[ RadSafe ] Unsubscribe

Tue May 15 10:47:13 CDT 2007

Timothy Lynch
In Vivo Monitoring Program Manager
Radiation and Health Technology
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
509 376-6281

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at radlab.nl
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:14 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 94, 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..."

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 &quot;Re: Contents of radsafe digest ... and - rather than enclose an entire article that you quote only the germane sentence to which you're responding&quot;.
_______________________________________________

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: Radioactive Material, Commerce, and DOT  Regulations
      (Doug Aitken)
   2. Museum Specimens (Robert Barish)
   3. Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive Material, Commerce,	and DOT
      Regulations (Doug Aitken)
   4. RE: Denmark challenged over B52 crash   (Steven Dapra)
   5. Re: Protecting Cells From Lethal Radiation (third  try)
      (George Stanford)
   6. Boost for N-test veterans' case  (Fred Dawson)
   7. Thule; Greenpeace contradicts the BBC report......
      (Franz Sch?nhofer)
   8. AW: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive Material, Commerce, and DOT
      Regulations (Franz Sch?nhofer)
   9. AW: [ RadSafe ] Museum Specimens (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  10. Fw: [FIREBASEVOICE] Radioactive Dumping (Roger Helbig)
  11. Fw: [FIREBASEVOICE] Radioactive Dumping (Roger Helbig)
  12. RE: Fw: [FIREBASEVOICE] Radioactive Dumping (Earley, Jack N)
  13. AW: Museum Specimens (Franz Sch?nhofer)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:46:45 -0500
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive Material, Commerce, and DOT
	Regulations
To: "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>,	radsafe
	<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: radsafe <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID:
	<6.2.0.14.2.20070514124334.054c0390 at us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

It would be understandable if they had stated " ..... compared to the regulatory limit for public exposure of 2.5 microsieverts/hr" as this is the public exposure limit in EU regs....

But unfortunately, many organizations will take regulatory limits and try and "go one better"........

Doug

At 11:53 AM 5/14/2007, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:
> >From the article: "Readings had shown some of the exhibits had a
>radiation level of 60 microsieverts - compared to the museum's 
>benchmark figure of one."
>
>1 mSv - 0.1 mrem - per unspecified time unit (but in context it looks 
>like it might be a year).  What an absurd standard.  If I had a meter 
>on which the needle wasn't swinging 0.1 mrem/hr I would check to make 
>sure it was on.
>
> >From the quotes it appears as if the reporter, or judge, or likely 
> >both,
>didn't understand the difference between activity and dose.
>
>Sigh.

Doug Aitken                     Office Phone Use Cell phone!
QHSE Advisor                    Home Phone 713 797-0919
D&M Operations Support  Cell Phone    713 562-8585
Schlumberger Technology Corporation 

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:23:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Barish <robbarish at verizon.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Museum Specimens
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID:
	<21197646.3729341179170611284.JavaMail.root at vms125.mailsrvcs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

My paper in Health Physics in 2001 relates to the topic of "natural" radioactive mineral specimens of the sort displayed at the British Museum. Of course, it was written in a pre-9/11 world.

See:

R.J. Barish. Radiation Protection Analysis for a Rare Mineral Specimen. Health Phys. 81 (Supplement 2):S67-S69 (2001)

Robert Barish, Ph.D., CHP

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:20:44 -0500
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive Material, Commerce,	and DOT
	Regulations
To: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>,	"'Brennan, Mike
	(DOH)'" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>,	'radsafe' <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: 'radsafe' <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID:
	<6.2.0.14.2.20070514180814.06d603d0 at us1061-pop3.mail.slb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed

At 03:37 PM 5/14/2007, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
>Doug et al.,
>Where do you find a "public exposure limit in EU regs" of 2.5 microSv/hr???
>This corresponds to 21.9 mSv/y. Either your or my calculator is wrong!
>Please do not distribute such wrong information on RADSAFE, we are 
>molested enough by mass media and the relevant groups.

Franz:
The last thing I want is to enter into a protracted and/or vituperative discussion over this. And I sure don't want to be accused of misinformation....

I do realize that the general Dose Limit for public exposure is 1 mSv per year. And I should not have abused the group by mis-stating exposure limit, rather than dose rate.

However, whether it is "cast in stone" as a regulation, or just a practice recommended by a number of organizations, guided by national regulators, I was under the impression that the acceptable maximum "dose rate" in a public place (i.e. uncontrolled area) is 2.5 microsieverts/hr (given that it is apparent that only under VERY exceptional circumstances would an individual member of the public be exposed to any source 24 hrs/day, 365 days per year.....).

