if you do, you should be taking a hard look (at nuclear energy for the oil sands)," Lunn said. "There's no question that, absolutely, it's worth getting very serious about looking at the options and saying what would be the impacts, and that's what we're doing." Shell Canada Ltd. Chief Executive Clive Mather told Reuters on Wednesday he was not ready to buy into the nuclear concept yet. His company has disclosed long-term plans to boost oil sands production to 770,000 barrels a day. Shell is already one of the country's largest oil sands developers. "At the moment, our on-site cogeneration facilities have proved to be very efficient and very reliable and very competitive in price. But we are watching the nuclear brief because it may offer over time an economic advantage," Mather said. He cautioned nuclear waste containment remains an issue. Canada's minority Conservative government says it will be impossible to meet the emission targets laid down by the Kyoto protocol on climate change, partly because of rising emissions in the booming oil industry. But it is under heavy pressure from the opposition to do what it can to limit those emissions. ---------------- Putin promises India more nuclear power NEW DELHI (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin promised energy- hungry India nuclear reactors and power plants after arriving on a mission to rejuvenate ties with Moscow's former Cold War ally. But at a meeting with Indian business leaders, Putin heard expressions of disappointment over the slow growth of bilateral trade and frustration at difficulties in cracking the Russian market. India, which is racing to secure new sources of fuel to sustain its booming economy, welcomed Russian moves to help "in the expansion of our nuclear sector," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said after a signing ceremony. "We appreciate Russian support," Singh said after the two countries inked a memorandum of understanding in which Russia promised four more nuclear reactors for a flagship nuclear plant it is building in Kudankulam in southern Tamil Nadu -- a state that already has two 1,000-megawatt Russian reactors. The symbolic highlight of Putin's two-day visit will be Friday, when he is guest of honour at India's Republic Day celebrations -- designed to show a close friendship even as New Delhi grows closer to the United States and other Western governments. Putin, on his fourth visit to India since becoming president, also promised to co-operate in building atomic energy stations "at new locations in the Indian republic." The passage last year of a landmark US-Indian deal allowing New Delhi access to civilian nuclear technology after decades of isolation has unleashed an international race to supply the Indian civilian nuclear energy market. Western nations have also been jostling for a slice of India's lucrative civilian nuclear energy market, although any contracts with india still must await approval by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the global nuclear energy trade. Outside of nuclear and military cooperation -- which brought a 250- million-dollar contract Wednesday for the joint production of fighter jet engines -- India's business elite painted a less than rosy picture of relations with Russia. "We have to seek an answer to the question why, despite strong political ties between two time-tested friends, bilateral trade and business ties remain low," Habil Khorakiwala, president of Indian business association FICCI, said. Addressing Putin during a meeting with other Indian and Russian businessmen, Khorakiwala said it was "time to put words into practice and transform the willingness into actual cooperation." Minutes after Putin said bilateral trade ties had jumped an estimated 20 percent in 2006 to reach 3.8 billion dollars, Khorakiwala put the number at just 2.75 billion. Indian businessmen have long complained of difficulties in receiving Russian visas, which Russia has tied to alleged problems with illegal Indian immigration, an Indian government official told AFP. Still, Thursday brought agreement between India's state-run Oil and Natural Gas Corp and Russian state oil giant Rosneft to jointly bid for exploration and refining projects in India, Russia and other countries. ONGC and Rosneft will build on their existing partnership in Russia's vast Sakhalin-1 oil and gas field, the two companies said in a joint statement. The two sides also signed a 250-million-dollar deal for a Russian- built hydroelectric power station in northern Uttar Pradesh, as well as a joint venture to produce titanium products in eastern Orissa. Moscow and New Delhi were allies throughout the Cold War, agreeing to billions of dollars' worth of arms deals, but the ground has shifted as India has turned to the US and other Western countries for arms and investment. Putin has said he hoped the countries would triple bilateral trade to 10 billion dollars per year by 2010. ---------------- Offer of uranium an unsettling reminder of nuclear material on black market WASHINGTON - It was one of the most serious cases of smuggling of nuclear material in recent years: A Russian man, authorities allege, tried to sell a small amount of nuclear-bomb grade uranium in a plastic bag in his jacket pocket. The buy that took place last summer, it turned out, was a setup by Republic of Georgia authorities, with the help of the CIA. Their quiet sting operation - neither U.S. nor Georgian officials have publicized it - is an unsettling reminder about the possibility of terrorists acquiring nuclear bomb-making material on the black market. No evidence suggests this particular case was terrorist-related. "Given the serious consequences of the detonation of an improvised nuclear explosive device, even small numbers of incidents involving HEU (highly enriched uranium) or plutonium are of very high concern," said Melissa Fleming of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Details of the investigation, which also involved the FBI and Energy Department, were provided to The Associated Press by U.S. officials and Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili. Authorities say they do not know how the man acquired the nuclear material or if his claims of access to much larger quantities were true. He and three Georgian accomplices are in Georgian custody and not cooperating with investigators. Meanwhile, Russian authorities have confirmed that weapons-grade uranium was confiscated from a Russian citizen in neighboring Georgia, but claim the ex-Soviet republic has not cooperated with Moscow while investigating the incident, the Interfax news agency reported Thursday. According to Interfax, an unnamed source at Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, said the Russian was detained in December 2005, while a Georgian Interior Ministry official, Shota Utiashvili, said Thursday that he was detained in February 2006. Utiashvili identified the man as Oleg Khinsagov, a resident of Vladikavkaz in North Ossetia, a Russian region that borders Georgia. There was no immediate response to requests for comment lodged with Rosatom, the Federal Security Service and the Interior Ministry prior to the Interfax report. Following the report, Rosatom spokesman Ivan Dybov said the agency would not comment. Merabishvili said Georgian attempts to trace the nuclear material since the arrest and confirm whether the man indeed had access to larger quantities have foundered from a lack of cooperation from Russia. Merabishvili said he was revealing the story out of frustration with Russia's response and the need to illustrate the dangers of a breakdown in security cooperation in the region. Interfax also cited an unidentified source at Rosatom as saying Georgian authorities had given Russia too small a sample to determine its origin and had refused to provide other information. Russia has tense relations with Georgia, like Russia a former Soviet republic. Georgia has been troubled by Russia's support for separatists in two breakaway Georgian border regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The sting was set up after Georgian authorities uncovered extensive smuggling networks while investigating criminal groups operating in the breakaway republics, Merabishvili said. "When we sent buyers, the channels through Abkhazia and South Ossetia began to expand, and we started seeing a huge flow of materials," he said. "Sometimes it was low-grade enriched materials, but this was the first instance of highly enriched material." According to his account, during an investigation in South Ossetia, a Georgian undercover agent posing as a rich foreign buyer made contact with the Russian seller in North Ossetia, which is part of Russia. After the Russian offered to sell the sample, the agent rebuffed requests that the transaction occur in North Ossetia, insisting the Russian come to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. At a meeting in Tbilisi, the man pulled out from his pocket a plastic bag containing the material. "He was offering this as the first stage in a deal and said he had other pieces, Merabishvili said. "We don't know if that was true." Uranium is more or less harmless to carry around because, like plutonium and polonium, it is an alpha-emitting radioactive material that does not penetrate the skin. Such materials are dangerous only if ingested. The radioactive emissions of highly enriched uranium are so low that radiation detectors often fail to pick them up if they are contained in a simple lead container. While it is not normally handled casually, research laboratories do not use the same precautions in handling highly enriched uranium that they use with other radioactive materials. The man was arrested and sentenced to eight to 10 years in prison on smuggling charges. His accomplices were sentenced on lesser charges. Russian authorities took a sample of the material but failed to offer any assistance despite requests for help from the Georgians, Merabishvili said. "We were ready to provide all the information, but unfortunately no one arrived from Russia, not even to interview this person," Merabishvili said. "It is surprising because it is in Russian interests to secure these materials. There are terrorist organizations in Russia who would pay huge amounts of money for this." The Georgians asked for U.S. assistance. Agents from the FBI and the Energy Department took the material back to the United States, where it was tested by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "The material was analyzed by agency nuclear experts and confirmed to be highly enriched uranium," said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the agency. Fleming, of the IAEA, said the agency was aware of the Tbilisi seizure and was expecting formal notification from Georgia soon. The CIA would not comment on the case, and the FBI confirmed its involvement in the investigation but nothing more. Merabishvili, who was visiting Washington this week, said he did not have some details of the investigation, including the exact date the arrest was made or the full name of the suspect. Further efforts to clarify with the Georgian Embassy were not successful. None of the U.S. officials would confirm the weight of the seizure or its quality, but Merabishvili said it was about 3.5 ounces of uranium enriched by more than 90%. Uranium enriched at 90% is weapons grade. A nuclear bomb of a design similar to the one exploded over Hiroshima in 1945 would require about 110 pounds of uranium enriched at over 90%, according to Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate who focuses on nuclear theft and terrorism at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Bunn said that a more sophisticated implosion type nuclear bomb would require 33 to 40 pounds. According to an IAEA database, there have been 16 previous confirmed cases in which either highly enriched uranium or plutonium have been recovered by authorities since 1993. In most cases the recoveries have involved smaller quantities than the Tbilisi case. But in 1994, 6 pounds of highly enriched uranium intended for sale were seized by police in the Czech Republic. In 2003, Georgian border guards using detection devices provided by the United States caught an Armenian man with about 5 ounces of HEU, according to the State Department. Fleming said examples of stolen or missing bomb-grade nuclear material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium, are rare and troubling. David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said that lacking help from Russia, the CIA may be looking to other allies to help identify who has access to lost nuclear material. "Russian cooperation in answering these questions is critical, but it has not been forthcoming," he said. "One way to identify who is active in trading these materials is to conduct sting operations." ---------------- Belarus to Go Nuclear 21 Years After Chernobyl Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Belarus, hardest hit by the Chernobyl nuclear accident that released 400 times the radiation of the Hiroshima bomb, will expedite its nuclear power program as President Alexander Lukashenko seeks alternatives to Russian fuel. Lukashenko demanded the country's top officials work without pause to offset the $3.5 billion Belarus will lose this year in energy subsidies from neighboring Russia. Alternative power and energy efficiency will be key to plugging the gap, Lukashenko said on a visit to OAO Naftan, the country's biggest oil refinery. ``There's no time for a warm-up,'' Lukashenko said in comments posted on his Web site. The president ``noted the necessity to make construction of nuclear power plants in Belarus more active,'' the site said. Belarus has clashed with Russia on energy supplies twice in the last month after the Kremlin sought to make relations with its neighbor more business-like. The sides reached an agreement to maintain natural gas supplies two minutes before Jan. 1, only to begin the battle anew over oil transit fees. Lukashenko demanded Russia pay taxes on its crude shipments to central Europe, which provoked a shut-off of the main Druzhba pipeline and a three-day standoff during which deliveries to central European refineries were disrupted. Market Prices A new Russian policy toward Belarus, which it had subsidized by as much as $6 billion via sales of oil and gas at below-market prices, leaves the eastern neighbor anxious for its ``national safety and integrity,'' Lukashenko said. A faulty safety test at a Chernobyl reactor in northern Ukraine on April 26, 1986, triggered the world's biggest atomic disaster, releasing 6.7 tons of radioactive material in the form of a cloud over neighboring countries and as far as Scandinavian and West European countries. Reports on how many people will be eventually affected by the accident range from 4,000 to more than 10 times that. Ian Fairlie, a radiation scientist, estimated that of the millions of people possibly exposed to Chernobyl's radioactive throw-out, between 30,000 and 60,000 may die. The figures come from a report called The Other Report on Chernobyl, financed by the Green Party of the European Parliament and published in June 2006. Belarus plans to begin generating electricity from its first post- Chernobyl reactor in 2012, and add a second in 2015, in a plan estimated to cost $3 billion, said Yaroslav Romanchuk, president of the Mizes scientific research center in Minsk, capital of Belarus. ``The idea is a sound one: To secure independent, long-term energy supplies,'' Romanchuk said by telephone from Minsk. The project may hit a snag due to a lack of cash, he added. ``Atomic energy is a grand project that can happen only when there is money available,'' Romanchuk said. ---------------- Nuclear energy's French connection MSNBC Jan 25 - Ambitious Areva is second to none at American-style power politics A protester plays dead during an October demonstration against Areva's plans to build one of its new reactors at Flamanville in northern France. Areva hopes to build similar plants in the United States through its Unistar venture with Constellation Energy. With help from the allies it funds in Congress and legions of highly paid lobbyists, the U.S. nuclear power industry won billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies for its promised "renaissance." But the biggest winner of all could be a French firm that most Americans have never heard of. That?s because Areva, an atomic energy giant owned by the French government, appears to be better positioned than any of its competitors to benefit from growth in the U.S. nuclear industry and increased federal spending on it. With 59,000 employees, facilities in 40 countries, operations in more than 100 and revenue of more than $6.6 billion in the first half of the current fiscal year, the firm brags in its annual report that it is "the only group to be active in every stage of the nuclear cycle," referring to divisions that cover everything from uranium mining to reactor construction to handling waste. Areva?s U.S. operations already employ 5,000 people and generate $2 billion in revenue, but the company is hoping to add to that total. One of its largest potential sources of business here would be the sale and operation of a U.S. version of its new "evolutionary power reactor" now under construction in Finland. And as the world?s main player in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, Areva could profit substantially from the Bush administration?s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. "Our U.S. facilities and people will contribute significantly to Areva?s international business and, as with all international companies, that growth prospect is important to Areva," the company said in a statement in response to questions from MSNBC.com. Areva, which fields an impressive stable of lobbyists in Washington, had strong ties to President Bush?s energy transition team before the administration took office. Energy task force members land jobs Later, after the Bush administration hammered out its energy policy in a series of private meetings of a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the company gave top posts to two senior members of the group - former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and the task force's executive director. When the task force?s work passed through Congress and was signed by President Bush as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it contained $13 billion in government subsidies for the nuclear power industry. Areva told MSNBC.com that neither it "nor any associates participated in any task force work" and that it "did not request any effort to be made on its behalf" by its associates on the transition team. Abraham concurred: "I am personally unaware of any efforts or contacts by Areva or its predecessor companies to me or the task force in general." "Areva is a great company with good people who are visionary and who adhere to the highest ethical standards," Abraham told MSNBC.com in a written response to questions about his work for the firm. The firm makes no secret of its ambitions to continue the rapid growth it has experienced under its charismatic and capable CEO Anne Lauvergeon. Led by `Atomic Anne? Called "Atomic Anne" by the French press, the 47-year-old Lauvergeon in recent years become one of the world?s most powerful evangelists for nuclear power, championing it as the answer to global warming. Her success in delivering that message has made her one of the highest-profile businesswomen on the planet, as evidenced by her move from No. 53 on Forbes Magazine?s 2004 list of the "100 Most Powerful Women" in the world to No. 8 last year. Lauvergeon?s training as a physicist, and experience in government - she served as an aide to the late French President Francois Mitterrand - and industry helped her consolidate France's nuclear interests with breathtaking speed after she was appointed in 1999 as CEO of Cogema, France?s state-owned nuclear fuel reprocessing and services company. By 2001, Lauvergeon had merged Cogema with Framatome, France?s nuclear-engineering and uranium-mining company, to create Areva. France long ago established its prowess in the nuclear field. While the expansion of the use of nuclear energy stalled in the U.S. in the 1970s and ?80s, France forged ahead and achieved global domination of several key sectors of the industry. Today, France gets nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power while the United States is far down the list at 20 percent. In its latest annual report, Areva claims to be the world leader in construction and servicing of nuclear reactors, with 30 percent of the market; fuel reprocessing, 80 percent; and spent fuel treatment, 70 percent. It also controls large shares of the world's uranium mining and enrichment operations. The company?s stated goal is to "capture one-third of the world market by 2010" across all sectors of the industry. While Areva sees potential for growth in Europe and Asia, its most recent annual report is peppered with references to new opportunities in the United States. The 2005 energy bill, which lavished subsidies and tax credits on the nuclear industry, is mentioned frequently. Areva created Unistar, a joint venture with the U.S. firm Constellation Energy to sell and operate new reactors in the United States, soon after the passage of the energy bill, and its sponsors claimed the creation of the new firm was a direct result of the legislation. -------------------- Five charged over nuclear protest AWE is the headquarters of Britain's nuclear development programme Five people have been charged and three cautioned over a protest outside a nuclear weapons factory. On Tuesday, eight protesters chained themselves together on the A340 outside the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) site at Aldermaston, Berkshire. Campaigners are angry over plans to develop a replacement for Trident, the UK's nuclear defence system. Three men and two women, all from Scotland, were charged with wilfully obstructing a highway. The people, aged between 19 and 32, will appear before magistrates in Newbury on 1 February. Two men, aged 20 and 26, and a 37-year-old woman received adult cautions. ------------------ Alternate Energy Holdings (AEHI) Seeks to Purchase Operating Nuclear Plant in the U.S. ROANOKE, VA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 01/25/07 -- Alternate Energy Holdings (PINKSHEETS: AEHI) announced its active intentions to purchase an operating nuclear plant, located within the United States, for optimization and additional nuclear construction. The company is contacting nuclear plant owners directly at this time to initiate negotiations and is willing to pay upwards of one billion dollars for a deregulated site. After assuming ownership, AEHI intends to optimize the plant's performance to generate immediate profit and, under the provisions of the 2005 Energy Bill, begin construction of an additional nuclear unit on the site within two years. President and CEO Don Gillispie states, "We think many of the nuclear plants sold over the past several years were priced below their actual market value considering, among other things, the demand for clean energy to reduce CO2 emissions. Excluding a shrinking contribution from hydro and small additions by wind and solar, nuclear stands alone as the only CO2 free, cost competitive, large scale power source available to address global warming." ---------------- Officials: No harmful radiation at Piketon site Residents still are asking for more information Central Ohio.com Jan 25 - Radiation is indeed present in and around the Piketon uranium enrichment plant site, but the state Environmental Protection Agency said there's not enough of it to do any harm. "The Ohio EPA concluded that the radiation source was Probably uranium and not radon," said Timothy Christman, professional engineer with the EPA. "Uranium sources include coal, soil and the uranium enrichment process." At a public meeting Wednesday night at Piketon High School, EPA officials released results of tests which concluded although there is a presence of radioactive material, the levels are low enough to meet safety standards, Christman said. "The levels are extremely low," Christman said. "Black shale in Ohio also contains uranium and that's naturally occurring." It's impossible to completely eradicate radiation sources since they are present in the natural environment, Christman said. "Radiation comes from the sun, you'll get more radiation exposure traveling in the airplane," he said. "The radiation you'd get living here is lower than what you'd get from visiting the dentist's office." Although the Department of Energy has spent more than $1 billion to clean up the plant site, it still continues to slowly leak contaminants from it southern point. Deep water "plumes," or wells beneath the ground, contain contaminants carried through Gallia sand and gravel. Barriers stopped the flow of other contaminated plumes on the site, but the south end continues to leak, said Groundwater Specialist Doug Snyder, a geologist with the Ohio EPA. "We've put a clay barrier in to contain the leak, because water doesn't travel very well through the clay," Snyder said. "But some contaminants have migrated to the west of that barrier." The leak moves slowly, however, giving scientists more time to contain it. "For the water to travel from here to the back of the room (about 40 feet) it would take months, possibly years," Snyder said. "We do have a little bit of radioactivity in that south plume, but we have time to contain it." Neighbors of the Piketon plant said no levels of radioactivity in or near their properties can be safe. "They've all acknowledged that there is radioactivity present, but they haven't answered why we have a high reading," said Vina Colley, who said she worked at the plant for five years. "When I worked there we cleaned uranium contaminated cells and we dumped it all down the drain. I got sick, and I've had three tumors." The EPA acknowledges there was nuclear waste handled on the site and possibly was not disposed of properly. When operations began at the plant in the 1950s, laws regarding handling of nuclear waste were non- existent, said Maria Galanti, site coordinator for the EPA. "This site had poor management practices," Galanti said. "All the facilities like this had poor practices, but this plant poses some of the most serious technical problems from a clean-up standpoint." Many people present at the meeting also had concerns about the future of the site, many of which the EPA was unable to answer. "We can't really speak or speculate on decisions regarding the future of the plant," Mary McCarron, a spokesperson for the EPA. "Many of these questions should be directed to the DOE." The future of the site has been the subject of controversy. A proposal by the Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative for use of the plant as a site for recycled nuclear waste products have been met with a heated response from some residents, who said having such a site jeopardizes their health and safety. The Department of Energy plans to discuss the future of the site at a private meeting scheduled for March 8. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jan 25 20:39:53 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:39:53 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Basrah cancers (Salsman's citations) Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070125193750.009f2dd0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 25, 2007 On Jan. 24 James Salsman (JS) wrote: I'm sorry, the URL in my earlier message below is for congenital malformations (birth defects). The original citations for the Basra cancers are here: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-1-%20INCIDENCE.htm and: http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-3-%20INCIDENCE.htm Otto Raabe replied: These articles are totally worthless. There is no statistically significant difference among the annual data for any of the diseases that are listed. Also, the suggested depleted uranium exposures are hypothetical and the etiological connection is imaginary. Additional comments: I have read the "earlier message" offered by JS and the two recommended above. The earlier one says: "Ionising radiation can be highly penetrating and is capable of causing mutation in man [citation omitted] and those can cause defective development of human embryos if exposure occurs." This is true, of course, however depleted uranium is an alpha emitter and alpha is not penetrating. This paper says there was an unacceptably high level of radioactivity in plants near Basrah, Iraq, however it gives no levels --- not here and not anywhere in the paper. It also acknowledges that there was a "relatively small number of cases" of disease. It covers only the period from 1990 to 1998, and says nothing about rates before 1990. The next to last sentence says: "The evidence so far presented [on?] the effect of ionising radiation in this study on the incidence of congenital anomalies is circumstantial." Note the qualifier: circumstantial. Another paper reports 488 cancers in Basrah in 1990, and 544 in 1997 (a 1.115% increase). These are all cancers in tissue (no leukemias). Don't solid tumors have a typical latency period of 20 years? The third paper says other factors cause cancer, "but the evidence presented by our data point out clearly to the role of exposure to depleted uranium in developing cancer among children in Basrah." The nature of this "evidence" is not revealed. None of these papers give any exposure levels, nor do they show a cause and effect relationship between (alleged) exposure to DU, and cancers. They are merely a series of assertions, accompanied by some tables of incidence rates and percentages of increase. JS's argument about vapors cooling and so forth is an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. First he has to show that any of the alleged victims inhaled any of these vapors, then he has to show that this exposure caused the cancers he invokes. JS has done neither of these, and I doubt that he (or anyone else) can do the latter, so the whole thing falls down flat right there. