[ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 160, Issue 5
Mark Sonter
sontermj at tpg.com.au
Sun Aug 24 05:06:52 CDT 2008
Hi Dan,
Track down article by Austin & Droullard, Denver Fed Tech Centre / USBM
(?), 1979, closed can gamma-only emanation method:
take ore sample (which has been exposed and therefore emanating), put it
in a can, close and seal and immediately gamma-count; repeat after three
weeks (several Rn-222 halflives for ingrowth to equilibrium); voila: the
difference gives the original 'emanation coefficient'.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Mark Sonter
Radiation Advice & Solutions Pty Ltd, abn 31 891 761 435
Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd, abn 53 008 115 302
116 Pennine Drive
South Maclean, Queensland 4280
Australia
Phone / fax (07) 3297 7653
Mobile 0412 433 286
“Keep everything as simple as possible, but no simpler” - A. Einstein
radsafe-request at radlab.nl wrote:
> 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 "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ... and - rather than enclose an entire
> article that you quote only the germane sentence to which you're responding".
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Communicating with the public and the press (Jerry Cohen)
> 2. Advection / Diffusion of Radon through Media (Dan W McCarn)
> 3. AW: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
> (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de)
> 4. AW: So called bystander effect for brain tumors in irradiated
> mice (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de)
> 5. FW: Minimal Threat X-ray (Marcel Schouwenburg)
> 6. Re: Advection / Diffusion of Radon through Media (Geo>K0FF)
> 7. RE: Communicating with the public and the press
> (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
> 8. RE: Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation (Cary Renquist)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:55:11 -0700
> From: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>, "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> Message-ID: <AEF8ACA9E33A451DB34AA5B9EC29AF8F at JerryPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=response
>
> "Low levels of ionizing radiation are not hazardous, not dangerous,
> and not a threat! "
>
> Otto,
> Of course, your statement (above) is technically correct.
> BUT, how can such a statement be justified in a world where
> regulators are requiring expenditure of immense amounts of
> money and effort to avoid miniscule levels of radiation
> exposure?
>
> Jerry Cohen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe at ucdavis.edu>
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:08 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>
>
>
>> August 18, 2008
>>
>> When speaking with the public, Congress, or the press, there are two
>> four-letter words that we should carefully avoid: "RISK" and "DOSE".
>>
>> To the public these words mean and imply very different negative ideas
>> than what we intend. We can substitute "CHANCE" and "LEVELS" to replace
>> them.
>>
>> This is the "risk communication" message we need to deliver:
>>
>> "Low levels of ionizing radiation are not hazardous, not dangerous, and
>> not a threat! "
>>
>> 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
>> ***********************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 2
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:18:12 -0500
> From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Advection / Diffusion of Radon through Media
> To: "'Radsafe'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID: <04d501c90323$66bc1270$34343750$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
>
> Hello:
>
> Perhaps this has been done somewhere before: How does one go about
> estimating that component of radon that emanates from a granite or other
> material? There are several factors that I can think of:
>
> 1 - Nature of uranium mineralization: a) contained within minerals e.g.
> zircon, monazite; biotite and b) epigenetic mineralization via solutions
> precipitating U minerals in pore spaces and fractures. Most granites show
> secular equilibrium in the uranium series. Is this a macroscopic or
> microscopic property? Does the 5 MeV or so recoil dislodge the radon that
> far away from the origin in a mineral grain? Since granites are massive rock
> bodies, emanation of radon and subsequent decay would / could occur within
> the same granite, except near the margins.
>
> Does the accumulation of alpha decays e.g. U-238, Th-234, U-234, Th-230,
> Ra-226 $B"M(B Rn-222 make it more accessible to mobilization? Because U-234 is
> more easily leachable than U-238 (Wyoming Basins, Kazakhstan), this suggests
> to me that the Ra-226 has been fairly well dislocated prior to decay to
> Rn-222.