This certainly is the accepted interpretation used in my industry for the definition/design of storage and operations involving sources of ionizing radiation.

Perhaps you can correct me if I am totally incorrect in this?

Regards
Doug

Doug Aitken                     Office Phone Use Cell phone!
QHSE Advisor                    Home Phone 713 797-0919
D&M Operations Support  Cell Phone    713 562-8585
Schlumberger Technology Corporation 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 18:32:41 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Denmark challenged over B52 crash
To: "Brennan, Mike  \(DOH\)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>,
	<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20070514182845.009f0100 at mail.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

May 14

         How much would you like to bet that no one has died of "radiation-related illnesses" caused by alleged exposure to this Pu?

         The whole thing is a publicity stunt by a bunch of venal legislators who are interested in one thing:  getting re-elected.  They don't know PLUTOnium from Mickey Mouse.

Steven Dapra
sjd at swcp.com

At 09:12 AM 5/14/07 -0700, Brennan, Mike  \(DOH\) wrote:
>"Many Thule survivors have died of radiation-related illnesses due to 
>the lack of medical monitoring, and current survivors risk contracting 
>such fatal illnesses," says the accompanying resolution"
>
>I suspect that if pressed to produce names and medical histories of the 
>"many" there would be indignant hand waving, perhaps words about 
>patient confidentiality, and in the end little or no support for their position.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
>Behalf Of Otto G. Raabe
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:54 AM
>To: Dawson, Fred Mr; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Denmark challenged over B52 crash
>
>At 05:26 AM 5/14/2007, Dawson, Fred Mr wrote:
> >BBC Reports
> >Denmark challenged over B52 crash
> >
> >"Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the 
> >era
>
> >of the Cold War," a British MEP told the European Parliament this 
> >week,
>
> >promising a tale comparable to an international thriller.
> >"An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to 
> >safety
>
> >and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of 
> >weapons-grade plutonium on board.
> >
> >The US workers involved have been regularly examined, but the Danes 
> >and
>
> >Greenlanders have not, according to a report by Diana Wallis MEP, 
> >which
>
> >the parliament approved on Friday by 544 votes to 29.
> >
> >"Many Thule survivors have died of radiation-related illnesses due to 
> >the lack of medical monitoring, and current survivors risk 
> >contracting such fatal illnesses," says the accompanying resolution
>**************************************************
>May 14, 2007
>
>The news report says,
>
>"A search for plutonium in the urine of 115 workers thought likely to 
>have been most exposed to contamination had found no trace. "
>
>AGAIN, THE RADIATION EXPOSURE ACCUSATION IS GIVEN MORE CREDIBILITY THAN 
>THE TRUTH.
>
>Otto
>
>**********************************************
>Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>Center for Health & the Environment
>University of California
>One Shields Avenue
>Davis, CA 95616
>E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
>Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
>***********************************************

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:48:56 -0500
From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Protecting Cells From Lethal Radiation (third
	try)
To: "radsafelist" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <mailman.146.1179241002.18131.radsafe at radlab.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

         Congratulations to the researchers at Washington University.  It sounds like a potential lifesaver -- although I believe that a credible "dirty bomb" scenario leading to multi-Gray levels of exposure has not yet been postulated..

         A question comes to mind.  Since the protection works by suppressing apoptosis, and since apoptosis is one of the mechanisms postulated for protection against the effects of low-level radiation, is there perhaps the potential for over-enthusiastic use of such pills?  Should they be limited to individuals with life-threatening levels of exposure -- say above
~2.5 Gy?  (An acquaintance received almost 2 Gy [whole body] some 50 years ago, and he is now a healthy octogenarian.)

         Is there a chance that "protective"
administration to low-dose subjects could be counterproductive, leading to the survival of cancer-precursor cells that otherwise would be eliminated?

George Stanford
Reactor physicist, retired

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

At 10:36 AM 5/10/2007, Boby Mathew wrote:
Dear radsafers. Just came across this article. It is something new. 
Follow the link to read the full item.
   Boby Mathew

   http://interactive.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=6216&RPID=10

   Protecting Cells From Lethal Radiation Posted May 10, 2007
Source: Washington University School of Medicine  

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:06:08 +0100
From: "Fred Dawson" <fd003f0606 at blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Boost for N-test veterans' case 
To: <srp-uk at yahoogroups.com>,	<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <001101c796bf$834beea0$0400a8c0 at DG47BM0J>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original

Boost for N-test veterans' case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6654327.stm

Servicemen claim they were not given adequate protection New research shows an apparent link between British nuclear tests in the South Pacific in the 1950s and genetic defects seen in veterans.
Massey University in New Zealand said changes to veterans' chromosomes could be attributed to their participation in the tests at Christmas Island.
Lawyers for British veterans who served there said the study strengthened their claim against the Ministry of Defence.
The MoD, which has denied the claim, said it would review the new findings.