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Fri Jan 26 01:34:17 2007 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:34:17 -0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Trader specialising in fish and sausages caught selling weapons-grade uranium Message-ID: An international nuclear smuggling scandal erupted yesterday after it was revealed that a Russian man has been caught selling weapons-grade uranium on the open market that could easily be used in a small nuclear bomb. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2186528.ece Fred Dawson Health Physics Assistant Director & Team Leader Directorate of Safety & Claims 6-D-30 MOD Main Building Whitehall, LONDON SW1A 2HB phone +44 (0)20 7807 0215 mobile +44 (0)7 973 169 339 email dsc-hpad at mod.uk http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/HealthandSafety/ DSC/DsandcHealthPhysics.htm "The information contained in the e-mail and any subsequent correspondence is private and is solely for the intended recipients. For those other than the recipients any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful". From jsalsman at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 02:47:29 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:47:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ceramic vapor condensation Message-ID: Bob Cherry wrote: > Apparently Mr. Salsman has misplaced his > physical chemistry textbook and forgotten the > part about phase diagrams. Apparently not. According to Palatnik, et al. (1970) in "Volume Condensation of Metal Vapors" Powder Metallurgy and Metal Ceramics, vol. 9(4), pp. 335-7, the condensation zone of heat-volatilized metal vapors has a radius on the order of a few centimeters at most, and the gas molecules which escape that zone remain as such until they have an opportunity to plate out on the ground, dust, a wall, a plant, etc. -- or someone's lung. When you have so-called authorities like Dr. Raabe claiming that "all" of the vapor condenses "instantaneously," and completely unable to substantiate those claims with empirical mass measurements, is that ethically any different than Colonel Daxon claiming that Dr. Kang's unpublished reports indicated that U.S. troops' children's birth defect rates decreased, when they have actually been steeply increasing? Apparently Colonel Cherry misplaced his copy of the Department of Energy's safety handbook DOE-HDBK-3010-94, "Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Facilities" all the time he was supposed to be responsible for determination of depleted uranium weapons safety, and never read section 2.2, "Vapors (Condensible Gasses)" which clearly states, "transport losses must be substantiated for the specific configurations associated with an event." -- http://hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/techstds/standard/hdbk3010/h3010v1.pdf The only proponent of depleted uranium weapons who has ever called for such substantiation is Dr. Johnson. Colonel Cherry, will you join him, or do you prefer to remain in the dark? Sincerely, James From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Fri Jan 26 07:55:37 2007 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:55:37 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Basis for radiation dose limits Message-ID: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C74@mail.nymc.edu> Not having ICRP 60 available, I wanted to ask the group what is the basis for the difference in limits for whole body, skin, eye, etc. I know the fundamentals, but I am trying to explain this to a non-technical person. Thank you in advance for your response. 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 From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jan 26 08:26:30 2007 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:26:30 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Basis for radiation dose limits - organ specific In-Reply-To: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C74@mail.nymc.edu> References: <70C50B8807B54A429AC206E83A3BA6BC160D3C74@mail.nymc.edu> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA0117329D@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Thomas: Limits for organ specific doses are determined so as to PROHIBIT 'deterministic' i.e. threshold (early) effects in an organ such as erythema for skin or cataracts for the eye. Whole body effective dose is designed to CONSTRAIN cancer mortality below a level deemed acceptable - of course under the questionable assumption of the LNT postulate(!). 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Johnston, Thomas Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2007 14:56 An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Basis for radiation dose limits Not having ICRP 60 available, I wanted to ask the group what is the basis for the difference in limits for whole body, skin, eye, etc. I know the fundamentals, but I am trying to explain this to a non-technical person. Thank you in advance for your response. 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 26 03:27:32 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (roger helbig) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:27:32 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: http://groups.google.com/group/Progressive-Media/browse_thread/thread/85a86954e8a13fd1/c43e3ddcb6fa06f8?q=Rokke&rnum=9 Yes, they fire radiation out into the very same air that our families breathe. Tons of radioactive munitions, in fact. Depleted Uranium is the name of one of the materials they use. And if that material sounds familiar? It because it's the same stuff that they're using on the "enemy" - that is, on civilians - in Afghanistan and Iraq. No, we do not know what in the world the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan ever did to deserve the "honor" of being blasted to kingdom come with Uranium-238 - rendering their nations permanently uninhabitable. By the same token, nor do we know what American citizens have done to deserve Depleted Uranium being exploded into our air so that we are gassed with it, either. But now the country is starting to buzz with the word of radioactive open air "testing" near San Francisco. And with such a progressive part of the nation that has historically fought hard for peace, equal rights, racial equality, gay rights, and ecological sustainability? As one could say, the Greater San Francisco Bay area is now again boldly "coming out of the closet" with regard to letting the proverbial cat out of the bag about this "dirty" business of Uncle Sam's. But this is not a story entirely about San Francisco's troubles. Nor is it even all about California. As you will see, this story affects you and me, no matter where we live in the country. California's tale is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The story about your community and mine? Now that's the heart of this story. The fiery "hot" issue of Depleted Uranium explosives "testing" has emerged into the spotlight in the San Francisco Bay area recently all because of some people who live in a city called Tracy. That's how anything important usually starts - when just a few people who are fed up enough get together and become vocal enough and publicly put up a fuss. No wonder why they're upset. Only a few miles away from them on a federally owned 7,000 acre parcel of land in the Altamont Hills at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties, California, radioactive explosives containing Depleted Uranium are being shot out into the open air at a location called Site 300. Yes, Depleted Uranium is being exploded across the street from a motorbike recreational area. Site 300 is only a few miles away from where people live. What started all the ruckus was that on November 13 a new permit, issued by California's San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, was put into effect that allows the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to use more than triple the amount of explosive materials in "test" detonations at Site 300 than in the past. This means that the equivalent of 350 pounds of explosives may now be fired instead of the previously permitted 100 pounds. There are two efforts underway to appeal the new permit for Site 300 that allows for much larger explosions by using greater amounts of radioactive materials. Two appeals have been filed, one by a housing developer and the other by a resident who lives about five miles from the radioactive blast location, Site 300. Small business owner, Tracy resident, and long-standing member of Tri-Valley Communities Against A Radioactive Environment (CARES), Bob Sarvey is leading the way to protect his community of 72,400 from radioactivity at Livermore's Site 300 by appealing the permit of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. A health risk assessment performed recently shows a higher health risk just from merely inhaling toxic non-radioactive air contaminants than the Livermore Lab shows in its own radiological assessment. Residents realized something was not quite right about this report. "Previously", according to Sarvey, "the Lawrence Livermore Lab didn't need a permit from the Pollution Control District because their chargers were under 100 lbs. equivalent to TNT - and under 1,000 pounds per year. Now, they are going to increase that to 350 pounds per charge, equivalent to TNT ...and they are also going to increase the annual limit to 8,000 pounds. That's eight-fold of what it was annually... and on a per change basis, three and a half times per charge". In addition to allowing up to 8,000 pounds of explosives containing radioactive matter annually, as reported in the Tracy Press on December 14 the current county air pollution control permit allows Livermore Laboratory to emit up to 1,440 pounds of particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter per year into the air. The public does not even have to be notified of such emissions unless the particulate matter exceeds a 20,000 pound limit. It only takes one invisible micron of Depleted Uranium to cause organ damage and health failure. Can anyone possibly hazard a guess as to how much potential hazard that 1,440 pounds of particulates could cause - never mind the 20,000 pound particulate upper limit? Can you imagine willingly causing up to 1,440 pounds of radioactive particles to be blasted into the open air? If one miniscule particle so tiny as to be invisible can cause a terminal illness, whose mind can even fathom the devastation 1,440 pounds of this stuff could do to countless numbers of people? But we must remember - Livermore Lab is allowed to explode up to 20,000 pounds into the air in a year and not even have to notify the neighboring communities. And Site 300 is only one of several such explosive "test" sites in the nation. Lawrence Livermore representatives will not reveal to Tracy residents precisely how many bombs might be "tested" in a year. Tracy Press reports that the only reason given by Lawrence Livermore for the eight-fold annual increase in explosives testing is "national security," according to air district spokeswoman Kelly Morphy. On January 8, Recordnet.com quoted Livermore Public Affairs Director Susan Hougton stating that the Lab plans to conduct "only three'" of the larger, 350-pound detonations in the next year and a half. According to Houghton, no blasts larger than 100 pounds have been conducted since 1997. "Only three" large radioactive explosions in a year - and an unknown number of smaller ones at 100 pounds a "pop" - certainly does not sound like too much to be concerned over. So what is the big deal with exploding up to 8,000 pounds of explosives including radioactive toxics like Depleted Uranium out into the open air, anyway? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT DU? Depleted Uranium is an inexpensive, radioactive heavy metal more dense than lead. It is basically nuclear waste made from the uranium enrichment process. The supply is plentiful and the US Military uses it in its guns, tanks, bombs, missiles and cannons. To get a feel for how much of it there is of the stuff, The U.S. government has produced more than 1.1 Billion pounds of DU in its uranium enrichment facilities in Ohio and Kentucky. It's also used as military tank armor, and aircraft, ship and missile counterweight ballasts as well as to provide the massive casing for hydrogen bombs that enable them to undergo fission and give off about fifty percent greater energy "bang for the buck". Our military has found that there are many attractive advantages to using Depleted Uranium (Uranium-238) over Tungsten steel, as Uranium-238 is an easier substance to process. It is also pyrophoric, which means it burns instantly upon impact or if ignited. DU also has the advantage of being easily able to penetrate targets from armored tanks to concrete bunkers. Always happy to rid itself of nuclear waste, Depleted Uranium has been cheerfully given away by the government to weapons manufacturers, who then in turn make a profit by selling the weapons to the US Military for use in combat as well as for running "tests" out into the air. Sometimes in the past fifty years it has been burned in open pits and other times DU is exploded in an estimated twenty-three locations all across the nation, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Experts who have studied the properties of Depleted Uranium and its deleterious effects upon human health have a great deal to tell us. Recently in a letter to Tracy Press, Marion Fulk, local resident and nuclear physical chemist retired from the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab formerly involved with the Manhattan Project, tells us a bit about the uranium that is being exploded at Livermore and its effects upon human health: "Uranium-238, sometimes called 'depleted uranium', poses a serious health threat, especially if inhaled in finely divided particles like those created by open-air explosives testing. Because of its properties, uranium-238 is a triple threat to human health. Its properties as a heavy metal create health damage once inside the body. Its properties as a hazardous chemical catalyst cause additional health risks. And its properties as a radioactive material offer a third route to cellular and DNA damage, illness and premature death in humans and animals." Despite the fact that Uranium-238 is commonly called "Depleted", this was a label invented to get the public to think that it is a weakly radioactive material. Nothing could be further from the truth. This poison dust packs a powerful punch to the human body, as Dr. Rosalie Bertell, biometrician and environmental epidemiologist, international radiation expert, and Founder of The International Institute of Concern for Public Health explains, "Depleted uranium concentrate is almost 100 percent uranium. More than 99 percent of both natural and depleted uranium consists of the isotope U-238." In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy and the 1995 U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute admits that a small amount of additional toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopes are also present in Depleted Uranium, such as plutonium, neptunium, americium, Uranium-236 as well as Uranium-234 and Uranium-235. The Uranium-238 which is used in our weapons and is "tested" at test sites throughout the United States is some mighty powerful stuff. We should not, therefore, allow the name of this type of radioactive munition, "Depleted Uranium", fool us. As a matter of fact, in order to bring greater clarity to the issue, scientists from the Low Level Radiation Campaign are no longer calling uranium weapons "Depleted Uranium" or "DU" but have switched to the term "WDU", which stands for Weapons-Derived Uranium when referring to exposures from use of weapons containing any class of Uranium. Hopefully the term WDU will eventually catch on, because just like the words that the US Military uses to describe DU such as claiming it is "mildly" or "weakly" radioactive, the fact of the matter is, no radiation is harmless radiation. Uranium weapons destroy health and irreparably damage all living things. In his book Radiation-Induced Cancer From Low-Dose Exposure, John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. makes his point about radiation crystal clear: "By contrast, we think human evidence and logic combine to make a case which is already conclusive -- by any reasonable standard of proof -- against the existence of any safe dose or dose-rate of ionizing radiation, with respect to cancer-induction." For the case of simplicity for now, we will stick to the misnomer "Depleted Uranium". A pyrophoric munition, DU explodes spontaneously upon being fired. Up to 80% of it is then oxidized, and an aerosol is formed of minute radioactive particles between the range of below 1 micrometer to 5 micrometers. Immediately after the Uranium-238 is fired, these particles are so tiny that they are actually an invisible gas which can be either inhaled easily into the lungs, ingested in food, or can enter the body inside a break in the skin, such as through a small cut on a finger. In combat, Depleted Uranium can also enter the body via shrapnel that enters the skin. At the May, 1999 Hague Peace Conference, Dr. Rosalie Bertell stated that Depleted Uranium is "converted at high temperature into an aerosol, that is, minute insoluble particles of uranium oxide, UO2 or UO3 , in a mist or fog...Uranium oxide and its aerosol form are insoluble in water. The aerosol resists gravity, and is able to travel ... in air. Once on the ground, it can be resuspended when the sand is disturbed by motion or wind. Once breathed in, the very small particles of uranium oxide, those which are 2.5 microns [ one micron = one millionth of a meter ] or less in diameter, could reside in the lungs for years". Once in the lungs, the uranium slowly passes through the lung tissue into the blood. Uranium oxide dust has a biological half life in the lungs of about a year. Eventually, the uranium passes through the lung tissue and then into the blood stream, which may then be broken down in body fluids. Eventually the uranium may be stored in bone, lymph, liver, kidney or other tissues. When found in urine seven or eight years after exposure, it is an indication of its long term internal uranium contamination through storage in the body's tissues. Marion Fulk gives us an energetic picture of how DU creates havoc once inside the body. "It is an alpha emitter, which means that it is particularly damaging if lodged inside the body. Uranium-238 decays with an energy of 4 million electron volts per alpha particle. The energy emitted tears up surrounding cells and may initiate a whole bunch of negative health outcomes, including, but not limited to, cancers." Dr. Doug Rokke states how fast DU works once inside the body, "Alpha particle emission measurements show that the dose or exposure rate is in excess of 10000 counts per minute." DU, he says, "is a serious internal hazard". Explaining this nasty cell-busting process, Janette D. Sherman, M.D., specialist in internal medicine and toxicology, member of The Radiation and Public Health Project, and author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease states that when we are exposed to Depleted Uranium, it is a serious hazard as a chemically toxic heavy metal, plus it is also radioactive. Because the uranium is so concentrated, the alpha activity is increased, and a decay process occurs. Both alpha and beta radiation are emitted into the cell tissue that surrounds the miniature DU particle, affecting other cells and disrupting cell membranes, DNA, and the cell development process. Quoting from Dr. Sherman's book, "Aside from the radioactivity of uranium, it is a heavy metal poison and foreign body irritant with the potential to remain in the body for decades." Uranium poisoning also involves general health impairment to the kidneys, liver, lungs, and cardiovascular, nervous and cell production systems, and cause disorders of proteins and carbohydrate metabolism . Hmmm...Uranium can stay in the body for decades, you say? Well then, how do we know that any of us is not walking around right now with an invisible particle of Uranium-238 lodged inside one of our lungs, hanging out and waiting to give us cancer twelve years down the road? The point of the matter is, we don't. In an effort to de-mystify what is called by the US Military "Gulf War Syndrome" in veterans of wars in the Middle East, Dr. Sherman explains what many have come to call Depleted Uranium Poisoning. In "Life's Delicate Balance", Dr. Sherman details precisely how we get sick from breathing in Uranium-238. "When DU burns, it releases fine particles of radioactive material, much of it as small as nano particles which when inhaled go deep into the lungs and from there are transported to the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, brain, skeleton, seminal fluid, and other parts of the body. DU that is swallowed from airborne particles is transported to the intestinal tract and absorbed and transported to other parts of the body, including the liver and kidneys." As evidenced by increases in incidences of cancer in veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in civilians in these countries, Depleted Uranium clearly plays a role in cancer development, in auto-immune system disorders, and in the alteration of gene expression patterns. By now we've all seen the horrific pictures of children from Iraq and Afghanistan with cancers and those born without limbs and unrecognizable facial features. In effect, scientific evidence suggests that Uranium-238 does appear to have an adverse impact on reproduction and the destruction and mutation of genetic material, which is passed down to future descendents which can lead to birth defects in the exposed individual's offspring. Studies have also shown that DU has a toxic effect on the kidneys as they are the organ that eliminates toxins in the blood and thus are particularly vulnerable to both radiological and heavy metal toxicity and are the first organs to be damaged by uranium. Uranium-238 also causes neurologically related behavioral effects. Recently scientists have observed that there appears to be a correlation between Depleted Uranium and increases in diabetes. Alan Cantwell, M.D. covers the latest scientific thinking on this connection in his article, "Depleted Uranium, Diabetes, Cancer and You". In it Dr. Cantwell writes that "The CDC predicts that Type 2 diabetes will increase 165% by 2050. People with Type 2 diabetes are also twice as likely to get pancreatic cancer." Basic common sense tells us that such dramatic increases in the diabetes epidemic is quite unlikely to be due merely to genetics and "lifestyle choices" alone. Recent data from The International Diabetes Federation (IDF) indicates the enormity of the diabetes epidemic indicating that the disease now affects 246 million people worldwide. They predict that the total number of people living with diabetes worldwide will reach 380 million within twenty years. According to IDF President Pierre Lef?bvre, "Just twenty years ago, the best information available suggested that 30 million people had diabetes. A bleaker picture has now emerged. Diabetes is fast becoming the epidemic of the 21st century." Never before has a quote been so fitting as that from Leuren Moret, geo-scientist and international radiation specialist who wrote, "If it's an epidemic, it's not genetic." Scientists like Moret and Dr. Ernest Sternglass are now observing that increasing atmospheric radiation seems to play a vital role in the expanding worldwide increase in cases of diabetes. ABOUT RADIOACTIVE BLASTS With such known devastating health effects of this life-devastating toxin that stays in the body and basically rips it apart, one can't help but wonder just what type of super-top secret, "national security" projects would necessitate exploding radioactive toxic uranium gas into densely populated areas where millions of Americans inhale these toxics right where they live and work? I contacted the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Public Affairs office to try to better understand the rationale for detonating even greater amounts of radioactive explosives within a highly populated area. Could it be, I wondered, that they do not realize that their 11.7 square miles of nuclear waste materials "testing" Site 300 is less than 50 miles from San Francisco? Maybe someone needed to tell Livermore Lab (i.e., Uncle Sam) that more than seven million people live in the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area and have been breathing in this "gene busting" chemical toxic and radiological poison for about fifty years? Certainly, I reasoned, no sane individuals would be exploding radiation into the air for fifty years - on purpose - if they realized how many families - men, women, children, and infants are breathing in that air? The Public Affairs Director, Susan Houghton, seemed pleased to share that Livermore had been "very successful for 50 years" before Tracy Press started reporting on this issue, but she declined to elaborate further. One can't help but wonder how the Lab has been "successful" ... I wanted to ask her, "successful" at doing... exactly what? Perhaps Livermore Lab is proud they've been "successful" at keeping the community in general - and California as a whole - quiet and totally in the dark with regard to the hazards to their health? Apparently the US government has determined that the public does not have a right to know what is in the air they breathe. As reported by Tracy Press on December 14, Livermore Lab spokesperson Linda Seaver stated, "We are not bound to do a public notice for every permit we request. We worked directly with the local air quality board and our various regulators". How do you think the American public would feel if it realized that nuclear bomb simulators purposely and routinely fire off 100 pound toxic and radioactive air blasts that affect the air, water, soil, and food supplies in our communities? Site 300, after all, is only one of at several DU "testing" grounds in the nation. For example, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories both fire Depleted Uranium into the open air, as does the Nevada Test Site and Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. When asked in a phone conversation about radioactivity in the outdoor explosions, Public Affairs Director Houghton said she would not answer questions, but stated that tritium would not be used in the 350 lb tests. On this subject, another laboratory spokesperson, Linda Seaver, informed SF Gate that the Laboratory last used tritium in test explosions in 2001. Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is present in nature in tiny amounts. Significant quantities, however, are generated by nuclear power plants and the manufacture of nuclear weapons and atomic bomb testing. Tritium, like Uranium-238, is another destroyer of human cells and DNA. According to the Nuclear Information Resource Service website: "Tritium emits radioactive beta particles. Once tritium is inhaled or swallowed, its beta particles can bombard cells. If a particle zaps a DNA molecule in a cell, it can cause a mutation. If it mutates a gene important to cell function, a serious disease may result... Research indicates that tritium can remain in the human body for more than ten years". At a Tracy City Council meeting on January 2, Tracy Press reported Larry Sedlacek, Deputy Associate Director of Operations in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, as saying that tritium could be used in tests that would be "aerosolized" after test blasts. He also stated that he "would not rule out using tritium in the blasts... saying details of the blasts are classified." Sedlacek also admitted, "We have used tritium at Site 300 in the past...It is contained in our environmental impact statement that we could potentially use small quantities in the future, but we don't have any scheduled." Whether the tritium and DU blasts are scheduled on the calendar or they occur at the whim of the detonator button-pusher on duty at Livermore that day, there appears to be some big project going on in the hills near San Francisco. Livermore representatives won't name a project linked to the planned explosions, but word has it that there's something new in the works. One is left to ponder what would tritium be used for in the smaller, radioactive tritium tests? Local war correspondent Bob Nichols offered, "It is pretty clear from the tritium that Livermore, like Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab, is busily modeling the explosion of global thermonuclear weapons". APPEALING BIG EXPLOSIONS With such a long history of radioactive explosions at Site 300, one is left to sit and ponder the impacts of these explosions upon the health of the greater San Francisco Bay Area. A health risk assessment for air pollution was done by the San Joaquin Pollution Control District, yet their health analysis does not require them to report radiological impacts. Their function is only to report non-radiological toxic air contaminants. Tracy resident Bob Sarvey stated in an interview, "Radiological impacts are not regulated by the Air Pollution Control District. In fact, their health risk assessment is inadequate" because it will contain neither the Depleted Uranium nor tritium used at the site. How curious it is that the county which is required to report levels of air pollution toxics is not required to measure nor report on toxics caused by radioactive explosions being conducted within its county? Livermore Lab's been "testing" there for 50 years, so it's not like the Air Pollution Control Board hasn't heard of what they've been up to all those years. San Joaquin's non-reporting of radiation in a county where Depleted Uranium is fired out into the open air is certainly curious indeed. Residents like Bob Sarvey are understandably concerned that radioactive material such as Depleted Uranium and tritium will continue to be blown into Tracy. Living approximately five miles from the explosive "test" site, Sarvey felt compelled to personally cover a $750 fee to file an appeal against the larger explosives permit. Since the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District is not required to regulate radioactive material, Sarvey believes this issue should have referred that question to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The second petition being filed on February 7 is by a developer, Tracy Hills LLC, AKT Development. Out of Sacramento, AKT is calling for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to review the accuracy of emissions estimates, and environmental and noise impacts of the larger blasts, according to appeal documents. Part of the Tracy Hills property adjoins Site 300, although the 5,500 housing community would be not much more than a mile from Site 300. I phoned them to ask if the developer still plans on building those homes so close to a Depleted Uranium explosives "test" site even if their appeal is denied, but my call was not returned. OK IT'S HARMFUL - BUT IS THIS STUFF LEGAL? Far, far away, the US Military's premiere weapon of choice, Depleted Uranium, has been used in combat overseas at least as far back as 1991. It was also used in the former Yugoslavia and surrounding Balkans region [Europe] in the 1990s, in Kosovo in 1999-2000, in Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and in Iraq starting in 1991. While many people believe that DU use started in 1991 and then resumed in 2003 with the second Gulf War, Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi, Associate Professor in Environmental Geological Engineering of Mamoun University for Science & Technology, and Member of the reminds us, however, that the use of DU in Iraq never actually stopped. As the expert on uranium weapons-related environmental impact and diseases told us in August, 2006, at the 3rd ICBUW International Conference Hiroshima, "The USA and UK continuously used Depleted Uranium weapons against the population and environment in Iraq from 1991 until today." What makes it hard to comprehend is that these weapons have been used for 15 years in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the Middle East despite the fact that the United Nations has prohibited its use. As stating in its 1996 resolution, it "Urges all States to be guided in their national policies by the need to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium". Doug Rokke, Ph.D., health physicist, former Director, U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project, and one of the authors of the Pentagon's program for environmental remediation summarizes the international violations associated with use of DU: "According to an August 2002 UN report, the use of DU munitions breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907." Before the second war in Iraq even started, Karen Parker, J.D., President and Co-founder of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, further elaborated on the illegality of DU weapons, in August 1999 when she testified "...these radioactive weapons have already been used in Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo and Serbia even though they are illegal under existing humanitarian law. There are four main tests which determine whether or not the use of weapons is illegal: (1) whether or not they stay within the territorial range of the conflict; (2) whether or not they damage the environment; (3) whether or not the effects of the weapons end when the conflict ends (or the temporal range of the weapons); and (4) whether or not they are inhumane, that is, continue to cause physical harm beyond the point used for military purposes. As the Sub-Commission is aware, Depleted Uranium Munitions fail all four tests." So apparently, international law be damned and world leaders dare not oppose this behemoth of a military beast. The US military's continued violation of international law by its use of DU in nations overseas in which it declares an "enemy" is certainly no secret to the rest of the world. At the very least, what the United Nations, the Middle East, eastern Europe and Okinawa (Islands of Japan) and Puerto Rico (both locations where DU was exploded) all realize too well about the horrific ramifications of the use of US uranium weapons inside our country seems to be a well-kept secret here at home. How many Americans do you think realize that radioactive Depleted Uranium explosions are being detonated in several federal "test" sites right here in the United States, where American families live, work, play - and try to breathe? How many people even living in the Livermore Lab's backyard, inside the greater San Francisco Bay area realize that the radioactive particulate matter of Uranium-238 stays in our atmosphere for 4,510,000,000 years? We're not talking about a poison that will go away in a few generations. This radiation will, in fact, be around longer than the earth itself has been around. In the scheme of things, we are radioactively poisoning earth forever. We have created a legacy of a toxic radioactive environment for our children and future descendents forevermore. We who are Baby Boomers have slept through this nuclear and nuclear waste radioactive "testing" while we went to school, built our careers, and have been immersed in raising our families and trying to make a living. So, too, have our parents' and grandparents' generations, and now today's younger adults are just starting to make their way in this world. While we were busy doing other things, far too busy to worry about what was taking place on military "testing" ranges, proving grounds, and national "laboratories", sixty years of radioactivity "testing" has taken place right here, our own soil, into our air. There appears to be no end to it in sight. Through "testing" of bombs, tanks, and guns containing Uranium-238, tritium and other toxic substances at military ordnances, national laboratories, and other federal lands throughout the United States including Hawaii and off the coast of Alaska, we have permitted the creation of radiation-filled toxic earth, air, and water for our offspring. Knowingly or not, we have allowed irreparable harm to be done to our earth, land, water, and human genetics and cellular physiology - for the prematurely aborted future of humankind. What we are doing with these uranium munitions is, as Leuren Moret states, "illegal under international human rights and humanitarian law". She informs us that the US "has used this inhumane weapon on the battlefield, exposing its own soldiers, its allies, civilian populations, and future generations. DU testing in the Nevada trained on nearby bombing and gunnery ranges for the Gulf War. Now, the "don't look, don't find policy" of the military is concealing the cause of a recent leukemia cluster among children in Fallon." Jim Howenstein, M.D. agrees and posits that the use of thousands of tons of Depleted Uranium used for decades at Fallon, Nevada "is no doubt responsible for the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the U.S. The military has denied that DU has anything to do with this cluster. " Dr. Howenstein goes even further by stating that his own "medical profession has been involved in the cover-up-just as they were hiding the adverse effects that low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants were producing." MAKING THE CONNECTION What would happen, do you think, if the connection was made in the minds of 300 million Americans between widespread cancers, diabetes, asthma and other respiratory diseases, auto-immune system diseases and birth defects as a result of Americans breathing in low-level, ionizing radiation? To say the least, this mind-blowing revelation would not exactly "sell" on-going American wars. One can understand precisely why a government - and the mainstream media it controls - would try extremely hard to keep the radioactive explosions, irreparably damaging to the air and environment, all very hush-hush. One can't help but ponder the concept of a government - any nation's government - willfully, knowingly, releasing vast amounts of radioactive substances into the air, water, and food supply of its very own people. Upon contemplation, the average brain can not begin to comprehend the sober seriousness contained within such a concept. Aghast with the horrific implications, one is forced to ask if this poison dust - which is being inhaled in our air and ingested within our food and water - is not purposely intended to have an adverse health impact upon those living within our own country, too? What seems to be too horrific a concept must at least be considered. In a working paper submitted by Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen at the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights on September 25th, 2003, Yuen concluded "that these weapons are intended to be used on enemy soil, thus making their devastation less of an issue for their users and their own nationals than for the 'enemy' victims." Arguably, Yuen's reasoning certainly does appear logical. If a weapon of devastating consequences is used which has consequences upon "the enemy", yet possesses no adverse effects upon the aggressor population using it, the chances of that weapon being discontinued due to the insistence of the aggressor's population would be slim. It will therefore be interesting to observe if Americans will react differently (that is, react with appropriate and fitting moral outrage) against uranium weapons use upon civilians in the Middle East when we realize that our government has been using upon us - right here in the United States - the exact same types of munitions they have been using on our so-called "enemies" overseas. As Charles W. Chestnutt said, "Sins, like chickens, come home to roost." Or, in other words, "What goes around comes around". Use of uranium in weapons upon some unknown foreign "enemy" who are we told "hates our freedom" is apparently not too big of a concern for most Americans - at least not yet. BUT WHY HERE? WHY US? Radioactive weapons use inside the US is certainly nothing new. The US Military has been conducting explosive radioactive "tests" inside America for the past sixty years. At this point, after umpteen years of "testing" the same materials, one can't help but wonder if it's actually the explosive material they are continually "testing"... or rather, what happens to citizen populations when radioactive materials are continually fired into the open air in communities where people live? Former Livermore Laboratory whistleblower, Leuren Moret, gives us a clue as to why a nation might want to "test" Depleted Uranium within its own country: "International scientists, Drs. Andre Gsponer, J.-P. Hurni, and B. Vitali, watch-dogging nuclear weapons developments globally, pointed out that DU weaponry is being used to study the radiobiological effects of the new nuclear weapons now under development." Moret also informs us: "The use of weapons in war are most effective when the weapons do not kill, but create long-term health and environmental consequences such as lingering illnesses which slowly destroy the health of the environment and productivity of a nation and the economy.... DU is a permanent terrain contaminant with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, forms immense volumes of nano-sized particles (smaller than bacteria or viruses) which are lofted permanently as components of atmospheric dust traveling around the world until they are rained or snowed out of the air...Even worse, uranium targets the DNA... and slowly destroys the genetic future of exposed populations." Site 300, where these radioactive explosions occur, is only about 40 miles from San Francisco. More than seven million people live in the highly populated Greater San Francisco Bay area. America has been breathing in this toxic, "gene busting" invisible poison since 1945 when Uranium-238, as well as other radioactive materials, were used inside the hydrogen bomb that the US exploded in the New Mexico de Dr. Janette Sherman, after hearing about the DU explosions at site 300 at Livermore admitted, "I can not think of a single reason why munitions have to be tested in that area. It's not like munitions have not been tested before. I believe it must be stopped." It would certainly appear that those in power are cooking up some "hot" treat for the liberal Greater San Francisco Bay area. In fact, San Francisco has been a long-established place to experiment upon the population. An advanced Google search using the exact phrases "human experiment" and "San Francisco" yielded 14,300 Google "hits". As was noted by a recent report, "Lack of transparency is cause for concern if only because of the history of secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pentagon experiments in germ warfare that used the American people as guinea pigs. In his book Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, Common Courage Press reporter William Blum noted that both agencies 'conducted tests [over two decades] in the open air in the United States, exposing millions of Americans to large clouds of possibly dangerous bacteria and chemical particles.' >From 1949-69, the US Army tested the spread of dangerous chemical and bacterial organisms at over 239 US populated areas including San Francisco, New York, and Chicago with no warnings to the public or regard for the health consequences, Blum wrote. The Pentagon even sprayed navy warships to test the impact of germ warfare on US sailors." AND WHAT ABOUT TRITIUM ? The United States government fully admits that it has done radiation experiments on Americans before. And with the long history of such chemical, biological, and radiological exposures upon the people of the San Francisco area, one is forced to realize that its nation's government certainly did not, as the song goes, leave its heart there. Since such exposures have been going on since the Cold War started, one can not help but wonder what type of a "national security" project would involve dispersing radioactive uranium gas and tritium into such a densely populated area where millions of American lungs are breathing in the toxic air and drinking the water (of which tritium is not removed) all around them? Livermore knows exactly what it is doing to the health of America's citizens with these DU blasts out into the California air. At a Tracy City Council meeting on January 2, Tracy Press reported that Larry Sedlacek, Deputy Associate Director of Operations in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Defense and Nuclear Technologies Group, as saying that tritium could be used in "tests" that would be "aerosolized" (turned into gas) after "test" blasts and that he "would not rule out" using tritium in the blasts when interviewed Wednesday, saying details of the blasts are classified." Sedlacek was quoted as saying, "We have used tritium at Site 300 in the past...It is contained in our environmental impact statement that we could potentially use small quantities in the future, but we don't have any scheduled." One can't help but wonder if anyone gets rewarded for keeping things so quiet for so long? Take for example, how happy you would be if you were the head of a major nuclear weapons lab and your staff was able to keep explosions of radioactive materials so damaging to human health and the environment a really big secret from the nation for fifty year Undoubtedly, the ability to keep such a major deal under wraps from the 7 million people living and working in the San Francisco Bay area must make for some mighty swollen incentive bonuses for public relations staff who know how to keep Uncle Sam's "hottest" and "dirtiest " of secrets! STARTING AT TRACY - AND WAY, WAY BEYOND... So going back to the people in the Tracy/Livermore area, any way you look at it, they've been dealt a really bum deal. According to Steve Sarvey, "It's like a triple whammy. There's three things going on." First, there's the issue of radioactive outdoor explosive "testing". It is not known exactly how much radiation has been released out into the atmosphere at Livermore, but outdoor explosives "tests" at Site 300 have averaged about 60 per year at 100 pounds each since 1997, according to Susan Houghton. Want to make your head spin? Just do the math. If Livermore explodes 60,000 pounds of explosives in ten years? Since the high explosives "tests" began at Site 300 in 1955, that makes 60,000 pounds every ten years, which amounts to 300,000 pounds or 150 tons of radioactive blasts. And that's at only one of the federal "test" sites - of which there are several. Site 300 is a contaminated Toxic site on the Superfund National Priorities List due to contamination of groundwater and tonnage of materials deposited there, such as Depleted Uranium, beryllium, and tritium. Some of these radioactive substances sit in unlined pits. There are extensive plumes of various substances with fifty-seven separate contaminant release areas that exist including soil and water both above and below the ground. According to Bob Sarvey, the Tracy City Council voted in April to have Livermore Laboratory remove the piles of highly enriched uranium as well as plutonium and tritium that are sitting in unlined pits, but Livermore Lab has failed to do so. And to add insult to injury? Livermore Lab, which is run and staffed by the University of California, also applied to increase the amount of toxic waste it can store at Site 300 from 3,300 gallons to 5,500 gallons, according to Department of Toxic Substances Control permit project manager Andrew Berna-Hicks. Last but certainly not least, Site 300 is one of the sites that the Department of Homeland Security is considering to run a Bio-Safety Level 4, anti-biological laboratory. Level 4 labs test and store incurable fatal diseases such as the Ebola virus and mad cow disease. Again, the question must be asked, why in the world would anyone want to even consider doing work on fatal and incurable diseases so close to seven million people? As far as health affects caused by DU radiation "testing" goes, anecdotal reports from Tracy citizens suggest an inordinately high number of cancers in their area including cancerous brain tumors and mysterious illnesses. Journalist Chris Bollyn interviewed Marion Fulk, former Livermore Laboratory scientist and skin cancer survivor, who told him that as a result of tritium pollution from the National Lab, children born in Livermore are 6 times more likely to have skin cancer than other children. Not surprisingly, looking at the health of the overall San Francisco Greater Bay area, one notes that the incidences of cancer are higher when compared to the state average. From the years 1988 to 2002, the Greater San Francisco Bay area experienced an annual rate of 468.9 cancers per 100,000 peopleCalifornia's 2003 cancer incidence rate of 425.1 per 100,000 residents. Here in the US, cancer is the leading cause of disease-related deaths in children. The fetus and infant are particularly sensitive to radioactive toxins. Every year, about 12,400 children and teens under the age of 20 are diagnosed with cancer each year, and approximately 2,300 of those children will die. Will our children be next? Only time will tell as many medical reports document a 5-10 year lag between radiation exposure and the onset of childhood cancer. Another disorder linked to Depleted Uranium poisoning in soldiers from both Gulf Wars is asthma. A chronic lung disease characterized by persistent cough and wheeze, incidences of asthma have been steadily increasing. The most common serious chronic disease of America's children, more than 5 percent of the U.S. population or nearly five million children younger than 18 years - are affected by this disorder. Asthma is the cause of nearly three million doctor's visits and 200,000 hospitalizations each year. In children ages 5-14 years, the rate of death from asthma almost doubled between 1980 and 1993. If you are not living in California and don't love anyone who is, by now you may be thinking, Well that really is too bad (and thank God I don't live anywhere near there)! Even for those of us who don't live on the west coast, however, it's still a good idea to think twice before we take our next breath. This past year there was news out of the UK that suggest that the radioactivity from Site 300 and the poison dust of other radioactive" test" sites throughout the US is far closer to home than we may realize. According to research released in February, 2006 out of England, nine days after the March, 2003 "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad in which bombs containing Depleted Uranium were exploded, radioactivity was found in air filters within the United Kingdom, up to 2,500 miles away. This was proof positive that this radioactive poison travels great distances. In other words, the explosive fire of tanks, guns, missiles launched and bombs dropped does not stay in a contained little cloud over the so-called "enemy" target borders. According to Moret, "After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere." Who would have ever thought that radioactive weaponry that we believed was intended for use on the battlefield upon America's "enemies" would ever be used in our own country, for so many years? How many Americans realize that their very next breath - or that of their children's - may very well contain invisible, microscopic-sized toxic radioactive particles so minute as to be considered a gas? Sadly, people do not know this when they inhale or ingest these invisible particles - as the effects of one tiny Uranium-238 particle can take years to manifest symptoms inside our bodies. In testimony provided to the UN, International Humanitarian Lawyer Karen Parker, J.D., stated, "there is evidence that the ceramic form of uranium dioxide, made during weapons explosions or fires, could stay in the body as long as 20 years. Depleted uranium was detected eight years after the end of the war in the urine of US, UK and Canadian Gulf War veterans and in that of Iraqi civilians." Proof abounds, however, dating back all the way back from 1943 that shows our military leaders knew about the "advantages" - and their capability - of conducting radioactive gas warfare upon citizens. In a memo declassified in 1974 written to James B. Conant and Brigadier General L. R. Groves from: Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey, War Department United States Engineer Office Manhattan District, Oak Ridge Tennessee on October 30, 1943, that proves that they knew that uranium could be used "As a gas warfare instrument". The material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty." The report states that two factors appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or smoke as a weapon. These are: (1) It cannot be detected by the senses; (2) It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging. The 1943 memo also stated that it could be used as radioactive warfare to make evacuated areas uninhabitable, to contaminate small critical areas, and as a radioactive poison gas to create casualties among troops, and to create casualties among civilian populations. It also mentions that "These materials may also be so disposed as to be taken into the body by ingestion instead of inhalation. Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke, " and in the respiratory tract, "articles smaller than 1? [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood... It would seem that chemical gases could accomplish more and do it more quickly so far as the skin surfaces and lungs are concerned." In other words, the US Military has known since 1943 precisely what it was doing with regard to the life-destroying use of aerosolized uranium. In the words of award-winning Robert C. Koehler in his piece on Depleted Uranium, "Silent Genocide": "Before the damage we inflict grows greater, before history's judgment gets worse, before we contaminate the whole world -- even before we vote in the next election -- we must stop what we're doing. We must stop now. " If Americans don't like the idea of breathing in, eating, and drinking this weaponized nuclear waste product gas, how do we follow Koehler's advice and stop what we're doing now? It is imperative that we start somewhere - and halting the large radioactive "tests" now permitted in California is certainly a great place to begin. This affects us all. What is going on in the backyard of the vastly populated San Francisco Bay area is not just another "not in my backyard issue". The explosion of these vast amounts of Depleted Uranium radioactive microscopic particles affect Americans all over the country. We've all watched the Weather Channel and observed how in a matter of just a few hours, wind currents carrying invisible particles start at one part of the country and sweep across the map, reaching into entirely different sections of the country in a matter of hours. So this issue is in fact not at all a problem merely for the city of Tracy's 72,400 thousand residents, nor even just a nightmare for the Greater San Francisco Bay Area's 7 million. The radioactivity being dispersed at Site 300 and other" test" sites still in operation within the US affects people all over the United States - as DU radiation from bombs exploded in Iraq was detected 2,500 miles away in the United Kingdom. >From a February, 2006 report by Busby and Morgan, measurements were examined on air sampler filters deployed by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, in Berkshire, UK. Examination of the air filters showed a statistically significant increase in uranium in all the filters beginning at the start of the United States bombing of Iraq in March 2003 and ending when the US "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign ended. Levels of increased uranium in the filters were found in England, up to 2,500 miles away from Baghdad. In the conclusion of the report Despite much evidence that uranium aerosols are long lived in the environment and are able to travel considerable distances, this is the first evidence as far as we know, that they are able to travel thousands of miles. The distance traveled from Baghdad to Reading [England] following the wind patterns implicit in the pressure systems at the time is about 2500 miles. Although this transport may be hard to believe at first, the regular desert sand events which occur in the UK should teach us that the planet is not such a large place, and that with regard to certain long lived atmospheric pollutants, no man is an island. " We never know when you or I or someone we love may be breathing in an invisible particle of radiation in the air from Site 300 or from another of the US "test" sites. As we saw from the distance that radiation traveled away from Baghdad all the way into England, it is not necessary to live near any of these "test" sites to be an unwitting participant in the purposeful poisoning of America. Roughly speaking, using approximate distances from Livermore's Site 300, Seattle is 800 miles away, Chicago is 1,700 miles away, New Orleans is 2,000 miles away, and Washington, DC, Orlando, and Philadelphia are all about 2,400 miles away. It is easy to look at a map of the US and calculate if you or someone you care about lives within 2,500 miles - and are thus within the range of inhaling the radiation from Site 300 within a matter of days. One can't help but wonder if by virtue of having radioactive materials in the form of both hydrogen bombs and Uranium-238 munitions exploded around us within the US for the past 60 years if Americans are now facing the same health issues as those experienced by those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Both countries have been pounded relentlessly by thousands of tons of uranium munitions. In an interview with Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki, author of the compelling book, "Afghanistan After Democracy" which chronicles the health effects suffered by the people in Afghanistan as a result of DU weaponry, I asked Dr Miraki to tell me about the health effects of DU upon the people in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to the citizens of the US with regard to open air Uranium-238 "testing". Dr. Miraki replied, "I can use Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslovia as a benchmark upon which I can base my judgment. There they have used these weapons and they have resulted in a variety of health issues ranging from leukemia to cancers of various types, seeing the unborn as well as congenital deformities as well as pulmonary problems, edema, other issues as well as bizarre conditions - some call it Gulf War Syndrome, some call it other names that's associated - fatigue and neurological problems, other issues are associated with it." As this is documented by many scientists as being true with regard to the devastating health effects of the victims of uranium poisoning in the Middle East, can one assume that these same uranium munitions are having a similar effect on our own citizens here in the United States? Dr. Miraki explained, "It is bound to effect people in the vicinity. After all, the dust of DU is susceptible to wind. Wind will carry it, water flow in any direction is bound to take that, and vegetation will be affected, birds could take particles and move it - so it's the ecological aspect as well as the long term effects. So I assume it would be evident already wherever the regions close by to where the detonations are done... Miraki continued, "For example, I heard in Indiana, Jefferson Testing Grounds, there people have certain health problems that are unexplained, cancer rates and so forth that are up, so on a large scale, what they have done overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan and Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and, using that as a benchmark? Logic dictates that it will result in similar conditions here as well... a high upsurge in diabetes in various areas among young people - as well as older - could very well be one effect of DU dust. Then you know we are talking about DU dust, we are talking about intercellular radiation. So it could affect anything. It could create any kind of problem, from the conventional as well as bizarre and unexplained, unconventional problems." Radiation from US Military weapons is not something that happens overseas "somewhere". It is a personal affair that affects Americans right here at home. As Michael Ignatieff said, "We can't achieve the humanitarian goals we set out to because achieving humanitarian goals means getting up close and personal." The clock is ticking. With each new detonation of yet another radioactive "test", increased amounts of radiation remain here with us inside the United States for all eternity. The issue of radioactive explosive "tests" inside the United States affects each and every one of us and those we love. It affects all future generations of Americans. It is a critical matter for the ecosystem. Our environment and wildlife are suffering due to the increasingly destructive and cumulative effects of radioactivity in our air, water, soil, and vegetation. Bob Sarvey, one of the leading voices against the continued testing of radioactive substances at Site 300, summed up what appears to be the sentiment of many residents in the Livermore area by saying, "If you want to just explode regular ordinance, I'm okay with you doing it on the hill. But if you are going to put U-238, tritium, other radioactive elements in it? Please go... somewhere else. Somewhere where you're not wiping out people". Unfortunately, no matter where that "somewhere else" is? Depleted Uranium and other radioactive substances are "tested", it will wipe out people. So the solution actually is not to move the weapons "testing" to a less populated area, but rather, to stop the use of radioactive materials, period. As long as radioactive weapons are used, those who manufacture and use them will continue to maintain that they must be "tested" - somewhere. And with such a tremendously far atmospheric "reach"? These invisible aerosol particles will be carried through the wind and precipitation thousands of miles away - somewhere - wherever people live. All points within 2,500 miles of Site 300 at Livermore, CA are a good place to begin to stop the poison gassing of Americans. The appeals against large radioactive explosions on Site 300 at Livermore, California begin on February 7 in Modesto. Your help is needed with the appeal process. A campaign is being mounted to put an end to these radioactive explosions that affect the health of our loved ones. The question we must now ponder in our heart of hearts is this one: What have the use of these radioactive and nuclear weapons truly cost us in collective terms of Americans' lost moments of healthy, happy, productive living? What do we say to future children who are born with genetic mutations and birth defect deformities who want to know why they are missing a limb or an ear? What will the use of these weapons mean to us in terms of green spaces and fields, native wildflowers and forests lost? How will this permanent radiation in our atmosphere and environment play out for our children's grandchildren's future in terms of being subject to a nation with permanently contaminated brooks and streams, lakes, ponds, rivers and oceans? How can we ever even begin to calculate what our great grandchildren will miss in terms of healthy fish swimming in our streams and frogs, chipmunks, and endangered birds? In the words of Dr. Keith Baverstock, formerly of the World Health Organization, "Politics has poisoned the well from which democracy must drink." It is incumbent upon American citizens to take personal responsibility now, once and for all. We must work together at once to put an end to this poisoning forever of our nation - and our world. Like never before, we need to rise to the occasion and step up to the plate. Together we must work to stop these purposeful explosions of radioactive poison dust right here in our country, inside America. Can there be any doubt that Americans need to put a stop to this insane Uranium Madness being exploded into our air - once and for all? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. And the question is, what are you willing to do about it? Learn how you can participate in the growing effort to halt radioactive weapons "testing". To take action or to receive more information, please visit: http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com . Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, antiwar activist, and a certified personal coach. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week. Cathy can be contacted at savorsuccessla... at yahoo.com . http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23826.shtml From DNorth at Lifespan.org Fri Jan 26 10:25:17 2007 From: DNorth at Lifespan.org (North, David) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:25:17 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] KI tablets for persons doing radioiodinations with I-125 In-Reply-To: <00c401c74098$d8556430$2e01a8c0@DDHMVM11> Message-ID: <4AFD287104F71D48A958EFCB1DCC1184B6359F@LSRIEXCH1.lsmaster.lifespan.org> You have to be careful. Administration of KI may require a physician's prescription where you are. A good, simple, effective alternative for thyroid blocking is to wash your hands with a iodinated surgical scrub such as Betadine, if it's available. It has worked for me personally. Such surgical scrubs are notorious for interfering with nuclear medicine thyroid studies. David L. North, Sc.M., DABR Associate Physicist Medical Physics Main Bldg. Rm 317 Rhode Island Hospital 593 Eddy St. Providence, RI 02903 (401)444-5961 fax: (401)444-4446 dnorth at lifespan.org > ---------- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Wes > Reply To: WesVanPelt at Verizon.net > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:52 > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] KI tablets for persons doing radioiodinations with I-125 > > Radsafers, > > I am curious to know if any radiation safety programs make use of potassium > iodide (KI) in the event of an accidental (or routine?) uptake of I-125 when > handled in the lab. This would be most likely when performing > radioiodination reactions to label proteins or antigens. > > Issues I am thinking about include: > Possible adverse side effects from KI in some individuals. > Is a physician's prescription needed? > Would a "patient consent" form be advisable or required? > At what action level (intake or radiation dose) would KI be > administered? > Would blocking thyroid uptake with cold KI invalidate thyroid > bioassay measurements? > > Thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > Wes > Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP > Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 26 14:38:31 2007 From: hflong at pacbell.net (howard long) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Message-ID: <20070126203831.55508.qmail@web81804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Pollycove thoroghly debunked the claim of "healthy worker effect" in NSWS in a DDP presentation 10 years ago. You can get the tape at www.oism.org/ddp or 520-325-2680 Howard Long Keith Welch wrote: Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab _______________________________________________ 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 ograabe at ucdavis.edu Fri Jan 26 15:21:40 2007 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:21:40 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> <6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20070126131731.039d84f0@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> At 10:36 AM 1/25/2007, you wrote: I find this very difficult to believe: *************************************** My responses have been clear and accurate. I have nothing more to add. I am sorry that you don't understand them. ********************************************** 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 radmax at earthlink.net Sat Jan 27 00:12:47 2007 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:12:47 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: <25487990.1169878367960.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Some more definitions for ya' sweets... "A confidence trick or confidence game, also known as a con, scam, grift, bunko or flim flam, is an attempt to intentionally mislead a person or persons (known as the "mark") usually with the goal of financial or other gain".... ..."The Paranoia Scam is a scam that involves the con man telling the mark various lies about the different scams and instigating false attempts so that the mark (feeling worried and with no place to hide their money from fraud) turns to the con man for help".... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick Above are OTHERWISE KNOWN AS DOUG ROKKE, Leuren Moret, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, et al... Your ignorance, gullibility and just plain naivety are so far fetched as to not even warrant further discussion. Try to educate yourself with just the lies in Rokke's background, then tell me how believable he is. Do me a personal favor, just in case ANY of this is true, move to San Fran, so when some extremist blows up the lab you can be taken out with the rest of the ignorant ANTI-Everything (except immoral behaviour-can you say NAMBLA?) crowd! Richard Urban Yuma, AZ From BLHamrick at aol.com Sat Jan 27 09:47:05 2007 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:47:05 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: In the United States the required tasks will depend upon what State you are working in. PET/CT is currently regulated by the individual States. The PET portion will be regulated by NRC in some States in the near future. It is best to contact the responsible regulatory agency in the State or Country in which you will be working to learn the requirments. Barbara L. Hamrick In a message dated 1/25/2007 7:35:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sergio at bgu.ac.il writes: Dear colleagues As we are going to install our first PET/CT I would like to know what are the tasks of a medical physicist and if a full position is justified.The Nuclear Medicine Institute has 2 working gamma-cameras. Thanking you in advance Sergio Faermann, Ph.D. From john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com Sat Jan 27 09:57:47 2007 From: john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com (john.gumnick at exeloncorp.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:57:47 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: <3BD30088EA142D4C88DD56036F248D046B80ED@CCCMSXCH03.energy.power.corp> Totally unprofessional and inappropriate to RADSAFE. I'm embarassed for you. JG -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:13 AM To: savorsuccessla at yahoo.com Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Some more definitions for ya' sweets... "A confidence trick or confidence game, also known as a con, scam, grift, bunko or flim flam, is an attempt to intentionally mislead a person or persons (known as the "mark") usually with the goal of financial or other gain".... ..."The Paranoia Scam is a scam that involves the con man telling the mark various lies about the different scams and instigating false attempts so that the mark (feeling worried and with no place to hide their money from fraud) turns to the con man for help".... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick Above are OTHERWISE KNOWN AS DOUG ROKKE, Leuren Moret, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, et al... Your ignorance, gullibility and just plain naivety are so far fetched as to not even warrant further discussion. Try to educate yourself with just the lies in Rokke's background, then tell me how believable he is. Do me a personal favor, just in case ANY of this is true, move to San Fran, so when some extremist blows up the lab you can be taken out with the rest of the ignorant ANTI-Everything (except immoral behaviour-can you say NAMBLA?) crowd! Richard Urban Yuma, AZ _______________________________________________ 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/ ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You. ************************************************** From radproject at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 27 10:25:33 2007 From: radproject at sbcglobal.net (stewart farber) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:25:33 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Message-ID: <000a01c7422f$c499ac10$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,6243493.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007 From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jan 27 11:50:45 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:50:45 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article In-Reply-To: <000a01c7422f$c499ac10$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: <000001c7423b$b1e2c140$49197254@pc1> Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.net From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 12:51:12 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:51:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article In-Reply-To: <000001c7423b$b1e2c140$49197254@pc1> References: <000a01c7422f$c499ac10$0302a8c0@YOUR7C60552B9E> <000001c7423b$b1e2c140$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <005f01c74244$1ea556f0$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Lieber Franz, Stewart, RADSAFErs: OK! Here's the skeptic in me! I once tracked these types of stories in detail, and found that the media almost always had it wrong. There was an article some years back about an Indian smuggling operation of so called "weapons grade" material that was being hidden in "Yellow Cakes" to cross the border. I laughed so hard that I cried! In the event that there are a couple of you on the list that doesn't know what "yellowcake" is, then perhaps you should find another occupation. For a period of one year while in Leoben (that's in Austria, by the way), I followed in detail all environmental and nuclear stories in 6 newspapers in Europe including: Deutche Zeitung, Die Presse, Der Standard, S?ddeutche Zeitung, Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, and the Herald Tribune. (Note to Franz: I did not include the Kronen Zeitung!) Only the Z?rcher had systematically accurate initial reports, and their retractions of incorrect stories were easy to find. I cannot say that for any of the other papers who were clearly driving an editorial agenda and bias. I'm not saying that the report from Georgia is wrong, but I have no way to "verify" the report. From past experience, I'd give it a 5% chance or less of being materially correct. Unfortunately, that 5% could potentially kill. Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque (Formerly Vienna and Leoben) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:51 To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.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/ From gary at pageturners.com Sat Jan 27 13:01:19 2007 From: gary at pageturners.com (Gary Damschen) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:01:19 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Message-ID: <000a01c74245$87c4d970$974e8c50$@com> Roger, Please don't fill my mailbox with the full text of these diatribes. The link the post would have been sufficient. A short comment about the link would have allowed me to see that you were posting this because you do not believe in its content and were providing list members an opportunity to see just how far removed from reality some of the rhetoric online about DU, radiation, and radiation safety matters is. At first, I thought you were another hysteric. Thanks, Gary From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jan 27 13:27:15 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:27:15 +0100 Subject: AW: RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article In-Reply-To: <005f01c74244$1ea556f0$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Message-ID: <000001c74249$2cb25900$49197254@pc1> Dear Dan, Thank you for your well founded message on this topic! You remind me that I had intended to contact you for a long time, especially because of your "leoben" e-mail address which was surprising. I may ask you to forgive me for not having done it until now, but my excuses are: I have been last year away from Vienna for more than half of the year, mostly in Poland, but as well in Lithuania, in Oxford, at NPL in London, Bratislava and most recently in Lund, Sweden. Another excuse is that just before the turn of the year my computer refused to follow my commands and a very large number of data, including RADSAFE-messages was lost. Believe me, I burst into laughter, when I read that you did not consult "Kronen-Zeitung"! This is a proof of your knowledge about Austria! I have not time enough to follow the most "important" newspapers, but I sometimes question the scientific credibility of both "Presse" and "Standard", because they usually simply reprint what has come in from press agencies. Regarding the probability of the story being correct: Maybe the attempt of somebody to sell "nuclear grade uranium" has a 5% of being correct. The probability that those 100 g or whatsoever were really nuclear grade, not to talk about the chemical form, because metallic uranium is pyrophore and will incinerate on contact with air have to be questioned!!!!! The story is getting into more and more unbelievable speculations and therefore it should be regarded more than 90% as unconfirmed speculations. On a personal question I will contact you separately. Best wishes, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 19:51 An: 'Franz Sch?nhofer' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Lieber Franz, Stewart, RADSAFErs: OK! Here's the skeptic in me! I once tracked these types of stories in detail, and found that the media almost always had it wrong. There was an article some years back about an Indian smuggling operation of so called "weapons grade" material that was being hidden in "Yellow Cakes" to cross the border. I laughed so hard that I cried! In the event that there are a couple of you on the list that doesn't know what "yellowcake" is, then perhaps you should find another occupation. For a period of one year while in Leoben (that's in Austria, by the way), I followed in detail all environmental and nuclear stories in 6 newspapers in Europe including: Deutche Zeitung, Die Presse, Der Standard, S?ddeutche Zeitung, Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, and the Herald Tribune. (Note to Franz: I did not include the Kronen Zeitung!) Only the Z?rcher had systematically accurate initial reports, and their retractions of incorrect stories were easy to find. I cannot say that for any of the other papers who were clearly driving an editorial agenda and bias. I'm not saying that the report from Georgia is wrong, but I have no way to "verify" the report. From past experience, I'd give it a 5% chance or less of being materially correct. Unfortunately, that 5% could potentially kill. Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque (Formerly Vienna and Leoben) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:51 To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.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/ From daleboyce at charter.net Sat Jan 27 14:20:47 2007 From: daleboyce at charter.net (Dale Boyce) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:20:47 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics of UO3 gas References: <6.0.1.1.2.20070124091918.02e6c730@mailbox.ucdavis.edu><6.0.1.1.2.20070124191918.0388d7d8@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: <00c201c74250$a18edda0$930bbf42@TheGateway> To get atoms (I think you mean molecules) bouncing into things you have to form them first. In order for UO3 gas to exist you first have to input enough energy to vaporize it. Let me set up the calculation, and hopefully a couple of other physicists will do the calculation independently to see if we get the same result. I'll let them look up the inputs. You have two available energy sources. The kinetic energy of the bullet, and the heat of formation from the burning uranium. You have several energy sinks. You have the heat capacity of the uranium and/or oxide. This soaks up a little energy raising the temperature. to the melting point. Then you have to supply a lot energy to melt the material. This is known as the heat of fusion. Note that you also have to replicate these energy sinks for the steel/whatever that gets zapped in the collision. You then have to heat the liquid to the vaporization point (more heat capacity). After that you have to supply the heat of vaporization to form the gas. Now when I plugged in the numbers from my CRC Handbook. I ran out of energy before the UO3 even melted, much less became a gas. Moreover, I believe I used conservative numbers. I overestimated the heat of formation and underestimated the heat of fusion. The heat of fusion of uranium metal is about an order of magnitude greater than the heat of formation of UO3. The heat of formation is as large or larger than the kintic energy of the bullet. Moreover, the heat of fusion of UO3 should be a few times that of uranium metal. I picked 1000 m/sec as the velocity of the round. Probably not too far off. BTW a long time ago I saw a small uranium fire. You get a nice bright sparkel somewhat white,but that still has a noticible yellow cast. The smoke falls instead of rises. This indicates two things. Because of the color the temperature is probably around 1000C. Consistent with it being at or near its melting point temperature. BTW A substance will remain at its melting point temperature until enough energy is added to go through the transition to liquid. Again this energy is substantial. Second the falling smoke indicates cooled particulates. If it was in a vapor phase there would be a glowing plume well up into the blue or hotter color range. Bottom line is the stuff is going to be very hot and hold a lot of energy as heat, but gas isn't physically plausible. Noises Off! Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: "Otto Raabe" Cc: "radsafelist" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof > Dr. Raabe, > > I find this very difficult to believe: > >> Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and >> results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide >> particles. > > How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and > head toward a surface? > > Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart > supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and > Stewart contains no such mass measurements. > > What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, > and where are they documented? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sat Jan 27 15:31:01 2007 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Franz_Sch=F6nhofer?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:31:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group In-Reply-To: <000a01c74245$87c4d970$974e8c50$@com> Message-ID: <000001c7425a$73fe8b60$49197254@pc1> Gary, Thanks for this comment. After having read the original comment I was close to send a very similar response, but since I had been recently "flamed" (of course none of the senders would accept this bad word) for questioning the opinions of "non-SI" US-hardliners I have refrained from doing it. Imagine if I had done it...... I think we know all the nonsense distributed by those "celebrities" in the anti-nuclear world mentioned in this nonsensical origianal message. I am surprised that for this purpose 130 kB were available on Radsafe. I tried to forward a message, which contained a pdf-file regarding a radiochemical societies newsletter and was slightly larger and it was refused and I was asked to restrict it to 40 kB. O.k., I fully respect the decision of the list owner and will try to forward is by links, but then 130 kB should be rejected as well, even more when considering the content of the message. I think that a link would have been sufficient for all those at RADSAFE who like to read Rokke, Bertell,...... Are there any ones? Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Gary Damschen Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 20:01 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Depleted Uranium - Latest Post to a Google Group Roger, Please don't fill my mailbox with the full text of these diatribes. The link the post would have been sufficient. A short comment about the link would have allowed me to see that you were posting this because you do not believe in its content and were providing list members an opportunity to see just how far removed from reality some of the rhetoric online about DU, radiation, and radiation safety matters is. At first, I thought you were another hysteric. Thanks, Gary _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Sat Jan 27 16:28:03 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:28:03 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics of UO3 gas In-Reply-To: <00c201c74250$a18edda0$930bbf42@TheGateway> Message-ID: Dale Thanks for this. Unfortunately I never learnt much chemistry when I studied physics so I coundn't be one of the "other physicists". Also, I would have "ran out of energy" long before the UO3 melted-:). 