>
> 2 - Dual porosity matrix - the nature of the permeability associated with
> fractures or porous fractions of a material vs. that portion that is
> contained within a mineral grain. I can imagine that if the rock was porous
> / permeable enough to be an aquifer, that the radon would advect at the same
> rate as the water. This is borne-out by borehole measurements in and near
> sandstone U deposits.
>
> 3 - Distance to a surface (e.g. fracture or actual surface of material)
>
> Empirically, does a 1 or 2 cm slab of uniform composition granite emanate at
> the same rate per unit surface area as a 10 cm slab?
>
> Dan ii
>
> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:41:27 +0200
> From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
> Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
> To: <Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com>, <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>,
> <royherren2005 at yahoo.com>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Cc: BScott at lrri.org
> Message-ID:
> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E3A at exbe02.intra.dlr.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Grant,
>
> the mechanisms responsible for - the nowadays somewhat indiscriminately so called - bystander effects are manifold. They comprise both genuine short-range cell to cell communication via specific communication channels as well as less specific wide range signal transfer via universal 'second messengers', e.g., of the humoral system.
>
> Personally I reserve the more recent term bystander effect to those instances where cells which have received (very) low radiation doses signal their resulting response to cells of the same organ or tissue which have not received any radiation at all. The - usually few - cells 'hit' do transmit their signals via cell and tissue specific communication channels whose ordinary function (conceivably) is to ensure tissue homeostasis/control.
>
> For such instances as described by Mancuso et al. (2008) where the signals arise from cells rather heavily(!) exposed and where they affect cells in distant organs, I prefer the term abscopal effects - effects which have been described since decades before the genuine bystander effect. Although much of the communication system involved is yet to be elucidated the general endocrine system almost certainly is a mayor player.
>
> Contrary to the quoted statement by Brenner, these results have no import whatsoever on radiation protection at low doses. See also the corresponding remark from K S Parthasarathy, Mi 20.08.2008 11:56
>
> Regards, Rainer
>
>
>
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> GERMANY
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX: +49 2203 61970
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von NIXON, Grant
> Gesendet: Mi 20.08.2008 22:09
> An: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
>
>
>
> To add to Howard's comment:
>
> Perhaps the mechanism for the DNA damage to adjoining tissue (the
> so-called "bystander effect") is nothing more than a propagated
> free-radical reaction having nothing to do with cell-to-cell
> communication. The high doses would liberate such large numbers of
> free-radicals that the affected perimeter of affected tissues would
> increase on physical grounds alone (diffusion theory coupled with target
> theory). The "chemical that blocks cell-to-cell communication" may
> simply be a free-radical scavenger.
>
> Grant I. Nixon, Ph.D., P.Phys.
> Science Specialist (Dosimetry/Physics/Engineering)
> BEST Theratronics
> 413 March Road
> Ottawa, ON K2K 0E9
> Canada
> tel. (613) 591-2100 x2869
> fax. (613) 591-2250
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:36 PM
> To: ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
>
> So, "high dose radiation - 12,000 times - chest x-ray" affects adjacent
> tissue?
> Would other severe injury, like crushed arm, affect the rest of the
> body? Of course!
>
> Why the surprise?
>
> Why the false headline that it "Hints at Dangers of Low Dose
> Radiation"?
>
> Hormesis, low dose good where high dose bad, must be taught.
> We must correct this disinformation by fearmongers
> to dismantle over-regulation and liberate nuclear power.
>
> Howard Long
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: ROY HERREN <royherren2005 at yahoo.com>
>
>
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/818/3
>>
>> Bystander Effect" Hints at Dangers of Low-Dose Radiation
>>
>> By Jocelyn Kaiser
>> ScienceNOW Daily News
>> 18 August 2008That lead apron you wear during a dental x-ray is
>>
> supposed to
>
>> protect the rest of you from radiation. But it may not work very well,
>>
> according
>
>> to a new study. When cancer-prone mice were placed in lead containers
>>
> and
>
>> irradiated on just the lower half of their bodies, they developed
>>
> brain tumors.