Fred Dawson

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 20:42:52 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Thule; Greenpeace contradicts the BBC
	report......
To: "'Franta, Jaroslav'" <frantaj at aecl.ca>,	<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <000001c79657$b60e4c60$49197254 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

RADSAFErs,

There is a very funny situation regarding the Thule accident: Greenpeace
(!!!) contradicts those latest news! What a perverse situation!

Facts: The US (not American!) B-52 bomber had four hydrogen bombs on board, when it crashed close to Thule. It was not a transporter for an (enormous) amount of "weapons grade" plutonium, which makes in my opinion a big difference. Still, plutonium is even in "smaller" quantities not an issue to be ridiculed. Jaro, we are all very cautious, when separating the plutonium from irradiated fuel in our bathtubes at home. Aren't you? 

According to my opinion that such mass-media messages are not really worth to invest much work I only consulted my German copy of the book "The Greenpeace Book of the Nuclear Age" copyright 1989 by Greenpeace Communications Inc. Which I bought many years ago very cheap and did never regret this investment. It is a valuable source of events - though you have of course to forget about the conclusions drawn, being of the sort "If the electricity supply would have failed, the reactor would have exploded and killed x-thousands of people". 

What does Greenpeace state? They describe the harsh conditions for the teams retrieving the debris, they describe - and that's my point - that also the Danish workforce was equipped with protective masks and that they were checked for health, including urine measurements etc. So what? Anybody wanting to go into details should consult the book. 

I simply state here that Greenpeace contradicts these BBC news. In case Greenpeace were wrong and the BBC correct I would offer a totally different
interpretation:

Not to check workers involved in the removal of plutonium bearing debris would most probably mean a crime - there are very strict terms for surveillance of people working in the nuclear industry with possible exposure to fissile material both in the USA, the European Union and in other countries of the civilized world.

Best regards,

Franz 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Franta, Jaroslav
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Mai 2007 15:13
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Denmark challenged over B52 crash 

-----Original Message-----
BBC Reports
Denmark challenged over B52 crash
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6647421.stm

"Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War," a British MEP told the European Parliament this week, promising a tale comparable to an international thriller. 
"An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. 
<<snip>>

Isn't it curious, that when its an accident, the Pu quantity is "enormous,"
but when they talk a bout the amount of Pu needed to make a bomb, its typically "very small."

Jaro

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:37:44 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive Material, Commerce, and DOT
	Regulations
To: "'Doug Aitken'" <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>,	"'Brennan,
	Mike  \(DOH\)'" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>,	"'radsafe'"
	<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Cc: 'radsafe' <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <000101c79667$bfcd01f0$49197254 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Doug et al.,

Where do you find a "public exposure limit in EU regs" of 2.5 microSv/hr???
This corresponds to 21.9 mSv/y. Either your or my calculator is wrong!
Please do not distribute such wrong information on RADSAFE, we are molested enough by mass media and the relevant groups. 

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Doug Aitken
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Mai 2007 19:47
An: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe
Cc: radsafe
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive Material, Commerce, and DOT Regulations

It would be understandable if they had stated " ..... compared to the regulatory limit for public exposure of 2.5 microsieverts/hr" as this is the public exposure limit in EU regs....

But unfortunately, many organizations will take regulatory limits and try and "go one better"........

Doug

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:10:14 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Museum Specimens
To: "'Robert Barish'" <robbarish at verizon.net>,	<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <000001c7966c$4cee79c0$49197254 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Robert and RADSAFErs,

About five years ago I prepared a draft for an Austrian ordinance on NORM.
(The id..t who happened to be my supervisor in the relevant ministry regarded it as unimportant and ignored it. In the meantime an even worse id..t has replaced him, but I am in the meantime retired.) In this ordinance I made provisions about both specimens related to art, culture and history of science (e.g. uranium glasses) and minerals and their exhibition. This might have been self-serving, because I have a few (dozen) uranium minerals at home, some collected during my visit to the US Southwest, and many dozens of uranium glasses and uranium glazed items (Fiesta Ware) up to a few historic items like radon-water providers, from the Biedermeier Time to pre WWII times. But it is not only self-serving, because I cannot imagine anything worse than destroying all those items not only valuable as per price but also as historic and artistic items. Anybody ever considered this?