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 Dale Boyce Sent: January 27, 2007 12:21 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Physics of UO3 gas To get atoms (I think you mean molecules) bouncing into things you have to form them first. In order for UO3 gas to exist you first have to input enough energy to vaporize it. Let me set up the calculation, and hopefully a couple of other physicists will do the calculation independently to see if we get the same result. I'll let them look up the inputs. You have two available energy sources. The kinetic energy of the bullet, and the heat of formation from the burning uranium. You have several energy sinks. You have the heat capacity of the uranium and/or oxide. This soaks up a little energy raising the temperature. to the melting point. Then you have to supply a lot energy to melt the material. This is known as the heat of fusion. Note that you also have to replicate these energy sinks for the steel/whatever that gets zapped in the collision. You then have to heat the liquid to the vaporization point (more heat capacity). After that you have to supply the heat of vaporization to form the gas. Now when I plugged in the numbers from my CRC Handbook. I ran out of energy before the UO3 even melted, much less became a gas. Moreover, I believe I used conservative numbers. I overestimated the heat of formation and underestimated the heat of fusion. The heat of fusion of uranium metal is about an order of magnitude greater than the heat of formation of UO3. The heat of formation is as large or larger than the kintic energy of the bullet. Moreover, the heat of fusion of UO3 should be a few times that of uranium metal. I picked 1000 m/sec as the velocity of the round. Probably not too far off. BTW a long time ago I saw a small uranium fire. You get a nice bright sparkel somewhat white,but that still has a noticible yellow cast. The smoke falls instead of rises. This indicates two things. Because of the color the temperature is probably around 1000C. Consistent with it being at or near its melting point temperature. BTW A substance will remain at its melting point temperature until enough energy is added to go through the transition to liquid. Again this energy is substantial. Second the falling smoke indicates cooled particulates. If it was in a vapor phase there would be a glowing plume well up into the blue or hotter color range. Bottom line is the stuff is going to be very hot and hold a lot of energy as heat, but gas isn't physically plausible. Noises Off! Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Salsman" To: "Otto Raabe" Cc: "radsafelist" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's uranium trioxide gas proof > Dr. Raabe, > > I find this very difficult to believe: > >> Cooling is virtually instantaneous even near the combustion process and >> results in all (not half) of the vapor being converted to solid oxide >> particles. > > How do "all" of the diffusing gas molecules know to turn around and > head toward a surface? > > Did you actually measure this? You say that Carter and Stewart > supports your assertions, as does your own work, but Carter and > Stewart contains no such mass measurements. > > What are the actual numbers upon which you base this absolute claim, > and where are they documented? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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 LNMolino at aol.com Sat Jan 27 17:34:15 2007 From: LNMolino at aol.com (LNMolino at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:34:15 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Message-ID: In a message dated 1/27/2007 10:28:23 A.M. Central Standard Time, radproject at sbcglobal.net writes: NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Was the report otherwise accurate? Was the only reason you refer to it as "sensationalistic" was their omission of the weight in question? Do you really think that john Q has any clue as to the 5-20 pounds you refer to (I'll admit my ignorance as a First Responder as to what would be needed to create a Nuke). Did the "former sausage broker"have the Enriched U regardless of weight? If he did and let's say it was 1 pound and he sold it to the "right" "Bad Guy's" would they not be 1 pound closer to the 5-20 pounds you cite? Is the threat real or not is the ultimate question? Oh, and on top of this you are also dealing with a general public that gets it's nuclear terrorism training from Jack Bauer on "24". Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Buddhist philosopher at-large 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 rhelbig at california.com Sat Jan 27 18:02:20 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:02:20 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread References: <20070125034548.EVKR20530.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> <45BA5479.9000904@cpeo.org> <01c301c74266$516947a0$48425142@roger1> <45BBDD0A.6080208@cpeo.org> Message-ID: <004301c7426f$d75abe80$48425142@roger1> Can any of you comment upon the following statement I received in a reply today I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources. Thank you. Roger Helbig From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Sat Jan 27 18:23:13 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:23:13 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread In-Reply-To: <004301c7426f$d75abe80$48425142@roger1> Message-ID: Roger When the DU aerosol is formed it will attach to any particles that are in the air. These will then be distributed "around the world". 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 Roger Helbig Sent: January 27, 2007 4:02 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread Can any of you comment upon the following statement I received in a reply today I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources. Thank you. Roger Helbig _______________________________________________ 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 Efforrer at aol.com Sat Jan 27 20:26:16 2007 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:26:16 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: Something to take into consideration is that the FDG used for PET scans is very hot but decays away quickly (2 hr t1/2). Proper use of syringe shields and shielded containers is vital in such a facility. From lars.ingeman at telia.com Sat Jan 27 20:33:13 2007 From: lars.ingeman at telia.com (Lars Persson) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:33:13 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Chronology of Nuclear physics, nuclear techniques and nuclea energy Message-ID: If anyone knows of a good reference pls tell me. If you have a chronology in electronic form or on a website even better. It is intended for the website of the Swedish environmentalist for Nuclear Energy - www.mfk.se. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 From lars.ingeman at telia.com Sat Jan 27 20:38:58 2007 From: lars.ingeman at telia.com (Lars Persson) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:38:58 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Chronology of Nuclear physics, nuclear techniques and nuclea energy Message-ID: If anyone knows of a good reference pls tell me. If you have a chronology in electronic form or on a website even better. It is intended for the website of the Swedish environmentalist for Nuclear Energy - www.mfk.nu. Lars Persson Sl?nb?rsv 11A 19334 Sigtuna 08-568 219 26 0708-297100 _______________________________________________ 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 royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 03:23:07 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:23:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk Message-ID: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into the country. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the following article is true, how would one with limited means, such as the researchers you quoted, working under both the embargo and Sadam's regime, sort out the results of human birth defects caused by malnutrition (lack of Folic acid) from the birth defects cased by a potential myriad of environmental pollutants? The short answer is that they couldn't sort one cause of birth defects from the other, and more likely "if" there really was a statistically significant increase in birth defects it most certainly would have been the result of something that effected the greatest number of people, i.e. malnutrition. Roy Herren ============================================================= Folic acid reduces cleft lip riskBy ANTHONY ROTUNNO WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- Women in their first trimester of pregnancy can significantly reduce their baby's risk of developing a cleft lip by taking regular folic acid supplements, according to a study released Friday by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Senior NIEHS investigator Dr. Allen J. Wilcox, who designed and wrote the population-based study, said his results showed that taking .4 milligrams of folic acid a day can reduce the risk of isolated cleft lip by 40 percent. "We already know that (taking) folic acid helps prevent neural tube defects," Wilcox said. "Now cleft lip is the second major birth defect that can be prevented." Wilcox said that a cleft lip forms prior to a cleft palate, and although the two defects may both emerge, they develop independent of one another. His study did not conclude if folic acid was effective in reducing the risk of a cleft palate in infants. Folic acid -- a B vitamin found in green leafy vegetables, citrus fruits and certain dairy products -- was first recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1992 to effectively reduce the rate of babies born with neural tube defects like spina bifida and anencephaly. According to the NIEHS study, women with a folate-rich diet who also took daily vitamin supplements were also those with the least risk of having a baby with a cleft lip. "There is evidence that a good diet is generally beneficial," Wilcox said. "Many young women's diets may not be nutritious. They could benefit the most from taking multivitamins with folic acid in them." Janis Biermann, senior vice president of education and health promotion at the March of Dimes -- a not for profit organization that works to prevent birth defects and premature births in infants -- said that many women don't like to hear information on how to have a healthy baby until they are ready to have one themselves. In a March of Dimes-Gallup poll conducted in the fall of 2006, only three in 10 women ages 18-34 reported taking a multivitamin on a daily basis. Biermann said that this statistic is discouraging knowing how beneficial folic acid can be during pregnancy. "One of the simplest things for a woman to do is take a multivitamin with folic acid every day," she said. "Why not do it?" According to a study released earlier this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the folate levels in U.S. women of childbearing age decreased by 16 percent between 1999 and 2004. Wilcox said that recent dietary fads and poor eating habits probably contributed to this decline. He said that women who have a chance of getting pregnant need to be especially attentive to what they are eating. "What your mother says is actually true," Wilcox said. "You should always eat your vegetables." Wilcox conducted his study in Norway, which has one of the highest rates of babies born with lip clefts and does not fortify its food with folic acid. He said that although food fortification can increase a person's source of the B vitamin, it is not a cure-all when it comes to providing the recommended amounts of folic acid. "The problem with food fortification is that it doesn't reach everybody," Wilcox said, citing the CDC study to show the decline in folate levels in the United States, which has been fortifying its food with folic acid for almost 10 years. Wilcox said that the rate of babies born with lip clefts tends to be higher in European populations, but that it really doesn't vary significantly around the world. According to the March of Dimes, 4,200 American babies are born with a cleft lip each year. Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved. --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 28 07:23:15 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:23:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a.. Uranium in India In-Reply-To: <000001c74249$2cb25900$49197254@pc1> Message-ID: <312192.87101.qm@web25705.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Friends, In India, we had a few newsstories related to uranium, some of them led to serious dicussion in the media.All except two cases finally turned out to be depleted uranium in the form of shielding from old medical equipment such as linear accelerators and cobalt-60 machines;later the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board initiated a procedure to keep track of such material. In one instance, a hospital in Mumbai imported used medical accelerators (available cheap in som countries). They decided not to install them possibly because of stringent regulatory requirements. They did not know that their equipment contained DU. ( Some models of accelerators contain about 125 kg of DU). They sold it as scrap. The buyers were impressed by the weight of a few pieces on which there were clear inscriptions stating that they are made up of DU. The problem started when they tried to sell it clandestinely Police who shadowed them arrested them. To many, any material ending with "ium" is radioactive and dangerous!. Police got the material analyzed. The story got more coverage in the media as the" thieves" were arrested near Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), the premier nuclear reearch labs in India.Press went to town with the idea that the uranium must have come from BARC. Police hoped to get some mileage; but were disheartened when the mateial turned out to be after all not that harmful! A local TV channel aired the story several times, I was interviewed on two occasions. The reporter was very unhappy when her story turned out to be less spicy! On another occasion, a person was arrested for trying to sell some metallic powder which contained some traces of uranium. The amount was too trivial but the fact that the sample containd a few ppm of uranium gave the story some news value. Again the police was not amused when they were told that any material may contain some uranium! Stories on illicit trafficking of radioactive material/uranium have very interesting possibilities! Regards K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D (Formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, India) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy GN 18, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094, INDIA 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 2 5486081(O) 91+22 2 7706048(R) 9869016206 ( Mobile) Franz Sch?nhofer wrote: Dear Dan, Thank you for your well founded message on this topic! You remind me that I had intended to contact you for a long time, especially because of your "leoben" e-mail address which was surprising. I may ask you to forgive me for not having done it until now, but my excuses are: I have been last year away from Vienna for more than half of the year, mostly in Poland, but as well in Lithuania, in Oxford, at NPL in London, Bratislava and most recently in Lund, Sweden. Another excuse is that just before the turn of the year my computer refused to follow my commands and a very large number of data, including RADSAFE-messages was lost. Believe me, I burst into laughter, when I read that you did not consult "Kronen-Zeitung"! This is a proof of your knowledge about Austria! I have not time enough to follow the most "important" newspapers, but I sometimes question the scientific credibility of both "Presse" and "Standard", because they usually simply reprint what has come in from press agencies. Regarding the probability of the story being correct: Maybe the attempt of somebody to sell "nuclear grade uranium" has a 5% of being correct. The probability that those 100 g or whatsoever were really nuclear grade, not to talk about the chemical form, because metallic uranium is pyrophore and will incinerate on contact with air have to be questioned!!!!! The story is getting into more and more unbelievable speculations and therefore it should be regarded more than 90% as unconfirmed speculations. On a personal question I will contact you separately. Best wishes, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 19:51 An: 'Franz Sch?nhofer' Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [Norton AntiSpam] RE: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Lieber Franz, Stewart, RADSAFErs: OK! Here's the skeptic in me! I once tracked these types of stories in detail, and found that the media almost always had it wrong. There was an article some years back about an Indian smuggling operation of so called "weapons grade" material that was being hidden in "Yellow Cakes" to cross the border. I laughed so hard that I cried! In the event that there are a couple of you on the list that doesn't know what "yellowcake" is, then perhaps you should find another occupation. For a period of one year while in Leoben (that's in Austria, by the way), I followed in detail all environmental and nuclear stories in 6 newspapers in Europe including: Deutche Zeitung, Die Presse, Der Standard, S?ddeutche Zeitung, Neue Z?rcher Zeitung, and the Herald Tribune. (Note to Franz: I did not include the Kronen Zeitung!) Only the Z?rcher had systematically accurate initial reports, and their retractions of incorrect stories were easy to find. I cannot say that for any of the other papers who were clearly driving an editorial agenda and bias. I'm not saying that the report from Georgia is wrong, but I have no way to "verify" the report. From past experience, I'd give it a 5% chance or less of being materially correct. Unfortunately, that 5% could potentially kill. Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque (Formerly Vienna and Leoben) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:51 To: 'stewart farber'; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article Stewart, RADSAFErs, There was a message one or a few days ago, which cited a story published at "The Independent". Unfortunately I have already deleted this message. What I remember is, that the headline spoke about a sale of weapons grade uranium, suitable to build a few nuclear bombs. Further down in the article there were 100 gramm (?, anyway metric!!!!!!!!!!) mentioned and the claim of the "seller", that this was only a sample and that he had some kilos (?, again metric) more in his flat. Nothing was mentioned about whether police found anything in his flat, so I suppose there was nothing else there. From all my knowledge (!), you cannot build several nuclear bombs from 100 g of weapons grade uranium, whatever this might be. Even the sample was not sold and the prospective seller obviously arrested. I do not know about the reputaton of "The Independent", but this message is in line with all the incredible nonsense and speculations about Litwinenkows dead in Austrian newspapers - no real information, speculations which could be a source for a Hollywood Spy Movie. I would not be surprised if these news-releases were deliberately manipulated like so much in this field. Official information about seizing of nuclear material can be found at the IAEA web-site. Best regards, Franz Franz Schoenhofer, PhD MinRat i.R. Habicherg. 31/7 A-1160 Wien/Vienna AUSTRIA -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von stewart farber Gesendet: Samstag, 27. J?nner 2007 17:26 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Enriched uranium incident a ploy -news article See: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-sting27jan27,1,62434 93.story?coll=la-news-a_section Interesting story from LA Times about the alleged Georgian middleman involved in offering a few ounces of highly enriched U to agents for security agencies in a sting operation. NPR ran a sensationalistic story yesterday afternoon about this incident --never stating that the amount in this former sausage broker's possession was far below the amount of 5 pounds to 20 pounds of enriched U that would be necessary for some group of terrorists to fabricate a nuclear weapon. Stewart Farber, MS Public Health Consulting Scientist Farber Technical Services 1285 Wood Ave. Bridgeport, CT 06604 [203] 444-8433 [office] [203] 522-2817 [cell] email: radproject at sbcglobal.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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ --------------------------------- Now you can have your favourite RSS headlines come to you with the all new Yahoo! Mail. From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 10:55:54 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:55:54 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough folate in their diet. Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > James, > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > the country.... From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 12:01:28 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:01:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pilgrim nuclear plant's risks, benefits debated Message-ID: <45BC9EA8.26524.5A55BB@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Pilgrim nuclear plant's risks, benefits debated With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look Nuclear plant faces action after worker contaminated Russia committed to Iran nuclear plant launch Siberian city poses nuclear black-market threat Britian University students to be screened amid nuclear fears Nuclear power may get boost - Power providers want federal backing Downwinders mark nuclear test day ================================= Pilgrim nuclear plant's risks, benefits debated Boston Globe Jan 28 - At a public forum Wednesday in Plymouth, critics told federal regulators that the Pilgrim nuclear power plant poses health and safety risks that must be considered in deciding whether to let the plant operate an additional 20 years. Supporters emphasized what they called the important role Pilgrim plays in meeting the region's energy needs. Beyond security concerns, critics of relicensing also contended that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 's environmental impact study minimizes the health risks of radioactive releases from the plant. A draft of the study -- prepared by NRC professional staff and reviewed by a private consultant -- concluded that environmental impacts from Pilgrim were minimal, and that replacing Pilgrim's energy by alternate means such as coal-burning electric generations would be much worse for the environment. The study said the only impacts that rose to the level of "moderate" were on winter flounder and rainbow smelt. It also said warm water released by Pilgrim's cooling system would have a "small to moderate" effect on other maritime species. Pine duBois of the Kingston-based Jones River Watershed Association said local fisheries were in "severe decline" and that Pilgrim needs to modify its water intake structure to reduce the number of flounder, smelt, and other fish it kills. DuBois also said the plant's "continued daily discharge of superheated water" is causing a general rise in the bay's temperature and needs attention. "We can't delay that attention." But Ben Morgan , a Chatham fish hatchery owner, backed a mitigation effort by Pilgrim. He said an ongoing program to release hatchery- spawned flounder into the bay is succeeding in replacing lost winter flounder. Supporters of relicensing praised Pilgrim's "clean, low-cost reliable energy," in the words of Joyce McMahon , spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance , and contended that Pilgrim's continued operation was necessary to meet the region's growing energy needs. Peter Forman , president of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce and a former state legislator, described Pilgrim "as an economic pillar for the South Shore" in a statement released by McMahon. Forman said that without Pilgrim, the high cost of energy would discourage investment in the region. Supporters also praised Pilgrim's safety record. Arthur Gast , a former member of the Plymouth Nuclear Matters Committee , said Pilgrim operates "quietly and safely" and has regularly received NRC's highest safety rating in annual safety reviews. But Rebecca Chin of Duxbury's Nuclear Matters Advisory Committee , a town-appointed panel, said NRC staff "mischaracterized" a study of increased cancer incidences in Southeast Massachusetts published by the state Department of Public Health in 1990 . Chin said more recent studies established the increased risks of an aging population's susceptibility to radiation. In its environmental impact statement, NRC staff cited the conclusions of a peer review board that evaluated the state's cancer study and concluded there was no causal relationship between Pilgrim and area cancer rates. NRC staff said they will accept written comments from the public on the environmental study e-mailed to PilgrimEIS at nrc.gov until Feb. 28. The final report is due in July . The NRC will be in Plymouth again Tuesday to present the results of a safety inspection of Pilgrim. The public meeting takes place at 6:30 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn at 4 Home Depot Drive , off Long Pond Road . --------------- With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look Virginia May/Associated Press Jan 28 - FEW subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum?s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular, and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well intentioned, who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort. And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda - and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe?s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland. At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: unlike coal, oil, natural gas, or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings. "It has put nuclear back into the mix," said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. "We?re seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits." But being in the mix does not mean nuclear energy will shove aside fossil fuels any time soon. In a way, the revival of interest in nuclear power illustrates the lack of palatable choices to combat global warming. Renewable energy, while growing steadily, has limitations. Windmills don?t turn when the wind isn?t blowing; solar power and geothermal energy are not yet economical enough; hydroelectric dams can be disruptive themselves. That leaves nuclear power as a "clean" alternative to fossil fuels. It already generates one-sixth of the world?s electricity, but it fell out of favor in the West two decades ago after the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents. The previous German government, in fact, pledged to shut down its last nuclear power station by 2022. But now Germany has also committed to deep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the next decade, and its new chancellor, Angela Merkel, rekindled the debate over nuclear energy by saying, "We should consider what consequences it will have if we shut off our nuclear power plants." That comment was a reference to Europe?s increasing vulnerability as an importer of foreign fossil fuels. Just as the United States worries about disruptions in the supply of Middle East oil, Europe worries about Russia?s penchant for using its gas and oil pipelines as a political weapon. In a recent report, Deutsche Bank declared that Germany?s energy policy was untenable. "Far from reducing carbon emissions and securing future energy supplies," it concluded, "current policies would increase both emissions and Germany?s dependence on foreign gas imports." Even in the United States, which has not ordered cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, there are more voices in favor of building nuclear plants. "The question is, how do we produce enough electricity?" said James E. Rogers, the chief executive of Duke Energy Corporation, a major energy supplier. "We need to put our money on nuclear." Critics point out that nuclear reactors are astronomically expensive, and take a decade or more to build, even if environmental groups fail to block construction altogether. Given the entrenched opposition in parts of Western Europe and America, some experts say that if the world does turn to nuclear power, most of the new plants will be in China, India and other developing countries. They also point out that the issue of security cuts both ways. Building more plants may reduce a country?s reliance on imported oil and gas, but it also creates more targets for terrorist attacks. And there is the nuclear fuel cycle: North Korea and other countries are already suspected of diverting enriched uranium to try to make nuclear weapons. Those dangers would only multiply with an increase in the global demand for nuclear power. John P. Holdren, the director of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that if current economic predictions held, nuclear energy would have to generate one-third of the world?s electricity by 2100 to curb the rise in carbon dioxide emissions. That would require a tenfold increase in the number of plants, to more than 3,000. To manage such a risk, Mr. Holdren said, the world would need a radically new regime for policing nuclear technology. One option would be international supervision of all nuclear plants. But is that realistic? Could all countries be treated equally? Right now, the United Nations is demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium, to forestall the possibility that it might be used for a weapons program. It would be, at the least, awkward for European countries to plunge back into nuclear energy at the same time that European diplomats are demanding that the Iranians scale back their nuclear ambitions. With so many downsides, even advocates acknowledge