>
>> The results suggest that radiation could be riskier than scientists
>>
> thought.
>
>> The study builds on a surprising effect, first observed 16 years ago.
>>
> When cells
>
>> in culture are exposed to ionizing radiation, even those not directly
>>
> hit
>
>> sustain damage to chromosomes. Apparently, the irradiated cells pass
>>
> on a
>
>> distress signal or emit some chemical that breaks the DNA of
>>
> neighboring cells
>
>> (ScienceNOW, 7 September 2005). Although this "bystander effect" has
>>
> been
>
>> observed in tissue culture and recently in living animals, no
>>
> experiments have
>
>> yet linked it to the main reason for concern: Bystander effects might
>>
> trigger
>
>> cancer. Some scientists even suspect the opposite--that the bystander
>>
> responses
>
>> could protect against the disease by killing damaged cells.
>> Now it seems that the cancer risk is real. Radiation oncologist Anna
>>
> Saran at
>
>> the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the
>>
> Environment in
>
>> Rome and colleagues studied mice with a mutation in a gene called
>>
> Patched that
>
>> makes them susceptible to brain tumors early in life. They placed
>>
> newborn mice
>
>> in lead shields that protected their heads and upper bodies, then
>>
> zapped them
>
>> with high-dose x-rays, or about 12,000 times the dose of a dental or
>>
> chest
>
>> x-ray. The scientists found that the cerebellums of these animals had
>>
> higher
>
>> than normal amounts of DNA damage and apoptosis, or programmed cell
>>
> death. By 40
>
>> weeks of age, 39% of the shielded mice had developed brain tumors.
>>
> That's a lot
>
>> considering that the rate was 62% in Patched mice that were irradiated
>>
> all over,
>
>> including their heads. Patched mice that weren't irradiated did not
>>
> develop
>
>> brain cancer.
>> When the team injected the shielded mice with a chemical that blocks
>> cell-to-cell communication before irradiating them, they detected no
>>
> DNA breaks
>
>> and the amount of apoptosis decreased more than threefold. Even though
>>
> the
>
>> irradiated tissues are far away from the brain, they are connected by
>>
> neurons
>
>> that could be passing on bystander signals, Saran says. The results
>>
> appear
>
>> online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
>>
> Sciences.
>
>> "This is a milestone paper," says Columbia University radiation
>>
> physicist David
>
>> Brenner. He suggests that current estimates of cancer risk from low
>>
> doses of
>
>> radiation--say, from naturally occurring radon and diagnostic
>>
> tests--may
>
>> underestimate the danger by failing to take into account bystander
>>
> effects. To
>
>> learn more, however, the mouse work should be repeated with lower
>>
> doses of
>
>> radiation, Saran says.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:36:46 +0200
> From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] AW: So called bystander effect for brain tumors
> in irradiated mice
> To: <BScott at lrri.org>
> Cc: cjb01 at health.state.ny.us, GRMarshall at philotechnics.com,
> radsafe at radlab.nl, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
> Message-ID:
> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E3B at exbe02.intra.dlr.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Bobby,
>
> thank you for your comments which I second and the copy of the Camphausen et al. (2003) paper. I am satisfied to note the reasons why Camphausen et al. deliberately refrain from using the term 'bystander effect' for their (intriguing) observations. For the same reasons I think Mancuso's usage of the term is compounding and hence obfuscating the issues - at least as far as mechanisms are concerned.
>
> All the best and kind regards, Rainer
>
> Camphausen K, Moses M A, Me´nard C, Sproull M, Beecken W-D, Folkman J, O'Reilly M S.
> Radiation Abscopal Antitumor Effect Is Mediated through p53.
