[ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 176, Issue 2
Jesús Fernández
jesus.fernandez at acpro.es
Thu Dec 11 01:30:34 CST 2008
Hello,
I'll be very grateful if someone could give me a reference about a simple
radiation monitor Gamma-Scout. I'm specially interested in the gamma energy
response.
Thank you for your help
Jesús
Jesús Fernández Tallón
Director Div. Inst. Radiactivas
telf. 93.204.16.80 fax 93.205.56.70
http://www.acpro.es
----- Original Message -----
From: <radsafe-request at radlab.nl>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:41 PM
Subject: radsafe Digest, Vol 176, Issue 2
> 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: 1996 Question 9 Part D.3 answer (Bob Cherry)
> 2. Radiation Absorbed Doses to Others from Therapy (Stabin, Michael)
> 3. Nuclear Energy and Health - 35 p Review (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net)
> 4. query (Bernard L. Cohen)
> 5. Re: 1996 Question 9 Part D.3 answer (Don Parry)
> 6. Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance (Davis, Wayne)
> 7. RE: query (Strickert, Rick)
> 8. RE: Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
> 9. Re: Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
> (JMKwasnik at dhhs.state.nh.us)
> 10. RE: query (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
> 11. RE: Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance (Jim Darrough)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:14:18 -0600
> From: "Bob Cherry" <bobcherry at satx.rr.com>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] 1996 Question 9 Part D.3 answer
> To: "'Dixon, John E. \(CDC/CCEHIP/NCEH\)'" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>,
> <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID: <004301c95aea$bc910ec0$35b32c40$@rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> John,
>
> It is probably a number that crept in as a unit conversion factor and is
> necessary because Eavg in this "equation" probably has to have units of
> MeV,
> or some reason like that.
>
> When I was on the ABHP I championed differentiating between equations and
> formulas. You may notice that the "cheat sheet" used during testing,
> originally called "useful equations," now has a title that reflects my
> efforts.
>
> Equations are relations between quantities, such as mass, length and time,
> and are valid no matter what system of units is used, E = mc^2 being a
> perfect example. Formulas almost always depend on the system of units.
>
> As a physicist, I prefer equations, but "rules of thumb" are commonly
> tested
> on the ABHP exams and rules of thumb are formulas and not equations,
> hence,
> unit conversion factors.
>
> Good luck on Part II. By that I mean, "keep studying" so luck won't
> matter.
>
> Bob C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf
> Of Dixon, John E. (CDC/CCEHIP/NCEH)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:14 AM
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] 1996 Question 9 Part D.3 answer
>
> All,
> I am studying for Part II. I found this answer from the exam solutions by
> Ken Skrable. Can somebody please explain where the (51.1) term came from?
> Here's the equation:
>
> CEDE = (51.1) *[A Eavg/m lambdae]
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 10 Dec 2008 11:20:33 -0600
> From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Absorbed Doses to Others from Therapy
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <F169E23FC7766F4BA4B1FD677B4352F701EDAB20 at mailbe01.mc.vanderbilt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Carol Marcus wrote:
>
>> For openers, I strongly recommend that you all completely ignore
> Appendix U. The document contains multiple erroneous constructs to
> artificially inflate calculations regarding likely radiation absorbed
> dose to persons near patients receiving I-131.
>>Alternatives to Appendix U appear in our Health Physics paper. I
> suggest you adopt this material in your institution. Basically, most
> compliant patients who are not socioeconomically challenged
> may be treated as outpatients.
>
> Carol makes some good points. This article has been out for a while now,
> and I urged readers to look at it here on Radsafe on February 21, 2008.
> The RADAR group is working on some new calculations for release of
> radioactive patients, using realistic model assumptions (full body Monte
> Carlo using voxel phantoms), instead of the unshielded, point source,
> radioactive-decay-only model that the Appendix U recommendations are
> based on. For now, Jeff Siegel's 2004 document can be used:
>
> Siegel JA. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation of nuclear medicine:
> Guide for diagnostic nuclear medicine and radiopharmaceutical therapy.
> Reston, VA: Society of Nuclear Medicine; 2004.
>
>> As NRC guidance is not a requirement, ignore it.
>
> This is a point that some seem not to appreciate. If one incorporates
> NUREGs or other technical documents into one's approved site license,
> they become binding, but otherwise they are just recommendations. If
> they are good follow them, if not, other sources can be used.
>
>
> Mike
>
> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
> Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
> Vanderbilt University
> 1161 21st Avenue South
> Nashville, TN 37232-2675
> Phone (615) 343-4628
> Fax (615) 322-3764
> e-mail michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
> internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
>
> "I am realistic -- I expect miracles." - Wayne Dyer
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:41:51 +0000
> From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Energy and Health - 35 p Review
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Message-ID:
> <121020081741.2838.493FFF5F000455F500000B162215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8 at comcast.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Professional and scientific societies, both nuclear and medical,
> will find this authoritative, fascinating and some previously not known
> info.
