[ RadSafe ] Panel wants tighter radiation security

NIXON, Grant Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com
Tue Oct 23 10:15:36 CDT 2007

This process was officially initiated by the NRC (see the attachment for

The photoelectric effect limits the ability of the existing X-ray SCI
units to supplant Cs-137 SCIs, at least for some application. Consider
that bone, tissue, tumors, etc. have markedly different absorption
properties for clinical X-rays. Commercially-available X-ray SCIs are
currently of low energy (i.e., <300 kVp). As such, they should not be
used for applications where the material being irradiated contains an
abundance of material with high atomic number (e.g., irradiating both
bone and tissue) and where a tight dose uniformity is required.

Best regards,


Grant I. Nixon, Ph.D., P.Phys.
Science Specialist (Physics)
Radiation Applications Development Team
Engineering, Development & Compliance
MDS Nordion
447 March Road
Ottawa, ON  K2K 1X8
Tel: +1 613 592 3400 ext. 2869
Fax: +1 613 591 7423
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Maury Siskel
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:53 AM
To: BLHamrick at aol.com
Cc: WALLYPROPH at aol.com; powernet at hps1.org; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Panel wants tighter radiation security
Importance: Low

In a recent email, I made light of this topic, but in a more serious 
vein, I've tried to track down more information about this report: i.e.,

which DSB task force prepared it and who participated.. There is a fair 
amount of information about the DSB on the Federation of American 
Scientists website and on the DSB site itself. Even the links below are 
only tangential to this topic, but are the best I've done so far. Can 
anyone offer better information?


Apparently, the DSB is a panel of 40 members, but the work on topics 
producing final reports such as this one on radiation security is 
performed by subordinate "task forces".

These things are organizational chaos!
Maury&Dog      (Maury Siskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com)
A pack a day; that's all we ask; do it for the children!


BLHamrick at aol.com wrote:

>We may all think this is ridiculous (I know I do), but it may be
>soon.  Congress can't fix the real problem (i.e., how to stop an actual
>weapon), so they (and the executive agencies, which are all dependent
>funding appropriated by Congress) focus on things they think they  can
>whether they're a real public danger or not, because it will look  like
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:

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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list