> Cancer Research 63(2003)1990-1993.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Scott, Bobby [mailto:BScott at lrri.org]
> Gesendet: Do 21.08.2008 03:30
> An: Facius, Rainer
> Betreff: FW: So called bystander effect for brain tumors in irradiated mice
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Scott, Bobby
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:30 PM
> To: 'cjb01 at health.state.ny.us'; 'GRMarshall at philotechnics.com'; 'HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net'; 'matzkin at invap.com.ar'
> Subject: So called bystander effect for brain tumors in irradiated mice
>
>
>
> To: Clayton Bradt, Glenn Marshall, Howard Long, and Rainer Facius
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
>
>
> In light of your interest in the so-called bystander effect that was discussed in Radsafe Digest (Volume 160, Issue 3, August 20, 2008) that relates to brain tumors in radiosensitive mice, I thought you may find the attached paper by Camphausen et al. (2003) to be of interest. The paper is entitled "Radiation abscopal antitumor effect is mediated through p53." Please note the terminology "abscopal effect" as mentioned by Rainer Facius is used as has been done historically. The terminology bystander effect is more recent and has usually referred to un-hit cells in the vicinity of hit cells that are also affected. With the study design indicated for the mouse study of brain tumors, one has to consider the dose scattering. One cannot have a bystander effect if there is a small scattered dose irradiating the brain as apparently was the case for the PNAS paper by Mancuso et al. (2008). An abscopal effect can occur in un-irradiated tissue and can be either detrimental or benefi!
> cial (see the attached paper for an example of a benefit). A 3 Gy dose to a large portion of the body can suppress the immune system possibly allowing for a small scattered dose (e.g., few mGy) to induce cancers at other sites in radiosensitive mice that would otherwise not occur after a small dose alone.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bobby R. Scott
>
> Senior Scientist
>
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
>
> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
>
> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:47:49 +0200
> From: "Marcel Schouwenburg" <M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Minimal Threat X-ray
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B675D at SRV502.tudelft.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Forwarded message (on behalf of Justin Harris).
>
> (Reason for forwarding: message was filtered out by the server because
> it contained an image as background. Images are not accepted because of
> security policy.)
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
> I am curious if anyone here knows the rules for the State of California
> regarding minimal threat X-ray machines. I know here in Texas that
> operators of these devices are exempt from the personnel monitoring
> requirements. Does the CA regulations state this or do you have to use
> the exemption of 10% of 5,000 mR/yr. to satisfy this requirement? If
> anyone knows, could you steer me in the right direction as far as a
> reference. Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Justin Harris
>
> Radiation Safety Consultant
>
> Suntrac Services, Inc.
>
> Office: 281-338-2133
>
> Cell: 281-728-2138
>
> www.suntrac.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:17:51 -0500
> From: "Geo>K0FF" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Advection / Diffusion of Radon through Media
> To: "'Radsafe'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>, "Dan W McCarn"
> <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <f59101c903a1$1650ecb0$f997a8ac at your4dacd0ea75>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-2022-jp";
> reply-type=original
>
> Dan, as a geologist you know that we use a gamma signature of the lower
> daughter of Uranium to identify and quantify eU in natural rocks. This tag
> is 1.76 MeV from Bi-214 and all geologist's gamma spectrum analyzers are set
> up to quantify this isotope. Of course if the gaseous radon has escaped the
> rock, the lower daughters will no longer be there in the same vicinity of
> the decay chain parents.
>
> Obviously a certain amount of radon DOES escape the matrix, as it winds up
> in the atmosphere.
>
> It seems to me that in any rock sample, one could accurately measure the
> upper chain components, say Pa-234m, then measure the lower daughter Bi-214
> and work out a ratio. This is just an idea as I have not looked into any
> established methodology for doing this using another pair of upper/lower
> constituents.
>
> Regardless of the pair chosen, the measured deficit in the lower progeny
> would indicate the migration of the intermediate progeny, either by
> emanation or by geochemical leaching. A typical instrument for U analysis
> would be a Ludlum Dual Channel Stabilized Analyzer Model 2218 with a 2"dia.
> by 1/2" thick stabilized and shielded sodium iodide probe. At least that's
> what I use.
>
> Rebound energy of the radon-222 ion does indeed impart significant momentum
> to it, as well as the alpha decay particle from the radium-226. This
> momentum is shared between the two ions according to their mass. Being much
> more massive, the speed of radon is much slower than the alpha particle.
