[ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security
Philip Egidi
pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us
Thu Oct 18 12:52:25 CDT 2007
There has been ongoing discussion at NRC and the State level as to what depth and type of controls will be imposed on the various category sources.
The hospital irradiators have considerable quantities in them, more than a well logging source (and even radiography cameras) that you mentioned.
One of the issues about the irradiators is access, they are in busy areas that are difficult to secure/harden, and still provide timely care.
Without going into detail, these recommendations are not being made willy nilly.
Radiography sources and some well logging sources are under already under the lens in many cases, and other types of sources may also come under further scrutiny. Those controls are not for open discussion on the web, so you may not be aware of what has been done already, and what may be done in the future. Contact your friendly local regulator if you have a need to know what they are.
There are issues with the efficacy of various aspects of these programs, and those too are being worked on.
While it is fun to arm chair quarterback and throw flames, there are reasons for taking the time to evaluate these recommendations, which are not occurring in a vacuum.
Out.
Phil Egidi
CDPHE
>>> "Dan McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> 10/18/07 10:04 AM >>>
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