Unfortunately I do not have access any more to Health Physics. In case you could send me literature on this topic I would be glad. 

Your comment on the pre-9/11 world provokes my comment: What has really changed as to museums? I flew to Brussels a few days later - we missed at the conference the US participants. About a month later I flew with my son to Honolulu to a conference and spent almost two more weeks in the area.
Radiation people always arguing with probabilities should have a sound relation as to other probabilities. 

Best regards,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Robert Barish
Gesendet: Montag, 14. Mai 2007 21:24
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Museum Specimens

My paper in Health Physics in 2001 relates to the topic of "natural"
radioactive mineral specimens of the sort displayed at the British Museum.
Of course, it was written in a pre-9/11 world.

See:

R.J. Barish. Radiation Protection Analysis for a Rare Mineral Specimen. Health Phys. 81 (Supplement 2):S67-S69 (2001)

Robert Barish, Ph.D., CHP
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:27:20 -0700
From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at california.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: [FIREBASEVOICE] Radioactive Dumping
To: "radsafelist" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <15d101c796d8$be05c520$93435142 at roger1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

I doubt this is very credible or the waste is not what it is claimed to be by this TV story or the Nuclear Resource Information Center which I gather is really a disinformation center.  This was sent to a group that has a number of veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans on it by a 61 year old Shriner in Tennessee who calls himself Bugs on the internet.

Roger

Tennessee has hide this from most citizens, www.wsmv.com  TV, uncovered this today and reported it on tonights news cast..05-14-07..in Nashville,Tn..

bugs
Radioactive Dumping Occurs In Rutherford County 10 Million Pounds Of Radioactive Material Dumped In 2004 Reported By Demetria Kalodimos 

POSTED: 4:44 pm CDT May 14, 2007
UPDATED: 7:12 pm CDT May 14, 2007
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. -- A Channel 4 I-Team investigation uncovered a practice the state of Tennessee approved, but nobody else seemed to know about it for nearly 20 years. 

Video: Radioactive Materials Dumped In Rutherford County 

Tennessee has been allowing companies from all over the country to dump radioactive waste into ordinary trash landfills, including the Middle Point landfill in Rutherford County.   

More than 10 million pounds of radioactive material was dumped in Murfreesboro in a single year. 

There are at least four of these facilities in Tennessee, which is more than any other state in the country. 

For nearly 20 years, the state has made it cheap and convenient for all of them to put low level radioactive waste out with your trash. 

"Soils, concrete, asphalt, equipment ... there's a big market. This is seen as a place for that waste to go. Nobody wants to keep it where it is. They want to get rid of it. Tennessee is the sinkhole for nuclear waste around the country," said Nuclear Information and Resource Service watchdog, Diane D'Arrigo. 

Trucks roll onto the scales at Murfreesboro's Middle Point landfill 24 hours a day. Channel 4 captured video of the trucks as they were checked and cleared for radiation in as little as two minutes. 

"(The waste) will go past a radiation detector, and if that doesn't trip any alarms, it will go straight out to what's called the working face where the waste is disposed," said Glen Pugh of the Tennessee Solid Waste Department. 

Why Murfreesboro? The waste processors chose it. 

In fact the whole program was their idea to save money and space in the few places out of state that are actually licensed to take nuclear waste. 

"If you take up a sidewalk at a nuclear facility or even tear down some auxiliary facilities ... facilities that are not significantly contaminated, the risk is sufficiently allowable that we believe they can be put into a landfill," said Eddie Nanney of the Tennessee Radiological Health Department. 

Here's some of what Channel 4 News found: 

a.. In 1994, Middle Point landfill was approved for 200,000 to 400,000 pounds per month of spent ion exchange resin, pellets that filter radiation out of water 

a.. In 1999, 40,000 pounds a week of soil from an area where scrap thorium alloy parts were stored. Thorium is naturally radioactive, with a half-life of 14 billion years. 

a.. The dump took trash from a restricted area of a nuclear facility that included 4,800 tons a month of trash. 

a.. Loads of radioactive metal were taken to the dump, but it wasn't clear where it came from. 

a.. Also 400 tons of month of contaminated dirt came from the University of California at Los Angeles. 