> Still it is measured in km/s. It becomes an ion because the atom is sped
> away faster than the electrons can follow, so they simple shed off the outer
> shell!
>
> Where that radon atom winds up is a matter of too many electrical and
> physical interactions to predict, but it should be somewhat easy to measure
> the final results using the simple gamma spec methodology mentions.Most ores
> and rocks that I have had a chance to examine do indeed have all the lower
> daughters, but the exact Secular equilibrium is never the same between
> samples from different regions. Each mine, even different parts of the same
> mine, are slightly different.
>
> As you have mentions, the mere act of processing the ore/rock, i.e. cutting
> a slab, will change the geochemical and physical conditions enough to
> completely change the emanation and leach rates!
>
> Certainly a quick GAMMA SURVEY with simplest equipment can indicate the
> total (relative to a known sample) amount of inclusions of NORM, many of
> which would have the POSSIBILITY of creating radon. (Note: GM tubes
> universally reject gammas from K-40 as the energy level is above the usable
> range of GM tubes. The efficiency of a particular tube can be measured at
> K-40 by using a 50 pound bag of Potassium Chloride Salt Substitute, as sold
> at Wal Mart for water softeners. Be sure to close any beta windows first. ).
> Also use of a thin window pancake detector will give some idea as to how
> much of the NORM is close to the surface. Alphas close to the surface can
> easily be removed using a 3X5 card shield. If there are no alphas near the
> surface, there will be little likelihood of radon emission ( in my opinion)
> If an unusual quantity of NORM is found, then more exacting GAMMA
> SPECTROSCOPY is needed to qualify the mix, and a RADON EMANATION test to
> check on the release. No inexpensive or easy shortcuts to the latter tests
> that I can think of.
>
> These are just thoughts rolling off the top of my head and would certainly
> be a staring place in my own investigations.
>
>
> George Dowell
> NLNL
> New London Nucleonics Lab
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan W McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> To: "'Radsafe'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:18 PM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Advection / Diffusion of Radon through Media
>
>
>
>> Hello:
>>
>> Perhaps this has been done somewhere before: How does one go about
>> estimating that component of radon that emanates from a granite or other
>> material? There are several factors that I can think of:
>>
>> 1 - Nature of uranium mineralization: a) contained within minerals e.g.
>> zircon, monazite; biotite and b) epigenetic mineralization via solutions
>> precipitating U minerals in pore spaces and fractures. Most granites show
>> secular equilibrium in the uranium series. Is this a macroscopic or
>> microscopic property? Does the 5 MeV or so recoil dislodge the radon that
>> far away from the origin in a mineral grain? Since granites are massive
>> rock
>> bodies, emanation of radon and subsequent decay would / could occur within
>> the same granite, except near the margins.
>>
>> Does the accumulation of alpha decays e.g. U-238, Th-234, U-234, Th-230,
>> Ra-226 $B"M(B Rn-222 make it more accessible to mobilization? Because U-234 is
>> more easily leachable than U-238 (Wyoming Basins, Kazakhstan), this
>> suggests
>> to me that the Ra-226 has been fairly well dislocated prior to decay to
>> Rn-222.
>>
>> 2 - Dual porosity matrix - the nature of the permeability associated with
>> fractures or porous fractions of a material vs. that portion that is
>> contained within a mineral grain. I can imagine that if the rock was
>> porous
>> / permeable enough to be an aquifer, that the radon would advect at the
>> same
>> rate as the water. This is borne-out by borehole measurements in and near
>> sandstone U deposits.
>>
>> 3 - Distance to a surface (e.g. fracture or actual surface of material)
>>
>> Empirically, does a 1 or 2 cm slab of uniform composition granite emanate
>> at
>> the same rate per unit surface area as a 10 cm slab?
>>
>> Dan ii
>>
>> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479;
>> USA
>> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 7
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:11:25 -0700
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B5E at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I completely agree with this statement.
