[ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security

[Brunkow, Ward]

I'm kinda on the fence about this one. When I accepted a  RSO position
years ago at a major university, I had a new Shepard Mark IV irradiator
waiting for me to set up, sitting on the back dock of the medical
school. This 5K curie Cs137 device developed 75K R/Min in the chamber!
Now the average terrorist is probably dumb enough that he may give
himself an LD 50/30 dose trying to retrieve the source and use it in a
dirty way, but its almost hard to imagine going that route to make the
dirty B..    As I remember though, it wasn't that hard to raise the
source tower and bring the source out of the massive pig. We must
remember our friends to the South in Juarrez Mexico that dissected the
Co60 irradiator many years back in a junk yard and ended up putting Co60
sources in a metal recycling plant that ultimately ended up in metal
products that circulated all over the U.S.   In fact I ate at  one of
restraunts with tables identified as hot, in a restraint in Florida
after that incident. We may need to make our irradiators, say > 1000
curie...idiot proof..and therefore terrorist proof. 

W. G. (Ward) Brunkow, U.S. DOE Contractor
"America's greatest enemies...are Americans" (1953)
Dwight D. Eisenhower - WW II Supreme Commander and U.S. President

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Clayton J Bradt
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:31 PM
To: Cindy Bloom
Cc: Clayton J Bradt; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security



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/