"Why bring it all here in order to disperse it, even if it's at small amounts? Because no amount is actually harmless. There's no safe level," said D'Arrigo. 

In one year's time, Middle Point went from nearly 166,000 pounds of low level waste in 2004 to more than 10 million pounds in 2005. 

"What happened in 2005 (to cause the increase)?" asked reporter Demetria Kalodimos. 

"My guess would be that licensee was receiving a nice contract and disposed of a lot of material in that year," said Nanney. 

"That's a huge increase from one year to the next," said Kalodimos. 

"It's a huge increase but still a very small increment. It's way less than 5 percent," said Nanney. 

And 5 percent is important. Up until now, the state has had just a few key rules for dumping low level radioactive waste through what it calls Bulk Survey for Release or BSFR. 

The total amount of low level nuclear waste cannot exceed 5 percent of what's in the landfill, but that's once a dump is closed for good. Officials said they're always keeping track of that amount. 

And the total radiation dose, be it from plutonium, strontium, cesium, uranium or the host of other isotopes they've accepted, cannot exceed a measurement of 1 millirem, even to a person who later lived on the landfill, farmed crops there and drank the water from a well. 

"Do you know the increment that 1 millirem of radiation would cause? Point 8 additional cancers. That's the level of risk were talking about ... very low," said Nanney. 

"A millirem is an expression of biological damage to tissue. It's not something you can measure and say, 'Ahah! you've got a millirem.' Nuclear waste should not be brought into this state and dispersed without people knowing it," said D'Arrigo. 

In researching this report, Channel 4 found that no one seemed to know about the bulk survey for release program. There's never been a public hearing to discuss this issue. 

Related Link: 

a.. For more information, read the just released report titled Out of Control On Purpose that is available at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service Web site. 

Copyright 2007 by WSMV.com

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:27:20 -0700
From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at california.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fw: [FIREBASEVOICE] Radioactive Dumping
To: "radsafelist" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Message-ID: <000001c796d9$d0343320$93435142 at roger1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

I doubt this is very credible or the waste is not what it is claimed to be by this TV story or the Nuclear Resource Information Center which I gather is really a disinformation center.  This was sent to a group that has a number of veterans, particularly Vietnam veterans on it by a 61 year old Shriner in Tennessee who calls himself Bugs on the internet.

Roger

Tennessee has hide this from most citizens, www.wsmv.com  TV, uncovered this today and reported it on tonights news cast..05-14-07..in Nashville,Tn..

bugs
Radioactive Dumping Occurs In Rutherford County 10 Million Pounds Of Radioactive Material Dumped In 2004 Reported By Demetria Kalodimos 

POSTED: 4:44 pm CDT May 14, 2007
UPDATED: 7:12 pm CDT May 14, 2007
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. -- A Channel 4 I-Team investigation uncovered a practice the state of Tennessee approved, but nobody else seemed to know about it for nearly 20 years. 

Video: Radioactive Materials Dumped In Rutherford County 

Tennessee has been allowing companies from all over the country to dump radioactive waste into ordinary trash landfills, including the Middle Point landfill in Rutherford County.   

More than 10 million pounds of radioactive material was dumped in Murfreesboro in a single year. 

There are at least four of these facilities in Tennessee, which is more than any other state in the country. 

For nearly 20 years, the state has made it cheap and convenient for all of them to put low level radioactive waste out with your trash. 

"Soils, concrete, asphalt, equipment ... there's a big market. This is seen as a place for that waste to go. Nobody wants to keep it where it is. They want to get rid of it. Tennessee is the sinkhole for nuclear waste around the country," said Nuclear Information and Resource Service watchdog, Diane D'Arrigo. 

Trucks roll onto the scales at Murfreesboro's Middle Point landfill 24 hours a day. Channel 4 captured video of the trucks as they were checked and cleared for radiation in as little as two minutes. 

"(The waste) will go past a radiation detector, and if that doesn't trip any alarms, it will go straight out to what's called the working face where the waste is disposed," said Glen Pugh of the Tennessee Solid Waste Department. 

Why Murfreesboro? The waste processors chose it. 

In fact the whole program was their idea to save money and space in the few places out of state that are actually licensed to take nuclear waste. 

"If you take up a sidewalk at a nuclear facility or even tear down some auxiliary facilities ... facilities that are not significantly contaminated, the risk is sufficiently allowable that we believe they can be put into a landfill," said Eddie Nanney of the Tennessee Radiological Health Department. 

Here's some of what Channel 4 News found: 