>
> Personally, I think that the "true" (but usually unknowable) response
> curve for almost everything is actually an "S" curve, with some sort of
> line breaking away from the axis into a roughly linear dose/response
> curve, breaking again into a plateau where death prevents greater dose
> from being any riskier. Finding the shape of the curves at either end
> is hard, but finding the slope of the line is pretty easy, especially
> when no one is going to reproduce the work with a different data set.
> LNT wins not because it is clearly right, but because it is easy to
> plot.
>
> I also think that when you get to small doses the population can no
> longer be accurately modeled as homogeneous, which makes finding the
> correct shape of the curve even harder.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NIXON, Grant [mailto:Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:48 PM
> To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>
>
> While some people will die as a direct result of even mild exposures to
> sunlight, it is clear that more would die through its avoidance. So,
> even if LNT applies at low doses, it does not preclude the possibility
> of hormesis for these small doses. Hormesis and LNT are not mutually
> exclusive principles; both may be at play.
>
> Grant I. Nixon, Ph.D., P.Phys.
> Science Specialist (Dosimetry/Physics/Engineering) BEST Theratronics
> 413 March Road
> Ottawa, ON K2K 0E9
> Canada
> tel. (613) 591-2100 x2869
> fax. (613) 591-2250
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:03 PM
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>
> I am not sure of what "something" you are talking about, here. I have
> seen a number of cases where someone has declared there is no upside of
> an activity, in order to argue "why take the chance", when many other
> people see an upside, or at least believe that there is more to learn.
>
> An example that comes to mind is that of probes to the outer planets.
> I've had people tell me that they shouldn't be done, because they are
> too expensive and there is a possibility they will hit the Earth and
> kill almost everyone, and there is nothing to be learned out there,
> anyway. I decline to accept that logic.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Riely, Brian P. [mailto:brian.riely at ngc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:40 AM
> To: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>
> If something has no upside and a possibility of a downside, one can
> logically ask, "why take the chance."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:05 PM
> To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>
> Mike and HPs generally,
> Fear of low dose radiation, like fear of tomato poisoning (once a
> problem for that member of the deadly nightshade family), may be best
> overcome by convincing of benefit - not just absence of harm.
>
> Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment, CARE, has a 4 page monthly
> newsletter, regular demonstrations at the gates of LLNL, lobbyists in
> Washington and an entrenched bureaucracy proclaiming its salvation of
> the world (small scale GW scam). It has emasculated LLNL with
> fearmongering.
>
> I am convinced that more is needed than the ample demonstrations of
> absence of harm.
> Mike is right that there is no more radiation around nuclear plants, but
> hormesis DOES pertain.
> The nuclear power industry's magnificent safety record (and experiments
> like Mike suggests) have not been enough. Ask Myron Pollycove and Jerry
> Cuttler who have an article, now in peer review, on Nuclear Plants and
> Health (not the exact title).
>
> Just as objections to tomatoes were defeated by defaming any who would
> deny the public the nutritional value and delicious taste of tomatoes
> (which could also make you sick with an overdose) , so we may need to
> make villians of any who would deny the public the clear benefit of low
> dose radiation, hormesis, in order to calm their fears - nuclear reactor
> NIMBY.
>
> Haven't you seen the ads for vitamins, exercise programs, etc. claiming
> cancer prevention, fetal health, greater longevity, etc? We have better
> evidence of these with low dose radiation.
> So, I have thoriated welding rods on my chair seat (under a pillow) and
> taped on a belt (too uncomfortable to wear) hanging over the back of it,
> in my jealousy of Denver residents.
>
> Viva hormesis (ionizing radiation, sunshine, or tomatoes)
>
> Howard Long
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
>
>
>> Dr. Long,
>>
>> I strongly believe that nuclear power ought to be advanced on its
>> demonstrable strengths, and not on arguments that do not pertain. EVEN
>>
>
>
>> IF hormesis were a demonstrated and accepted phenomenon, it would not
>> pertain to nuclear power plants and the public, as the public does not
>>
>
>
>> receive dose from a power plant that can be discerned from the normal
>> variation in background.