that nuclear power should play only a partial role in the energy mix - and then only for an interim period, until it is replaced by newer technologies. Of course, there is another alternative: energy efficiency. But under the snow-capped peaks of Davos, the idea of simply turning down the thermostat has not yet caught on. ------------------- Nuclear plant faces action after worker contaminated Sunday Herald Jan 28 - THE DOUNREAY nuclear complex is facing legal action for failing to store radioactive waste safely after an incident in which a worker was contaminated with plutonium. The government's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate(NII)hasservedtwo improvement notices on the plant's operator, the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), obliging it to remedy the problem. Inspectors are also considering sending a report to the procurator fiscal. A worker was found to have accidentally inhaled plutonium while decommissioninganoldfuel-processing laboratoryonJanuary 12 last year. Subsequentinvestigationsuncovered half a dozen contaminated lead bricks left on a shelf nearby. According to one of the notices issued by the NII, the bricks were stored "withoutadequate levels of containment". They also lacked "adequate means of physicalprotection"and"anyidentification by means of marking or labelling". The other legal notice alleges that inadequate safety records were kept. Dounreay has been given until April 6 to comply with both notices and could be fined if it fails to do so. According to Dounreay's spokesman, Colin Punler, the plan had been to reuse the bricks but the project for which they were intended had been shelved. "We have very good procedures for dealing with items with significant amounts of radioactivity," he said. "But this revealed gaps in the way we dealt with items with small amounts of radioactivity. We are now fixing those gaps and confident of complying with the requirements laid down by the regulator." News of the latest legal action comes after it was confirmed that Dounreay is to be prosecuted for allowing hundreds of thousands of radioactive particles to leak into the sea and on to local beaches before 1984. The UKAEA has been cited to appear in court in Wick on February 6. Meanwhile, theSundayHerald revealed last week that decommissioning work at Dounreay was threatened with delaysandjob losses because of a government financial crisis. The plant could suffer major cuts in its budget for 2007-08 because of losses made by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the state agency that funds Dounreay. --------------- Russia committed to Iran nuclear plant launch TEHRAN (AFP) - Visiting Russian security chief Igor Ivanov said that Moscow is committed to launching Iran's first nuclear power plant on schedule in September, the official IRNA news agency reported. "Russia is determined and serious in fulfilling its obligation to finish Bushehr plant on the scheduled date," Ivanov was quoted as saying Sunday after meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. In September 2006, Russia and Iran signed an agreement setting September this year as the deadline for the launch of the Russian- built Bushehr nuclear power station which lies on the Gulf coast in southwestern Iran. The plant will actually produce electricity from November 2007, and the nuclear fuel for the plant is to be delivered no later than March. Ivanov, the Russian Security Council secretary, is also due to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and national security chief and top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. He is expected to hold a press conference with his Iranian counterpart later. Russia supports Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology but voted for a UN Security Council resolution in December that imposes sanctions on Tehran over its repeated refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. ---------------- Siberian city poses nuclear black-market threat MOSCOW (AP) Jan 28 -- Novosibirsk is located in the depths of Siberia, but despite the remoteness it's one of Russia's main areas for nuclear activity and a cause of concern for those worried about nuclear materials falling into terrorists' hands. The concerns about Russia's third-largest city rose to the forefront last week after officials in the former Soviet republic of Georgia announced the arrest of a Russian for allegedly trying to sell weapons-grade uranium to an undercover agent. The man, who was arrested last year, initially told his interrogators the uranium came from Novosibirsk, 1,600 miles east of Moscow, Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili told The Associated Press on Saturday. He later recanted his statement, but Georgian authorities sent a letter to Russia's Federal Security Service inquiring about the possible link to Novosibirsk, Utiashvili said. The agency declined to comment Saturday. A top Russian science official has said the sample of the alleged contraband uranium provided by Georgia was too small for analysis that could determine its origin. The episode appeared to cast doubt on Russia's ability to halt the black-market trade in nuclear materials and renewed concern about security at Russia's array of nuclear facilities. The Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant is one of Russia's main facilities for producing enriched uranium both for use in nuclear reactors and in the higher concentration that could be used to make an atomic bomb. In addition, highly enriched uranium has been shipped into Novosibirsk in recent years from former Soviet bloc countries, including Poland and Romania. Under a program backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the uranium is to be blended down into lower concentrations. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration funded a program to improve security at the Novosibirsk plant as part of a wider initiative to boost security at facilities throughout Russia. The NNSA says the Novosibirsk plant completed its upgrade in late 2004. However, security apparently was lax in Novosibirsk for years before that. In 2002, the head of the agency that was then responsible for security at nuclear facilities admitted that weapons-grade nuclear material had disappeared from Russian facilities. "Most often, these instances are connected with factories preparing fuel" including Novosibirsk's, the official, Yuri Vishnyevsky, said at the time. Novosibirsk was also the site of the 1997 arrest of two men who officials said intended to smuggle some 11 pounds of enriched uranium to Pakistan or China. That uranium reportedly was stolen from a plant in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. Security at Russia's nuclear facilities was seen as deteriorating rapidly in the early years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when economic hardships made black-market activities increasingly widespread and as political chaos left official lines of command and supervision shaky. The U.S.-based organization Nuclear Threat Initiative said in a report last year that Russia remains the prime country of concern for contraband nuclear material. "Russia has the world's largest stockpiles of both nuclear weapons and the materials to make them, scattered among hundreds of buildings and bunkers at scores of sites. Over the past 15 years security for those stockpiles has improved from poor to moderate, but there remain immense threats those security systems must confront," the NTI said. ------------------ Britian University students to be screened amid nuclear fears BRITAIN may force foreign postgraduates studying nuclear physics or biochemistry to undergo tough new security checks amid fears they could use their knowledge to make nuclear weapons. Students from outside the European Union face screening, regardless of their home country, under a government plan revealed in The Observer newspaper. An unnamed Foreign Office source said students' visa applications would be blocked if they were thought to be risky following security checks into why they were coming to Britain and what they studied before. "We do not want students who come to the UK to gain knowledge going home and using it as part of a nuclear weapons program," the official told the paper. "Overseas students from outside the EU who are pursuing courses will have to go through proper security vetting to check their credentials." Subjects to be targeted include physics, metallurgy, microbiology, biophysics and electrical, chemical and mechanical engineering in an overhaul of the present voluntary vetting scheme, where some universities agree to report students who arouse suspicion. Association of Heads of University Administration chairman David Allen welcomed the proposal but warned British Universities could lose students to other countries as a result. "We don't want students to go to the US or Australia while they are waiting to hear from the UK," he told the Research Fortnight newspaper. -------------- Nuclear power may get boost - Power providers want federal backing WASHINGTON - The Dallas Morning News Jan 28 - To kick-start the U.S. nuclear power industry, the federal government is preparing to spend billions of dollars to prove a point to Wall Street. Proponents of nuclear power are banking on federal support to show investors that revamped licensing procedures and new technology won't result in mammoth cost overruns that defined the last era of nuclear plant construction. Whether that support materializes may make the difference between a future of growth or stagnation for nuclear power, which now provides 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. Energy companies have announced their interest in building as many as 30 new reactors, including at least six in Texas. Dallas-based TXU Corp. alone says it may construct six new reactors at three sites. But most energy executives remain cautious publicly about their prospects. Bond agencies have already warned that companies taking on the multibillion-dollar risk of a new plant could put their credit ratings at risk. Investors generally are interested in shorter-term projects. Even the strongest supporters of nuclear power agree that the industry's goals hinge on the government's financial support to show that new plants can get built on time and on budget. "The industry has been dormant for so many years," said Keith McCoy, vice presi dent of resources and environmental policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "In order to move nuclear energy back to a level of where we should be, you're going to need some incentives." Once promoted as a limitless source of low-cost electricity, nuclear plants would be derided as boondoggles on the backs of taxpayers and consumers. Numerous plants went off schedule and over budget. TXU's Comanche Peak power plant took two decades to build. Its original estimate: less than $1 billion. The final: $11 billion. Dozens of nuclear construction projects were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s. No new reactors have been ordered since before the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island that raised government scrutiny and scared off much of the public. But as other nations moved forward with new construction, U.S. lawmakers reawakened to the idea of new plants. Environmental concerns throughout the 1990s helped give the industry new momentum. Soaring oil and gas prices in recent years, along with worries about global warming, have allowed the nuclear industry to market itself as a stable source of emissions-free power. The federal government has already committed $6 billion in tax credits for the first companies to build new plants. The Department of Energy has also promised $260 million to offset plant design and application costs with NuStart, a consortium of nuclear operators aiming to build new plants. Critics and supporters agree that two of the most critical issues have yet to be resolved. Storing the radioactive waste produced at nuclear plants has shown few signs of resolution, as Nevada lawmakers block development of the Yucca Mountain Repository. Spent fuel remains at nuclear reactor sites across the country. "The industry and investors need to see progress on waste," said Christine Tezak, a policy analyst at Stanford Group Co. in Washington. With Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada as the new Senate majority leader, "we may need to adjust our definition of progress." Companies are also waiting to see how the Bush administration proposes to fund the $2 billion in loan guarantees that the 2005 energy bill has authorized. --------------- Downwinders mark nuclear test day Idaho Statesman Jan 28 - On Friday afternoon, Tona Henderson and J Truman wandered through the rows of the Emmett cemetery, stopping at one headstone: that of Paul Cooper, an Army veteran who died in 1978 from leukemia he said was caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear tests. Then Henderson turned and looked a few rows down and found another familiar name: Sheri Garmon, her friend and fellow activist who brought national attention to the plight of Idaho's downwinders before succumbing to cancer herself in September 2005. "She wouldn't have necessarily been dead if we had listened to what Paul Cooper had said in 1977," a tearful Henderson said. On Saturday, she and dozens of other Idaho downwinders gathered at the Idaho Historical Museum to share their stories and to try to make sure the past's lessons aren't forgotten as the U.S. government pushes to test new weapons at the Nevada Test Site. The conference of downwinders marked the 56th anniversary of nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, whose fallout has been linked to cancer and other illnesses in thousands of Americans living downwind of the site. Twenty-one counties in Utah, Nevada and Arizona are covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which makes cancer victims and their survivors from those counties eligible for $50,000 in "compassionate payments." Four Idaho counties were among the top five counties in the country for fallout from radioactive iodine-131, according to a 1997 National Cancer Institute study. Iodine-131 can cause thyroid cancer. The 50 people who gathered Saturday also came to voice their opposition to the Divine Strake test - what many fear is the beginning of another round of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site. The U.S. government wants to test a 700-ton underground explosive later this year that would reportedly be able to destroy underground military compounds. But activists fear Divine Strake could send fallout still lingering at the site back into the air. "We are not going to allow another generation of us to be created," Truman said. A public meeting in Boise about Divine Strake is set for today. On Saturday, Gov. Butch Otter issued a proclamation designating Saturday as Downwinders Day of Remembrance. Those attending Saturday's event said they are hopeful they will see support for their cause from local and state officials. Boise's Charlie Smith, an activist for awareness about the environmental causes of cancer, funded the conference. Her son Trevor, 17, was diagnosed with a medulablastoma brain tumor on Nov. 15, 2002 when the family was living in McCall. Through her own research, Smith is convinced that her son's cancer could have been caused by cyanide mining or even fallout from the Hanford Site nuclear reactors. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 12:01:39 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:01:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Blair Backs Nuclear Power to Tackle Climate, Energy Security Message-ID: <45BC9EB3.13282.5A7CDB@sandyfl.cox.net> Index: Blair Backs Nuclear Power to Tackle Climate, Energy Security Nuclear energy is back on Davos agenda Nuclear agency studies options for KC plant "Hot" patients setting off radiation alarms Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms Radiation board reviews plan for recycling Oklahoma waste =========================================== Blair Backs Nuclear Power to Tackle Climate, Energy Security Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. needs nuclear power to meet its twin challenges of securing energy supplies and reducing emissions of gases that cause global warming, Prime Minister Tony Blair said. ``I don't think we will tackle climate change'' and energy security ``effectively unless nuclear power is part of it,'' Blair said in Davos, Switzerland, where he's attending the World Economic Forum. The U.K. government is likely to approve a new generation of nuclear power stations in coming months as the country attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and secure alternatives to fading North Sea oil and gas reserves. ``We are going to move from self sufficiency in gas to importing 90 percent of it,'' he said. Faced with that reality and the need to reduce carbon emissions he said, ``how are we going to do that without nuclear being part of this mix?'' Blair said a new ``climate change bill in the next few weeks'' will allow ``individuals and businesses to help'' reduce emissions. New technology would help improve nuclear power, he said. In a reference to non-government organizations that say nuclear power is unsafe, he said ``pressure groups have an important role to play but leaders'' must take decisions. ------------------ Nuclear energy is back on Davos agenda DAVOS, Switzerland Int. Herald Tribune Jan 26: Few subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum's annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well- intentioned who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort. And yet nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda here - and not just here. Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants. France, Europe's leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland. At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb emissions of carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: Unlike coal, oil, natural gas or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings. "It has put nuclear back into the mix," said Daniel Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. "We're seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits." But being in the mix does not mean nuclear energy will shove aside fossil fuels any time soon. Today in Europe Russians work on their image at Davos Officials change tactics on trade negotiations Small screens, new programs Renewable energy, while growing steadily, has limitations: Windmills don't turn when the wind isn't blowing, geothermal energy is not yet economical enough, and hydroelectric dams can be disruptive themselves. That leaves nuclear power as a "clean" alternative to fossil fuels. It already generates one-sixth of the world's electricity, but it fell out of favor in the West two decades ago after accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The previous German government, in fact, pledged to shut down its last nuclear power station by 2022. But now Germany has also committed itself to deep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decade, and its new chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently rekindled the debate over nuclear energy when she said, "We should consider what consequences it will have if we shut off our nuclear power plants." That comment was a reference to Europe's increasing vulnerability as an importer of foreign fossil fuels. Just as the United States worries about disruptions in the supply of Middle East oil, Europe worries about Rssia's penchant for using its gas and oil pipelines as a political weapon. Even in the United States, which has not ordered cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, there are more voices in favor of building nuclear plants. Critics point out that nuclear reactors are astronomically expensive, and take a decade or more to build, even if environmental groups fail to block construction. Given the entrenched opposition in parts of Western Europe and America, some experts say that if the world does turn to nuclear power, most of the new plants will be in China, India and other developing countries. They also point out that the issue of security cuts both ways. Building more plants may reduce a country's reliance on imported oil and gas, but it also creates more targets for terrorist attacks. And there is the nuclear fuel cycle: North Korea and other countries are already suspected of diverting enriched uranium to try to make nuclear weapons. Those dangers would only multiply with an increase in the global demand for nuclear power. John Holdren, the director of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that if current economic predictions held, nuclear energy would have to generate one-third of the world's electricity by 2100 if it were used to curb the rise in carbon dioxide emissions. That would require a tenfold increase in the number of plants, to more than 3,000. To manage such a risk, Holdren said, the world would need a radically new regime for policing nuclear technology. One option would be international supervision of all nuclear plants. But is that realistic? Could all countries be treated equally? The United Nations is now demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium to forestall the possibility that it might be used for weapons. It would be, at the least, awkward for European countries to plunge back into nuclear energy at the same time that European diplomats are demanding that the Iranians scale back their nuclear ambitions. Of course, there is another alternative: energy efficiency. But under the snow-capped peaks of Davos, the idea of simply turning down the thermostat has not yet caught on. ------------------ Nuclear agency studies options for KC plant The Kansas City Star Jan 27 - The federal agency in charge of the nuclear weapons parts plant at the Bannister Federal Complex has begun searching for a replacement facility. A decision is expected in April. The National Nuclear Security Administration is in the early stages of a "transformation planning process" that is expected to lead to a smaller, more efficient manufacturing plant to be completed by 2010 and fully operational by 2012. "The NNSA is transforming all of its infrastructure, not just here, but at all eight facilities around the country," said Mark Holocek, deputy site manager. The new plant is expected to be located on either the existing Bannister property in south Kansas City or a greenfield site somewhere in the metropolitan area. The current Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies plant employs about 2,600 people and manufactures nonradioactive parts for the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The new facility is expected to employ about 2,000 people and save the NNSA $100 million. Local NNSA officials recently received permission to continue planning for a new facility in the area. There had been some concern the operation might be relocated to one of the seven other nuclear weapons facilities the NNSA operates around the country. The plant contributes significantly to the local economy. It had a $193 million payroll last year and purchased $41.9 million in goods from Missouri businesses and $15 million from Kansas businesses, according to the NNSA. The bulk of the employees, 1,792, lived in Missouri. The NNSA is now working to determine which options to pursue for the plant?s future, Holocek said. The building options are renovating the west side of the existing Bannister Federal Complex, building a new facility on the Bannister property, or a greenfield lease in the Kansas City area. The agency must also determine whether it wants to seek funding to build the plant itself or have the General Services Administration build a plant and lease it to the NNSA. Should the GSA be chosen to manage the project, congressional approval would be expected in October and a development contract would be awarded in spring 2008. --------------- "Hot" patients setting off radiation alarms MIAMI (Reuters) - When 75,000 football fans pack into Dolphin Stadium in Miami for the Super Bowl on February 4, at least a few may want to carry notes from their doctors explaining why they're radioactive enough to set off "dirty bomb" alarms. With the rising use of radioisotopes in medicine and the growing use of radiation detectors in a security-conscious nation, patients are triggering alarms in places where they may not even realize they're being scanned, doctors and security officials say. Nearly 60,000 people a day in the United States undergo treatment or tests that leave tiny amounts of radioactive material in their bodies, according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. It is not enough to hurt them or anyone else, but it is enough to trigger radiation alarms for up to three months. Since the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has distributed more than 12,000 hand-held radiation detectors, mainly to Customs and Border Protection agents at airports, seaports and border crossings. Sensors are also used at government buildings and at large public events like the Super Bowl that are considered potential terrorist targets. At the annual Christmas tree-lighting party in New York City's Rockefeller Center in November, police pulled six people aside in the crowd and asked them why they had tripped sensors. "All six had recently had medical treatments with radioisotopes in their bodies," Richard Falkenrath, the city's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, told a Republican governors' meeting in Miami recently. "That happens all the time." Radioisotopes are commonly used to diagnose and treat certain cancers and thyroid disorders, to analyze heart function, or to scan bones and lungs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission first recommended in 2003 that doctors warn patients they may set off alarms after being injected or implanted with radioisotopes. That came after police stopped a bus that set off a radiation detector in a New York City tunnel. They found one of the passengers had recently undergone thyroid treatment with radioiodine. In August, the British Medical Journal described the case of a very embarrassed 46-year-old Briton who set off the sensors at Orlando airport in Florida six weeks after having radioiodine treatment for a thyroid condition. He was detained, strip-searched and sniffed by police dogs before eventually being released, the journal said in its "Lesson of the Week" section. "I'M HOT!" Workers in the nuclear industry have dealt with the problem for years. Ken Clark, a spokesman in Atlanta for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has had a treadmill stress test every two years since undergoing bypass surgery 23 years ago. His doctor injects him with a tiny amount of radioactive thallium, makes him run on a treadmill and then uses a gamma ray camera to monitor blood flow in his heart. That can leave him slightly radioactive for up to 30 days and Clark knows to carry a note from his doctor during that time, especially if he visits nuclear power plants. "I have in the past had one of the health physicists bring a little hand-held survey meter and hold it up to my chest and lo and behold, I'm hot!" Clark said. "You just don't let people in and out of places when they're emitting some sort of radioactivity," he added. The length of time patients give off enough radiation to set off alarms varies. For some scans, like the FDG-PET scans often used to screen for cancer, it's less than 24 hours. For thyroid treatment with radioiodine, it can be as long as 95 days, the Society of Nuclear Medicine said. Dr. Henry Royal, a past president of the society who practices at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, gives patients who plan to travel cards detailing what radionuclides were used and how much was given. The cards have a 24-hour phone number police can call to confirm the treatment, "so if they're stopped, hopefully they can get the problem solved more efficiently," Royal said. Nobody keeps good data on how often patients get stopped. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Zachary Mann said it's relatively infrequent at airports, and that passengers who set off hand-held sensors are typically escorted to a private office for questioning that clears up the matter. If there's doubt, a more sophisticated device is used to identify the type of radiation, said Mann, who once set off another agent's portable detector after a treadmill test. There were nearly 20 million nuclear medical procedures performed in the United States in 2005, up 15 percent from four years earlier, so the number of people who could potentially be mistaken for terrorists is enormous. "We hope that people who have radiation detectors are aware of the problem ... and that they treat people with respect," Royal said. ----------------- Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms The Port Of Palm Beach was evacuated for a little over an hour Friday after a woman accidently set off radiation detection alarms, Riviera Beach spokeswoman Rossanne Brown said. Brown told WPBF-TV that sensors at the port had detected trace amounts of radiation emitting from the woman around 12:40 p.m. Friday. Officials said the woman is an employee at the port and when she came onto the property, she set off radiation alarms customs officers wear. According to Brown, the woman was isolated, interviewed and deemed not to be a threat. Brown told WPBF that the woman was released after port officials deemed the cause of the alarm triggering was due to the her recently having undergone radiation treatments for cancer. The port was reopened around 2 p.m. Friday. --------------- Radiation board reviews plan for recycling Oklahoma waste The Sierra Club has appealed the project, but others insist it poses no danger to people BLANDING The Salt Lake Tribune Jan 27 - A southeastern Utah uranium plant adapted to hard times for more than a decade by eking yellowcake out of the waste produced by other metal mills. But International Uranium Corp.'s (IUC) latest request to use tailings as raw materials came under fire Friday as the Utah Radiation Control Board reviewed a request to recycle 32,000 tons of waste from an Oklahoma metals plant cleanup. The yellowcake uranium would be recycled from the Oklahoma waste at IUC's controversial White Mesa mill, just south of Blanding. State regulators OK'd the plan in June, but the Glen Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club appealed, triggering the radiation board's review. In a daylong hearing, attorneys for the Sierra Club said the Oklahoma waste belongs in a landfill for hazardous or radioactive waste. The high concentration of contaminants like radium and heavy metals that would be dumped in tailings ponds behind the Blanding mill would pose a threat, they said. Their arguments go to a longtime criticism of the White Mesa plant - that recycling yellowcake from waste is "sham disposal," a cheap way to get rid of waste, as opposed to a method for selling the uranium extracted from the waste. The radiation board decided to delay a decision on the Oklahoma waste. They want to be confident the waste won't contaminate the environment and put people at risk. "Even though there's no evidence of contamination right now, it's something we need to pay attention to," said Joette Langianese, a Grand County commissioner and member of the board. Past tests have showed chemicals have leaked from the site, but it is not clear if IUC was responsible. There also is no proof that putting the Oklahoma waste in the tailings pond will contaminate the environment. Some board members described a dilemma: There's no proof of groundwater contamination now, but because the tailings ponds are 27 years old and built with outdated technology, problems might occur. "There is no evidence that anybody has ever been harmed by the activity at the White Mesa mill in 27 years," said Michael Zody, an attorney for IUC. This is the first time the board has been asked to consider a shipment of these "alternative feed materials" since the state assumed oversight of mills from the federal government more than two years ago 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jan 28 12:22:24 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:22:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Causes of neural tube defects and their possible prevention In-Reply-To: References: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070128101206.009f0b70@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 28 James Salsman wrote: "Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough folate in their diet." Yes: "presumably". This qualifier undercuts everything else you said, James. It is common knowledge that at least in the United States people in general do not eat a proper diet, and in particular they do not eat enough fruits and vegetables. "The exact cause of spina bifida remains a mystery. No one knows what disrupts complete closure of the neural tube, causing a malformation to develop. Scientists suspect genetic, nutritional, and environmental factors play a role. Research studies indicate that insufficient intake of folic acid - a common B vitamin - in the mother's diet is a key factor in causing spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Prenatal vitamins that are prescribed for the pregnant mother typically contain folic acid as well as other vitamins." This is from a Spina Bifida Fact Sheet available at . The fact sheet recommends foods high in folic acid such as dark green vegetables, egg yolks, and some fruits. It does not specify which fruits. In a culture (the US) where most people seem to survive on fast food, TV dinners, and steak and french fries, how likely are women to get their folic acid? (NINDS is National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes.) According to another website, "Anencephaly is the single most common neural tube defect. The incidence of anencephaly is 1 per 1500 births in North America, with a higher incidence in the United Kingdom." Also: "The causes of neural tube defects are multiple. They may be part of a syndrome resulting from a single gene defect (Meckel-Grueber syndrome), or occur with a chromosomal abnormality, or by a teratogenic insult, or by maternal diabetes mellitus. Other causes include the amniotic band syndrome, dietary deficiencies, teratogenic levels of zinc, and hyperthermia, which affects the closure of the neural tube. "Anencephaly, for instance, is a neural tube defect usually considered to result from multifactorial influences. Anencephaly may occur as part of a monogenic syndrome, chromosome anomaly, teratogenic insult (e.g., hyperthermia, folate deficiency), or secondary to amniotic bands." Note the listing of diabetes, an increasingly serious public health problem, as a possible cause. This is from . According to , some FDA regulations about food labeling,: "Prevalence rates for neural tube defects have been reported to vary with a wide range of factors including genetics, geography, socioeconomic status, maternal birth cohort, month of conception, race, nutrition, and maternal health, including maternal age and reproductive history. Women with a close relative (i.e., sibling, niece, nephew) with a neural tube defect, those with insulin- dependent diabetes mellitus, and women with seizure disorders who are being treated with valproic acid or carbamazepine are at significantly increased risk compared with women without these characteristics. Rates for neural tube defects vary within the United States, with lower rates observed on the west coast than on the east coast." Also: "It is expected that consumption of adequate folate will avert some, but not all, neural tube defects. The underlying causes of neural tube defects are not known." And: "Adequate amounts of folate can be obtained from diets rich in fruits, including citrus fruits and juices, vegetables, including dark green leafy vegetables, legumes, whole grain products, including breads, rice, and pasta, fortified cereals, or a dietary supplement." In summary, neural tube defects (NTDs) have many apparent causes but the specific causes are not known. Folic acid and a better diet may help prevent NTDs. The anti-DU partisans have invoked DU as the cause of NTDs and birth defects in general in Iraq. What is the typical Iraqi diet? I don't know, however my guess is it is not rich in citrus fruits and dark green leafy vegetables, especially in the rural areas and in the smaller towns. Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com From maurysis at peoplepc.com Sun Jan 28 15:07:37 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: References: <22618.56671.qm@web81614.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45BD1099.20909@peoplepc.com> James, I'm profoundly puzzled why you might make such a presumption about any (middle eastern) nation ....??? Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) =================== James Salsman wrote: > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > folate in their diet. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > ____________________________ > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > >> James, >> >> Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of >> birth defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country >> in which the >> leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do >> come into the country.... > > From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 17:05:53 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:05:53 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... Message-ID: The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be bombing recruiting stations. Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/28/07, Roger Helbig wrote: > Of course that is not true, by the way, my wife and I lost three by miscarriage; that is the ultimate birth defect, and there was no cause .. NONE .. that was found and it sure as hell was not Uranium oxide. All of you people who chant your DU mantras are flat out politically nuts and scientifically ignorant! All of you ignore those scientific facts which do not fit with your scheme. > You have no facts, just articles that float around the net, none of which can be verified by revisiting the data. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Salsman" > To: "ROY HERREN" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:55 AM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk > > > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > folate in their diet. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > > > James, > > > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > > the country.... > _______________________________________________ > 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 didi at tgi-sci.com Sun Jan 28 17:32:57 2007 From: didi at tgi-sci.com (=?windows-1251?Q?Dimiter=20Popoff?=) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:32:57 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... Message-ID: <20070128233257.12156.qmail@server318.com> > The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of > combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been > rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same > era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Combat stress effect? Dimiter ------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments http://www.tgi-sci.com ------------------------------------------------------ > -------Original Message------- > From: James Salsman > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... > Sent: Jan 29 '07 02:05 > > The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of > combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been > rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same > era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes > of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. > > People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only > giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from > agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or > telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. > > People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of > the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be > bombing recruiting stations. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > On 1/28/07, Roger Helbig wrote: > > Of course that is not true, by the way, my wife and I lost three by miscarriage; that is the ultimate birth defect, and there was no cause .. NONE .. that was found and it sure as hell was not Uranium oxide. All of you people who chant your DU mantras are flat out politically nuts and scientifically ignorant! All of you ignore those scientific facts which do not fit with your scheme. > > You have no facts, just articles that float around the net, none of which can be verified by revisiting the data. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "James Salsman" > > To: "ROY HERREN" > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:55 AM > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk > > > > > > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > > folate in their diet. > > > > Sincerely, > > James Salsman > > > > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > > > > > James, > > > > > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > > > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > > > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > > > the country.... > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 sjd at swcp.com Sun Jan 28 18:00:54 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:00:54 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070128164434.009eddb0@mail.swcp.com> Jan 28 What is the primary source material for your 180% and 220% figures? Not Power Point or slide shows, PRIMARY source material. We know nutritional deficiencies affect mothers, not fathers. There is no need to tell us or to remind us. You are the one who is refusing to face the truth that DU is not causing these birth defects. The only P.R. problems the armed services had with Agent Orange was with certain parties who refused to accept the truth that Agent Orange was not causing the problems attributed to it. If a "cause" is not a cause (of disease or defect), what should we do but ignore it? You and your fellow-travelers seem to be making a mountain of diseases out of a molehill of DU. Speaking only for myself, I am not going to "defend depleted uranium weaponry". All I am saying is that DU does not cause these diseases, etc. that you say it does. I denounce your sleazy insinuation that DU 'defenders' are --- in effect --- bombing recruiting stations. Why would you care anyway? You are a peacenik, aren't you? Why do you care if the services can't recruit enough soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines? Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com At 03:05 PM 1/28/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote: >The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of >combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been >rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same >era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes >of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. > >People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only >giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from >agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or >telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. > >People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of >the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be >bombing recruiting stations. > >Sincerely, >James Salsman From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 18:07:30 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:07:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> On 28 Jan 2007 at 15:05, James Salsman wrote: > People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of > the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be > bombing recruiting stations. Where do these statistics come from? What other studies have been evaluated to account for these statistical variance you continue to quote. What rules them out? Let's assume that your assertions are correct. What would the alternative be, and, what would you have the military do? Your philosophy would have any individual who puts troops in harm's way, under any condition, deemed to be evil men. Many fine citizens who also happen to have been in the military, or involved in the creation of these weapons, or defending these weapons, have seen their names, credibility and honour, dragged through the mud in this forum. I repeat, many fine men. Anyone who really believes that our military and civilian leaders find happiness in the misfortunes of others, especially troops who do this for any country, has to be a little misguided. War is hell. Soldiers are injured and do die. Their deaths and/or serious injuries have a severe adverse effect on their families and other loved ones. Soldiers know what they are getting into when they volunteer. There are many causes of injury, such as the bombs that you refer to above, IEDs, and other sources of significant inflicted misery. I respect your fight for what you obviously believe in. I also respect those who disagree with your opinions. What do they gain by "lying" as you so often state? Is this just a financial aversion? I can't buy that. Men do what they believe to be valid. Nobody likes war. Personally I wish there were not one now, but that is another discussion for another venue. But there is, there will be more, and that doesn't mean that all of those involved are evil men. 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From sandyfl at cox.net Sun Jan 28 18:44:20 2007 From: sandyfl at cox.net (Sandy Perle) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:44:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20070128172909.009f5a00@mail.swcp.com> References: , <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net>, <5.2.1.1.1.20070128172909.009f5a00@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <45BCFD14.18183.1CB76CD@sandyfl.cox.net> Mr. Salsman quotes many publications supporting his contentions. Perhaps I've missed them, but where are the on-going focused protests, lobbying efforts, conventions and other gatherings, where the "victims and victim families" make their claims? I remember Vietnam and the agent orange controversy. Why isn't there more of an outcry from all of those who are supposedly harmed from this one and only one purported source? 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 cox.net Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 20:13:55 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:13:55 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEBCUA References: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEBCUA Message-ID: <000601c7434b$212d17c0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Salsman wrote: >>The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect mothers, not fathers. << These are not the facts. This is how urban legends are started. Again I would refer all interested to the most recent review of birth defects and Gulf War has just been published by the Institute of Medicine, 2006. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/030910176X/html/index.htmlhttp://www.nap.edu/ope nbook/030910176X/html/index.html The conclusion was: "This the committee concludes that there is no consistent pattern of higher prevalence of birth defects among the off spring of male or female Gulf War veterans and no single defect, except urinary tract abnormalities, has been found in more than one well-designed study." Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP From maurysis at peoplepc.com Sun Jan 28 21:39:08 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:39:08 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The DU fairy tales continue Message-ID: <45BD6C5C.4010009@peoplepc.com> James, your hand-waving is more than adequate ... I wonder if or when you will cease. One can mention all sorts of disclaimers -- e.g., we may all be proven ultimately mistaken. It seems clear, however, that the preponderance of evidence now (after a great deal of good faith lab and field research) shows essentially none of the DU effects you promote. There has been shell shock, combat fatigue, agent orange, post traumatic stress syndrome, and so on. You know as well as I that in many instances, the Congress and other so-called authorities simply caved in to the protesters and paid many of them in order to quiet the fruitless controversy ... a sad truth. Please don't bother attempting to substantiate your claim that, "... they might as well be bombing recruiting stations." There is no reality-based justification for your promotion of such a PR conflict. I hope you might finally recognize the benefits to all of letting it rest instead of promoting false hopes. Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) _________________ "Demagoguery beats data in the making of public policy" ====================== Salsman wrote: "... People who refuse to face the truth and solve this problem are only giving the military more of the same P.R. problems that they got from agent orange. This problem won't go away by simply ignoring it, or telling lies, or trying to distract with anecdotes or hand-waving. People who defend depleted uranium weaponry claim to be in support of the military. For all the good they are doing, they might as well be bombing recruiting stations. Sincerely, James Salsman " From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:42:42 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:42:42 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: The DU fairy tales continue In-Reply-To: <45BD6C5C.4010009@peoplepc.com> References: <45BD6C5C.4010009@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: Maury, Thank you for your message: >... we may all be > proven ultimately mistaken. It seems clear, however, that the preponderance > of evidence now (after a great deal of good faith lab and field research) > shows essentially none of the DU effects you promote.... You already have been. Face facts. Sincerely, James Salsman From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:45:54 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:45:54 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects... In-Reply-To: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> Message-ID: On 1/28/07, Sandy Perle wrote: > >...What would the alternative be, and, what would you have the military do? Tungsten, STAT! >.... Men do what they believe to be valid. Nobody likes war.... And diplomacy by last Wednesday. Sincerely, James Salsman From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 22:13:33 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:13:33 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread - An early red-herring In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEASUA References: <004301c7426f$d75abe80$48425142@roger1> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFWEASUA Message-ID: <000001c7435b$d772d320$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Rodger Helbig wrote: >>I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources.<< This is one of the early "red-herrings" that was pursued by the anti-DU crowd. The issue as always is dose. As these particles spread their concentration rapidly diminishes as does the dose. The fact that they can be measured is more a testament to the rapid advances in technology than it is of any hazard that might exist. Just think of all of the other trace elements we can measure. I followed the Dietz work and all that was determined was that it could be measured. Like many of the other papers published by the activists, the science behind the measurement techniques is usually solid but it is used as a smoke-screen to get outlandish claims published either in the introduction or in the discussion. For those of you who are peer reviewers or editors, I would request that you pay very close attention to what is usually considered the throw-away part of a paper - the introduction. Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 28 22:34:54 2007 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:34:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Patients setting off alarms request for such news items Message-ID: <444703.22962.qm@web25701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Mr Perle, Thank you very much for continuing to post news items. It has been of great use to me over the years. I used to mine little bits of information from them. They are handy while giving lectures to interested and indifferent audiences. The recent stories about patients setting of alarms at various locations are instances. In this context, I request you and members of the group to send me in private (unless the item is of interest to the entire group) such news items. With warm regards K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D (formerly, Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Raja Ramanna Fellow Strategic Planning Group, Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences Department of Atomic Energy Room No 18 Ground Floor, North Wing Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan Mumbai 400094 E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk 91+22 25555327 (O) 91+22 25486081 (O) 91+22 27706048 (R) 9869016206 (mobile) - ___________________________________________________________ What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk From edaxon at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 23:07:15 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:07:15 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFUEByUA References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFUEByUA Message-ID: <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Mr. Salsman wrote: >> Tungsten, STAT!<<< You have not been following the literature on tungsten. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP From jsalsman at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 23:27:17 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:27:17 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Colonel Daxon wrote: > You have not been following the literature on tungsten. Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? Sincerely, James Salsman From maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jan 29 01:48:49 2007 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:48:49 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <45BDA6E1.6080006@peoplepc.com> If you were a soldier, then you would recognize from the outset that you and your family are at risk -- there is no so-called instead of. Obviously as has been the case throughout history, the offspring do not have a choice, but the parents do have and make choices as they see fit -- as do we all including the many soldiers I've known most of my life Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) ================== James Salsman wrote: > Colonel Daxon wrote: > >> You have not been following the literature on tungsten. > > Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself > in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders > you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman From radiation at cox.net Sun Jan 28 15:22:12 2007 From: radiation at cox.net (Mitchell W. Davis) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:22:12 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: <45BD1099.20909@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: <20070128212220.LMC4144.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> What type of birth defects are we talking about? It is my understanding the Folic Acid (i.e. folate) is only useful in minimizing neural tube defects (i.e. Spinabifida). Perhaps MD's on here can clarify that. Mitchell W. Davis, RN, RRPT Midland, TX (Information provided for Franz's benefit) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Maury Siskel Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:08 PM To: James Salsman Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk James, I'm profoundly puzzled why you might make such a presumption about any (middle eastern) nation ....??? Best, Maury&Dog (maurysis at peoplepc.com) =================== James Salsman wrote: > Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from > sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough > folate in their diet. > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > ____________________________ > On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > >> James, >> >> Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of >> birth defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country >> in which the >> leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do >> come into the country.... > > _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Jan 29 04:15:29 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:15:29 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Blog Resulting from Livermore Lab Proposed Testing Message-ID: <004101c7438e$aacb0f80$c6435142@roger1> Of course they are raising money .. wonder where it all goes? This is another Cathy Garger blog .. she is quite prolific and even ecstatic that she made the http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m30005&hd=&size=1&l=e http://haltdutesting.blogspot.com/ Too bad that she really doesn't have a clue what she is talking about and her version of reality began with her interest in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement that believes drones flew into the Twin Towers and some sort of DU tipped weapon hit the Pentagon. She has a lot of followers. Roger Helbig From luke.mccormick at dhs.gov Mon Jan 29 05:52:09 2007 From: luke.mccormick at dhs.gov (Mccormick, Luke I) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:52:09 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT faci Message-ID: OPn the contrary, we found that due to the extra time involved the syringe shields contributed to the dose to the administering nurse. ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT faci... Author: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl Date: 1/27/2007 9:26 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility --------------------------------- Something to take into consideration is that the FDG used for PET scans is very hot but decays away quickly (2 hr t1/2). Proper use of syringe shields and shielded containers is vital in such a facility. _______________________________________________ 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 idias at interchange.ubc.ca Mon Jan 29 09:01:17 2007 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:01:17 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread - An early red-herring In-Reply-To: <000001c7435b$d772d320$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: Eric Was Dietz's method "of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources" based on the ratio of U-234 to U-238? 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: Eric D [mailto:edaxon at satx.rr.com] Sent: January 28, 2007 8:14 PM To: 'John R Johnson'; 'Roger Helbig'; 'radsafelist' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] DU - Measurement of DU Particle Spread - An early red-herring Rodger Helbig wrote: >>I think the airborne migration of DU is a factor of particle size. I first learned about it from a GE physicist, Len Dietz, who was measuring it more than 10 miles from its source. He found it by accident. He then developed a method of distinguishing environmental DU from natural sources.<< This is one of the early "red-herrings" that was pursued by the anti-DU crowd. The issue as always is dose. As these particles spread their concentration rapidly diminishes as does the dose. The fact that they can be measured is more a testament to the rapid advances in technology than it is of any hazard that might exist. Just think of all of the other trace elements we can measure. I followed the Dietz work and all that was determined was that it could be measured. Like many of the other papers published by the activists, the science behind the measurement techniques is usually solid but it is used as a smoke-screen to get outlandish claims published either in the introduction or in the discussion. For those of you who are peer reviewers or editors, I would request that you pay very close attention to what is usually considered the throw-away part of a paper - the introduction. Eric G. Daxon, PhD, CHP From loc at icx.net Mon Jan 29 15:57:05 2007 From: loc at icx.net (Susan Gawarecki) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:57:05 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Three articles in the Chicago Tribune on HEU Message-ID: <45BE6DB1.6000709@icx.net> The two articles in a series (linked to below) are quite interesting; at the website there are more related stories. I thought RadSafe readers would appreciate knowing of them. This material is certainly a much bigger threat than DU. --Susan Gawarecki -------------------- An atomic threat made in America -------------------- How the U.S. spread bomb-grade fuel worldwide -- and failed to get it back. First of two parts. By Sam Roe Tribune staff reporter January 28, 2007 The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-061209atoms-day1-story,1,7163234.htmlstory?coll=chi-news-hed -------------------- The search for a magic fuel -------------------- Former Cold War rivals face scientific riddle in race to spare world from nuclear peril. Last of a two-part series. By Sam Roe Tribune staff reporter January 29, 2007 The complete article can be viewed at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-061209atoms-day2-story,1,5401825.htmlstory From sjd at swcp.com Mon Jan 29 19:57:58 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:57:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tungsten; birth defects In-Reply-To: References: <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070129184452.009fedf0@mail.swcp.com> Jan. 29 You have not been following the literature on tungsten. If you had you would know that it is not nearly as effective a weapon as is depleted uranium. When tungsten goes through armor (or tries to go through it) it forms a mushroom head and doesn't travel very far. DU is self-sharpening --- it maintains a point --- and it is pyrophoric as well. Have you been following the literature on birth defects? Yesterday you wrote, "The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003." I asked you, "What is the primary source material for your 180% and 220% figures? Not Power Point or slide shows, PRIMARY source material." Instead of telling us how much you allegedly know about tungsten, why don't you substantiate your claim about alleged increases in birth defects? Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com At 09:27 PM 1/28/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote: >Colonel Daxon wrote: > >>You have not been following the literature on tungsten. > >Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself >in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders >you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? > >Sincerely, >James Salsman From jjcohen at prodigy.net Mon Jan 29 20:13:00 2007 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (jjcohen at prodigy.net) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:13:00 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Global warming & nuclear waste References: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> Message-ID: <003c01c74414$2baf6c60$0b33e345@domainnotset.invalid> >*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those >on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, >the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always >follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The >Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on >climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. >Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the >motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For >many, global warming is a big cash grab." Unfortunately, a similar motivation among "scientists" involved in research on nuclear waste management has agravated and perpetuated this multi-billion dollar "problem" for several decades. In a message on radsafe a few years ago I envisioned that if anyone should ever develop an acceptable method for managing nucleaar waste, they would likely be lynched by a mob of crazed geologists. From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 21:26:10 2007 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:26:10 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Global warming & nuclear waste In-Reply-To: <003c01c74414$2baf6c60$0b33e345@domainnotset.invalid> References: <45B151CD.4080909@peoplepc.com> <003c01c74414$2baf6c60$0b33e345@domainnotset.invalid> Message-ID: <00c201c7441e$644e9e10$640aa8c0@IPIQ0BV56DSUR4> Sorry, but I can't let this go unanswered! >From J.J.Cohen: "Unfortunately, a similar motivation among "scientists" involved in research on nuclear waste management has aggravated and perpetuated this multi-billion dollar "problem" for several decades. In a message on radsafe a few years ago I envisioned that if anyone should ever develop an acceptable method for managing nuclear waste, they would likely be lynched by a mob of crazed geologists." [Dan W McCarn] (lol) Perhaps this is a conclusion based on crystal ball gazing for too many years. This appears to be a very "unique" conclusion that is not very well attended by facts, that is, the part about being lynched by a mob of crazed geologists... At this particular point in time, there are many jobs available to geologists that pay quite a bit more than suckling on the nuclear waste teat, including oil & gas, coal, unconventional energy, uranium and other minerals. The majors are all involved in multi-billion dollar investments, and "us geologists" are simply too busy making money searching for new energy resources to form a crazed mob. Sorry to disappoint you! Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Houston & Albuquerque From edaxon at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 21:38:00 2007 From: edaxon at satx.rr.com (Eric D) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:38:00 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... In-Reply-To: AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXkByUA References: <45BCF472.11255.1A9ADC1@sandyfl.cox.net> <000001c74363$579eb2b0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> AAAAAAIB8BEn7htAgbNjQlcEBFXkByUA Message-ID: <000701c74420$0a5d2ff0$0b00a8c0@D8RSR871> The soldiers I know are exceptionally brave and intelligent - intelligent enough to know that it is the dose that matters regardless of the compound; intelligent enough to understand the real data on birth defects and the real data on DU risks. The soldier's families that I know are just as brave and intelligent and they want their soldiers to win and to come home. As do I. Eric Daxon, PhD, CHP -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:27 PM To: radsafelist; Eric D Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contestedbirth defects... Colonel Daxon wrote: > You have not been following the literature on tungsten. Indeed I have, and if I were a soldier, I would prefer to put myself in harm's way down the road instead of my children. Are the solders you know so brave as to risk their kids instead of themselves? Sincerely, James Salsman From rhelbig at california.com Mon Jan 29 04:47:26 2007 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:47:26 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Mohammed Daud Miraki - Con Man in the DU Movement Message-ID: <000001c74423$dde58860$15425142@roger1> Here is Miraki's proposal for what he will do with the money he raises on this website. His earlier "charity" was shut down by the State of Illinois Secretary of State's Office for failure to file its annual report. Now, he is just winging it and has started a new website with a book. The fact that his photos of allegedly DU caused birth defects has made the Tate Gallery in London in the exhibit which faithfully recreates "peace activist" Brian Haws encampment will increase Miraki's credibility. The Tate refuses to interfere with the artist's faithful recreation despite the probable falsity of the Miraki photos which are even recognized by the Tate in the credits for the exhibit. http://www.afghanistanafterdemocracy.com/page9.html From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 01:57:02 2007 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:57:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: A likely source for a great many of the contested birth defects. Folic acid reduces cleft lip risk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <501137.93960.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, Congratulations on a great effort on your behalf to change the subject. Now lets get back on track. I wrote my e-mail in response to your claims about an increase in birth defect rates in Iraq. You haven't responded to the possibility that if there ever was an increase in the birth defect rate in Iraq that it may well have been due to something much less exotic than what you and Saddam's researchers from the late 1990's suggested. James, don't you feel just the least bit uncomfortable quoting work from Saddam's regime as the Gospel? Have you given any consideration to the possibility that the Saddam era research you so freely quote is or was nothing more than propaganda? If it is indeed nothing more than propaganda, and you are repeating it as the truth, what does that say about the quality of your judgment? James, it's well past time for you to consider moving on to tilting at new windmills... Roy Herren James Salsman wrote: Presumably the U.S. and U.K. troops whose children are suffering from sharply increasing incidences of birth defects are getting enough folate in their diet. Sincerely, James Salsman On 1/28/07, ROY HERREN wrote: > > James, > > Open your mind to the possibility of other, more likely, causes of birth > defects in a war torn country that is under embargo. A country in which the > leader, Sadam, does not equally distribute what foods and goods do come into > the country.... --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. From theo at richel.org Tue Jan 30 13:39:35 2007 From: theo at richel.org (Theo Richel) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:39:35 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pet-scan hormesis In-Reply-To: <501137.93960.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00b001c744a6$5fa0c4a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> I have been diagnosed having Arteritis Temporalis and so far it has made me half blind (the Prednison will stop further blinding I hope). Now I have received a pet-scan to ascertain the diagnosis. Can anyone inform me on the possible hormetic effects of such a scan? Thanks 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 From neildm at id.doe.gov Tue Jan 30 15:36:58 2007 From: neildm at id.doe.gov (neildm at id.doe.gov) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:36:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy In-Reply-To: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7@BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> References: <275A6966B435FD4496C52C5AFE17AF3901613BD7@BNPDML05.corp.brucepower.com> Message-ID: The Snoopy's official name is the AN/PDR-70. The active component is a proportional tube filled with boron trifluoride The neutrons activate boron to an unstable isotope of lithium. It decays, with release of an alpha. The alpha triggers an electron cascade which is sensed by the proportional counter. The outer shield mimics the thermalization of a human torso so it reads out in REM. (Polyethylene for soft tissue and borated poly for bone) Not affected by gamma until the field is high enough to create coincidence cascades (500 R/hr gamma or so) Dave Neil DOE-ID Ex-105 tech -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of ROMANOWICH Larry(L) - BRUCE POWER Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:38 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] The theory of a Snoopy Hi: Does anyone have a good working description of how the "Snoopy" responds to neutrons? Thanks. Larry Romanowich Bruce Power (519) 361-2673 ext 1565 ************************************************************************ ************************** *** The contents of this email and any attachments *** are confidential and may be privileged. *** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. *** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the *** sender to that effect, don't forward the message to anyone *** and delete the message from your computer. *** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience. ************************************************************************ ************************** _______________________________________________ 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 neildm at id.doe.gov Tue Jan 30 16:21:21 2007 From: neildm at id.doe.gov (neildm at id.doe.gov) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:21:21 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " In-Reply-To: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> References: <45B8FE70.3010204@jlab.org> Message-ID: I do not recall any screening for (1), and can state certainly that (2) was not the case in at least two cases of my knowledge. Dave Neil Ex-105 nuclear shipyard worker -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Keith Welch Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:01 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Incidence vs death question, was: Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " Folks, I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in that field. But recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been wondering about this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well enough. It seems on its face that using cancer incidence rates would be preferable to mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over time in cure rates, but also because it would seem to help correct for the healthy worker effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the availability of health insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and possibly the "rich victim effect", which I have not heard many people talk about, but assume must be confounding; the difference in cure rates in different socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could probably be dealt with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've heard that the shipyard worker study was flawed due to the following: (1) screening for nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people with family history of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear worker status (and therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?) in the event they were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are either of these based in fact? Keith Welch Jefferson Lab _______________________________________________ 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 Jan 30 16:22:06 2007 From: pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us (Philip Egidi) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:22:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reuters Article - "Hot" patients setting off U.S. radiation alarms Message-ID: <45BF629E020000360000EA19@dphe.state.co.us> Nice little article on Yahoo today. PVE By Jane Sutton Tue Jan 30, 8:35 AM ET MIAMI (Reuters) - When 75,000 football fans pack into Dolphin Stadium in Miami for the Super Bowl on February 4, at least a few may want to carry notes from their doctors explaining why they're radioactive enough to set off "dirty bomb" alarms. With the rising use of radioisotopes in medicine and the growing use of radiation detectors in a security-conscious nation, patients are triggering alarms in places where they may not even realize they're being scanned, doctors and security officials say. Nearly 60,000 people a day in the United States undergo treatment or tests that leave tiny amounts of radioactive material in their bodies, according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. It is not enough to hurt them or anyone else, but it is enough to trigger radiation alarms for up to three months. Since the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has distributed more than 12,000 hand-held radiation detectors, mainly to Customs and Border Protection agents at airports, seaports and border crossings. Sensors are also used at government buildings and at large public events like the Super Bowl that are considered potential terrorist targets. At the annual Christmas tree-lighting party in New York City's Rockefeller Center in November, police pulled six people aside in the crowd and asked them why they had tripped sensors. "All six had recently had medical treatments with radioisotopes in their bodies," Richard Falkenrath, the city's deputy commissioner for counterterrorism, told a Republican governors' meeting in Miami recently. "That happens all the time." Radioisotopes are commonly used to diagnose and treat certain cancers and thyroid disorders, to analyze heart function, or to scan bones and lungs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission first recommended in 2003 that doctors warn patients they may set off alarms after being injected or implanted with radioisotopes. That came after police stopped a bus that set off a radiation detector in a New York City tunnel. They found one of the passengers had recently undergone thyroid treatment with radioiodine. In August, the British Medical Journal described the case of a very embarrassed 46-year-old Briton who set off the sensors at Orlando airport in Florida six weeks after having radioiodine treatment for a thyroid condition. He was detained, strip-searched and sniffed by police dogs before eventually being released, the journal said in its "Lesson of the Week" section. "I'M HOT!" Workers in the nuclear industry have dealt with the problem for years. Ken Clark, a spokesman in Atlanta for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has had a treadmill stress test every two years since undergoing bypass surgery 23 years ago. His doctor injects him with a tiny amount of radioactive thallium, makes him run on a treadmill and then uses a gamma ray camera to monitor blood flow in his heart. That can leave him slightly radioactive for up to 30 days and Clark knows to carry a note from his doctor during that time, especially if he visits nuclear power plants. "I have in the past had one of the health physicists bring a little hand-held survey meter and hold it up to my chest and lo and behold, I'm hot!" Clark said. "You just don't let people in and out of places when they're emitting some sort of radioactivity," he added. The length of time patients give off enough radiation to set off alarms varies. For some scans, like the FDG-PET scans often used to screen for cancer, it's less than 24 hours. For thyroid treatment with radioiodine, it can be as long as 95 days, the Society of Nuclear Medicine said. Dr. Henry Royal, a past president of the society who practices at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, gives patients who plan to travel cards detailing what radionuclides were used and how much was given. The cards have a 24-hour phone number police can call to confirm the treatment, "so if they're stopped, hopefully they can get the problem solved more efficiently," Royal said. Nobody keeps good data on how often patients get stopped. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Zachary Mann said it's relatively infrequent at airports, and that passengers who set off hand-held sensors are typically escorted to a private office for questioning that clears up the matter. If there's doubt, a more sophisticated device is used to identify the type of radiation, said Mann, who once set off another agent's portable detector after a treadmill test. There were nearly 20 million nuclear medical procedures performed in the United States in 2005, up 15 percent from four years earlier, so the number of people who could potentially be mistaken for terrorists is enormous. "We hope that people who have radiation detectors are aware of the problem ... and that they treat people with respect," Royal said. From Efforrer at aol.com Tue Jan 30 18:27:33 2007 From: Efforrer at aol.com (Efforrer at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:27:33 EST Subject: [ RadSafe ] Medical physicists tasks in a PET/CT facility Message-ID: - On the contrary, we found that due to the extra time involved the syringe - shields contributed to the dose to the administering nurse. I find that interesting since the material I shipped out from the cyclotron was mainly handled in a hot cell. As a Texas regulator the proper use of syringe shields was mandatory. Possibly with Tc-99 the added handling time using a shield might add to the dose but FDG is so hot I can't imagine anyone not using a shield. Gene Forrer From jsalsman at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 19:56:06 2007 From: jsalsman at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:56:06 -0800 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Facts from Dr. Kang Message-ID: Colonel Daxon wrote: > Salsman wrote: > > >>The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of > combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising > sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to > 220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect > mothers, not fathers. << > > These are not the facts.... They are the facts, from Dr. Han Kang's Annals of Epidemiology report, and from the his summary of research which I have posted to the Radsafe list before and cited here on multiple occasions: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003768.html http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003776.html It not stress-related for male veterans to suffer increased incidences of brith defects, because it hasn't happened before, execpt with agent orange. Sincerely, James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jan 30 21:32:16 2007 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:32:16 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Facts from Dr. Kang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070130202724.009fedb0@mail.swcp.com> January 30, 2007 On 1-28-07 James Salsman wrote: "The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to 220% in 2003." On July 25, 2006, James Salsman wrote: "I spoke with Dr. Kang by telephone today. He confirmed that the total number of "moderate to severe" birth defects in children of male Gulf War veterans INCREASED from an odds ratio of 1.8 from survey data to 2.2 after the pediatric medical records were examined." Note the differences. On Jan. 28 it's "birth defects." On July 25, it's "moderate to severe" birth defects. On Jan. 28 it's "combat-deployed" male veterans. On July 25 it's "Gulf War veterans." (A veteran is someone who was or may have been deployed in the theater. A mere veteran did not necessarily see combat. Some Vietnam era veterans never got near Vietnam.) On July 25 Salsman also wrote, "Dr. Kang refuses to release that draft or cite it in his bibliography because of his concerns about its accuracy brought about by that reviewer's request. Dr. Kang is no longer seeking publication of the pediatric evaluation until considerably more data is obtained by the V.A., in hopes that the odds ratios for the specific types of birth defects can be shown with enough accuracy to be considered statistically significant. The process of collecting such data is going slowly, Dr. Kang said, because of the difficulty of having veteran parents come in with their kids." An unreleased draft that the author won't cite, and the author has stopped seeking publication of it because he needs "considerably more data." Do you really expect us to believe this? On July 25, James, you also alluded to a paper by Doyle and Ryan. What is this? Was their paper published, and if so what is the citation? You invocation of Dr. Kang (whoever he may be) proves nothing. Give us the citation to a primary source that proves --- or at least suggests --- that birth defects have increased from 180% to 220%. Everyone who is following this can see you are being evasive, so knock it off and give us a citation. While you're at it, you can also give us a citation to Dr. Kang's Annals of Epidemiology report that you mentioned. (And leave agent orange out of this.) Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com At 05:56 PM 1/30/07 -0800, James Salsman wrote: >Colonel Daxon wrote: > >>Salsman wrote: >> >> >>The fact remains that the number of birth defects in the children of >>combat-deployed male U.S. and U.K. 1991 Gulf War troops has been rising >>sharply, from 180% above the non-combat troops from the same era in 2000, to >>220% in 2003. Nutritional deficiency-related causes of birth defects affect >>mothers, not fathers. << >> >>These are not the facts.... > >They are the facts, from Dr. Han Kang's Annals of Epidemiology report, >and from the his summary of research which I have posted to the >Radsafe list before and cited here on multiple occasions: >http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003768.html >http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2006-July/003776.html > >It not stress-related for male veterans to suffer increased incidences >of brith defects, because it hasn't happened before, execpt with agent >orange. > >Sincerely, >James Salsman From radsafe at painahawaii.com Wed Jan 31 13:04:28 2007 From: radsafe at painahawaii.com (Andrew Buchan) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:04:28 -1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pa'ina Hawaii Update References: <00b001c744a6$5fa0c4a0$0c00a8c0@stationsstr43.richel.org> Message-ID: <000701c7456a$a1ee08d0$ae00a8c0@altres.local> For those of you interested. The Enironmental Assessment (agreed to in a joint stipulation between the NRC and Earthjustice) was completed and filed 12/21/06, the Topical Safety Report associated with the EA was published a few days later. We had three contentions last year, two we dismissed because we remedied the "deficiencies" and the EA took care of the last one. The Judge said he would be dismissing the final one sometime after 2/9. That is also the date when Earthjustice needs to file any late filed contentions. You can be there will be some and that terrorism will some how figure into them. Tomorrow night is the public meeting (also part of the stipulation) or as I like to call it circus. It will be interesting to see how it goes. Our first one was pretty low key, but I am sure the ringleaders at Earthjustice will do their best to turn it into a nut house. Comment period is open for a little while longer, so if anyone would like to send the NRC an email saying why irradiators and irradiation aren't the devil, feel free. So we are see the edge of the woods, but we aren't there yet. Andrew Buchan RSO Pa'ina Hawai'i