[ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security
Dan W McCarn
hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Sat Oct 20 20:38:27 CDT 2007
Hi John & Clayton:
I think that the latest recommendations are intended to take domestic "low
hanging fruit" away from terrorist's capabilities, but these are already
improbable targets and with appropriate Safeguards, the immediate
counter-response likely to deter terrorists. But the other "low hanging
fruit" outside of US, European and Russian influence is far more vulnerable.
If a coyote can put so many illegal aliens into the US from our southern
border, the ability to secret nuclear materials is likely to be not so
difficult either.
I think this takes our eyes off the "prize".
I'd rather see $200 million used to take "old" sources, not under effective
control, out of circulation, and I think that this is quite possible, even
under IAEA, EU, or Russian joint control, but I would not like to see 1/2 of
this money instantly sucked-up by DOE contractors and Labs like some of the
early Nunn-Lugar moneys were used.
As a side note, if we have trouble finding a repository for old domestic
sources, what happens to retired sources in other, less-regulated
localities? I have seen the conditions in which some of the "informal"
repositories operate which provide no physical protection, materials
accounting or monitoring of abandoned sources not to mention environmental
isolation and protection. At least that's what I take away from 14 years of
overseas experience. I would like to believe that things have improved over
the last 10 years, but I guess that I'm just a skeptic.
John, I don't think TENORM is considered in the same light as rather "pure"
isotope sources used in radio-teletherapy and gamma and neutron sources for
petrophysical applications.
Dan ii
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
Albuquerque & Houston
-----Original Message-----
From: John R Johnson [mailto:idias at interchange.ubc.ca]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:38
To: Dan McCarn; Clayton J Bradt; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security
Dan and other Radsafers
Did they also "skip" the TENORM sources in pipeline scale?
John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
4535 West 9th Ave
Vancouver, B. C.
V6R 2E2, Canada
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
To: "Clayton J Bradt" <cjb01 at health.state.ny.us>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security
> Hello Group:
>
>
>
> Being a geologist, I thought I might add my two cents into this crazy
> discussion: Apparently, the defense folks skipped the issue about the
> many,
> many neutron and gamma sources currently in use in the petroleum and
> mining
> industries worldwide, not to mention the innumerable "retired" sources.
> Every
> country that has a potential petroleum or mineral resource has numerous
> 10-15 Curie sources running around in the bush to remote locations.
>
>
>
> The hospitals present a "target" that can be hardened by "normal"
> Safeguards
> measures to make them "resistant" to terrorist attacks. If they are truly
> concerned about this, perhaps the first step would be to initiate more
> aggressive active and passive Safeguards measures. This would be far less
> expensive than the alternative.
>
>
>
> I remember another discussion about soil density & moisture probes several
> months ago being of concern with milliCurie sources. That seemed to drop
> off the public's radar after only a few weeks.
>
>
>
> Regards!
>
>
>
> Dan ii
>
>
>
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
>
> Albuquerque & Houston
>
>
> On 10/17/07, Clayton J Bradt <cjb01 at health.state.ny.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The concern about Cs-137 irradiators did not originate with the Defense
>> Science Board, although they are the first that I have heard advocate
>> removing these units from service. People from the national labs, DNDO
>> and
>> DHS have been ringing the alarm for quite some time, with the objective
>> of
>> improving security over these units. The analyses leading to the concern
>> have centered around the amount of uniformly distributed contamination
>> that
>> would result in an exclusion zone, a la Chernobyl. Although based upon
>> worst case assumptions, the physics and health physics of these analyses
>> are sound enough: its the assumptions about social psychology and
>> economics
>> that I find unconvincing. I don't think we can use Prypriat as a model
>> for
>> dealing with lower Manhattan.
>>
>> Previous posters on this thread indicated that the proposal to get rid of
>> Cs-137 self-shielded irradiators was ridiculous. I wanted to point out
>> that it wasn't the uninformed, but rather HPs that have focussed
>> attention
>> on these devices. If there is blame to distribute, at least some of it
>> needs to be directed at our own profession. A little more security for
>> the
>> units might be appropriate, if it can be done without impinging on the
>> vital mission that they serve.
>>
>> In my opinion, the risk of Graft v. Host Disease as a result of
>> transfusing
>> unirradiated blood products far outweighs the risk of economic collapse
>> should several blocks of lower Manhattan be contaminated with Cs-137.
>> Unless an equally effective alternative technology is readily available
>> to
>> replace these units, to propose their removal from service is reckless.
>>
>>
>> Clayton J. Bradt
>> Assistant Bureau Director
>> BERP
>> NYS Dept. of Health
>> 518-402-7578
>>
>>
>>
>> Cindy Bloom
>> <radbloom at comcast
>> .net> To
>> Clayton J Bradt
>> 10/17/2007 01:09 <cjb01 at health.state.ny.us>,
>> PM radsafe at radlab.nl
>> cc
>>
>> Subject
>> Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants
>> tighter radiation security
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Clayton,
>>
>> I'm confused. The original post stated:
>> "The report comes from the Defense Science Board, a panel of retired
>> military and CIA officials and defense industry experts who offer
>> the
>> Pentagon possible solutions to actual and potential national
>> security
>> problems. It is expected to be released late this year."
>> The above description doesn't really sound like DOE HPs. Authors names
>> do
>> not appear to be available because the report is not yet released, so I
>> guess time will tell who has written the opinions (if names are included
>> in
>> the report - names were not readily available on the Board's web site).
>>
>> Also, it was difficult for me to glean your opinion regarding continued
>> use
>> of Cs-137 irradiators from your note, which seems to be dependent on
>> your
>> (undisclosed) regard for DOE HPs.
>>
>> Cindy
>>
>> At 02:03 PM 10/15/2007 -0400, Clayton J Bradt wrote:
>>
>> The people leading the charge against Cs-137 self-shielded
>> irradiators are
>> not ignorant bureaucrats and politicians: they're health physicists
>> working
>> for DOE.
>>
>> Clayton J. Bradt
>> Assistant Bureau Director
>> BERP
>> NYS Dept. of Health
>> 518-402-7578
>>
>>
>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
>> confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
>> privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.
>> It
>> is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error
>> or
>> from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
>> distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the
>> sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system.
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>> settings
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>
>>
>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain
>> confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
>> privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is
>> intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from
>> someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
>> distribute,
>> copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately
>> by
>> reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your
>> cooperation.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan W McCarn
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list