>>
>> Please note that I do not dismiss the possibility of hormesis, only
>> state that it is not germane to nuclear power. I, personally, would
>> love to see the supporters of hormesis do some rigorous double-blind
>> experiments that support or refute their basic position. I can think
>> of several involving plants and seeds that could be done
>> inexpensively, and would provide some data that could actually be
>> used. If you would like to organize such a study, I would be happy to
>>
> offer suggestions.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>> Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
>> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:59 PM
>> To: Otto G. Raabe; radsafe at radlab.nl
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Communicating with the public and the press
>>
>> "Underexposed - What if Radiation Were Actually GOOD for You?" by
>> Hiserodt (book on my waiting room table, given to a dozen persons
>> including Harvard anti-nuc speaker) neutralizes poison - even better
>> than the dilution by Chance and Levels instead of Risk and Dose.
>>
>> Positive assertion that hormesis has benefit necessary for health
>> (like sunshine UV makes vitamin D) is more effective persuasion than
>> absence of harm, for a nuclear plant in your neighborhood (even though
>>
>
>
>> my measurements showed Palo Verde grounds had less radiation than my
>> Phoenix hotel).
>>
>> We should paint the antinucs as flat-earth obstructionists who would
>> deprive others of health, cancer prevention, ( in addition to
>> depriving the public of energy and funding terrorist oil producers).
>>
>> Howard Long
>>
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>> From: "Otto G. Raabe"
>>
>>
>>> August 18, 2008
>>>
>>> When speaking with the public, Congress, or the press, there are two
>>>
>
>
>>> four-letter words that we should carefully avoid: "RISK" and "DOSE".
>>>
>>> To the public these words mean and imply very different negative
>>> ideas
>>>
>>> than what we intend. We can substitute "CHANCE" and "LEVELS" to
>>> replace them.
>>>
>>> This is the "risk communication" message we need to deliver:
>>>
>>> "Low levels of ionizing radiation are not hazardous, not dangerous,
>>> and not a threat! "
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 8
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:16:48 -0700
> From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
> To: "NIXON, Grant" <Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com>, <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A002AC6954 at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> The distances involved in this experiment seem too far for diffusion of
> radicals.
> What I understand (grok [for the geeks out there]) from the few papers
> that I have read...
> Acute "low-level" exposures seem garner signal transduction responses
> that favor cell death or very basic repair attempts. Acute "high-level"
> exposures seem to result in signal transduction responses that favor
> (emergency) repair mechanisms.
> In this experiment, it seems that the (emergency) repair mechanisms are
> being triggered in the shielded area -- the repairs are either acting on
> damage caused by the low-level scatter or the normal damage caused by
> cellular processes.
>
> I see that normal wild-type mice in the experiment did not display any
> carcinogenic response -- only the patch1 mice. Normal mice did show
> short term effects that seemed to be evidence for the transmission of
> the high-exposure response to the shielded areas.
>
> C.
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> RSO, Eckert & Ziegler Isotope Products
> Office: +1 661-309-1033
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of NIXON, Grant
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 August, 2008 13:09
> To: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
>
> To add to Howard's comment:
>
> Perhaps the mechanism for the DNA damage to adjoining tissue (the
> so-called "bystander effect") is nothing more than a propagated
> free-radical reaction having nothing to do with cell-to-cell
> communication. The high doses would liberate such large numbers of
> free-radicals that the affected perimeter of affected tissues would
> increase on physical grounds alone (diffusion theory coupled with target
> theory). The "chemical that blocks cell-to-cell communication" may
> simply be a free-radical scavenger.
>
> Grant I. Nixon, Ph.D., P.Phys.
> Science Specialist (Dosimetry/Physics/Engineering)
> BEST Theratronics
> 413 March Road
> Ottawa, ON K2K 0E9
> Canada
> tel. (613) 591-2100 x2869
> fax. (613) 591-2250
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:36 PM
> To: ROY HERREN; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Danger of ADJACENT HIGH-Dose Radiation
>
> So, "high dose radiation - 12,000 times - chest x-ray" affects adjacent
> tissue?
> Would other severe injury, like crushed arm, affect the rest of the
> body? Of course!
>
> Why the surprise?
>
> Why the false headline that it "Hints at Dangers of Low Dose
> Radiation"?
>
> Hormesis, low dose good where high dose bad, must be taught.
> We must correct this disinformation by fearmongers
> to dismantle over-regulation and liberate nuclear power.
>
> Howard Long
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: ROY HERREN <royherren2005 at yahoo.com>
>
>
>> http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/818/3
>>
>> Bystander Effect" Hints at Dangers of Low-Dose Radiation
>>
>> By Jocelyn Kaiser
>> ScienceNOW Daily News
>> 18 August 2008That lead apron you wear during a dental x-ray is
>>
> supposed to
>
>> protect the rest of you from radiation. But it may not work very well,
>>
> according
>
>> to a new study. When cancer-prone mice were placed in lead containers
>>
> and
>
>> irradiated on just the lower half of their bodies, they developed
>>
> brain tumors.
>
>> The results suggest that radiation could be riskier than scientists
>>
> thought.
>
>> The study builds on a surprising effect, first observed 16 years ago.
>>
> When cells
>
>> in culture are exposed to ionizing radiation, even those not directly
>>
> hit
>
>> sustain damage to chromosomes. Apparently, the irradiated cells pass
>>
> on a
>
>> distress signal or emit some chemical that breaks the DNA of
>>
> neighboring cells
>
>> (ScienceNOW, 7 September 2005). Although this "bystander effect" has
>>
> been
>
>> observed in tissue culture and recently in living animals, no
>>
> experiments have
>
>> yet linked it to the main reason for concern: Bystander effects might
>>
> trigger
>
>> cancer. Some scientists even suspect the opposite--that the bystander
>>
> responses
>
>> could protect against the disease by killing damaged cells.
>> Now it seems that the cancer risk is real. Radiation oncologist Anna
>>
> Saran at
>
>> the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the
>>
> Environment in
>
>> Rome and colleagues studied mice with a mutation in a gene called
>>
> Patched that
>
>> makes them susceptible to brain tumors early in life. They placed
>>
> newborn mice
>
>> in lead shields that protected their heads and upper bodies, then
>>
> zapped them
>
>> with high-dose x-rays, or about 12,000 times the dose of a dental or
>>
> chest
>
>> x-ray. The scientists found that the cerebellums of these animals had
>>
> higher
>
>> than normal amounts of DNA damage and apoptosis, or programmed cell
>>
> death. By 40
>
>> weeks of age, 39% of the shielded mice had developed brain tumors.
>>
> That's a lot
>
>> considering that the rate was 62% in Patched mice that were irradiated
>>
> all over,
>
>> including their heads. Patched mice that weren't irradiated did not
>>
> develop
>
>> brain cancer.
>> When the team injected the shielded mice with a chemical that blocks
>> cell-to-cell communication before irradiating them, they detected no
>>
> DNA breaks
>
>> and the amount of apoptosis decreased more than threefold. Even though
>>
> the
>
>> irradiated tissues are far away from the brain, they are connected by
>>
> neurons
>
>> that could be passing on bystander signals, Saran says. The results
>>
> appear
>
>> online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
>>
> Sciences.
>
>> "This is a milestone paper," says Columbia University radiation
>>
> physicist David
>
>> Brenner. He suggests that current estimates of cancer risk from low
>>
> doses of
>
>> radiation--say, from naturally occurring radon and diagnostic
>>
> tests--may
>
>> underestimate the danger by failing to take into account bystander
>>
> effects. To
>
>> learn more, however, the mouse work should be repeated with lower
>>
> doses of
>
>> radiation, Saran says.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of radsafe Digest, Vol 160, Issue 5
> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list