>
> Howard Long
>
>
>
> Dose Response Spring 2009
>
> Nuclear energy and health - Jerry Cuttler, Myron Pollycove
> p 33
> RECOMMENDATIONS
> Professional and scientific societies, both nuclear and medical,
> should organize meetings and other events to discuss the benefits of
> lowdose
> radiation and the changes needed to technical standards and procedures,
> and to regulatory standards. Compliance with these standards,
> which are based upon the transparently erroneous LNT hypothesis,
> requires the expenditure of hundreds of billion dollars annually.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:57:26 -0500
> From: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
> To: RadiatSafety <radsafe at radlab.nl>, Ted Rockwell
> <tedrock at starpower.net>, "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"
> <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>
> Message-ID: <49401116.6040005 at pitt.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:16:17 -0500
> From: "Don Parry" <dparry at michigan.gov>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 1996 Question 9 Part D.3 answer
> To: "John E. (CDC/CCEHIP/NCEH) Dixon" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>,
> <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID: <493FC121.0984.00A1.0 at michigan.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I will give you a hint... it is the product of the following numbers
>
> 3.7e4, 1000, 3600, 24, 1e6, 1.6e-19 and 100
>
> I will leave it to you to sort out why... also, there may be a quicker
> way... I went to J/kg and then to rem
>
> Donald E. Parry, CHP
> Manager, Region I
> Radiation Safety Section
> Michigan Department of Community Health
> Phone : 517-241-1989 Fax: 517-241-1981
> mailto:dparry at michigan.gov
> Web Site: www.michigan.gov/rss
>
>
>>>> "Dixon, John E. (CDC/CCEHIP/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov> 12/10/2008 10:13 AM
>>>> >>>
> All,
> I am studying for Part II. I found this answer from the exam solutions by
> Ken Skrable. Can somebody please explain where the (51.1) term came from?
> Here's the equation:
>
> CEDE = (51.1) *[A Eavg/m lambdae]
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 6
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:30:37 -0500
> From: "Davis, Wayne" <wayne.davis at wsms.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
> To: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>
> Cc: "Muckerheide, Jim \(CDA\)" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>, Ted
> Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net>, RadiatSafety <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <8E6D26DBDBFA724F8AC5195A7B6CF6DF0B0DA18F at aikms002.corp.loc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> In his own words...
>>From http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVHQ/CSYB
>
> October 30, 2007
>
> Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer:
>
> I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
> holding a hearing on October 31 entitled, "Examination of the Licensing
> Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository," at which Senator Reid is
> scheduled to testify. I know both of you have been working on this issue
> for many years, so I am writing to share my perspective on the issue
> given its importance to my home state of Illinois. Although I am no
> longer a member of the EPW Committee, I respectfully offer the following
> views and ask that they be included as part of the hearing record.
> Separately, I will be submitting questions for the hearing witnesses.
>
> Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed
> by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free
> energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But we
> cannot deny that nuclear power is - and likely will remain - an
> important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with
> the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that
> has yet to be resolved.
>
> As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors - more than any other
> state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the
> electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel
> is an extremely important issue for my constituents. Currently, in the
> absence of any alternative, spent nuclear fuel generated by Illinois'
> reactors is stored in Illinois.
>
> In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage
> of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the
> scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead
> unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada. During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the
> people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and
> ratepayers in the construction of this location. Millions of dollars
> have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent
> in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual
> obligations to nuclear utilities.
>
> Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuel
> shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest
> we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments.
>
> Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of
> storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca
> Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks
> might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now. In 2004, a federal
> court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental
> Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to
> guarantee the safety of Nevadans.
>
> Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting
> spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the
> country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois - and
> other states with nuclear reactors - to send our waste to another state,
> transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk. In fact,
> since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail,
> this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is the
> transportation hub of the Midwest.
>
> Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the
> people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to
> believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca
> Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent
> solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel.
>
> For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal
> policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository.
> Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions
> of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the
> federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable
> alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible
> alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing
> to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage
> repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources
> toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites
> around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented.
>
> Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide
> federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported
> by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely
> stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents
> to toxic radiation.
>
> Second, we should select a repository location through a process that
> develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in
> which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to
> accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which
> Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly
> expensive endeavor of monumental proportion.
>
> In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for
> debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new
> alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I
> thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your
> consideration of my views.
>
> Sincerely,
> Barack Obama
> United States Senator
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: RadiatSafety; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:47:49 -0600
> From: "Strickert, Rick" <rstrickert at signaturescience.com>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] query
> To: "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>, RadiatSafety
> <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <9570FCB2DD870B4692083A08D14B9C7EC0BEA53B82 at ss-mail.corp.signaturescience.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The reasons Sen. 0bama gave in an October 30, 2007, letter he sent to
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Environment and Public Works
> Committee Chair Barbara Boxer can be seen in copy of the letter
> (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVHQ/CSYB).
>
> However, in 2005 Sen. 0bama voted twice for H.R. 2419
> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2419:), a bill which
> included appropriations for the Yucca Mountain repository site
> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:7:./temp/~c109XxiM3W:e85528:).
>
> 1. July 1, 2005
> (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00172)
>
> 2. November 14, 2005
> (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00321)
>
> More on 0bama and his changing position nuclear waste can be seen in a May
> 15, 2007, Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial by Erin Neff, "Obama and
> Yucca" (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7509662.html).
>
>
> Rick Strickert
> Austin, TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:57 PM
> To: RadiatSafety; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:23:49 -0800
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
> To: "RadiatSafety" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101C5C at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I believe that Yucca Mountain is a technically sound repository site,
> but that indeed the political handling has been so botched that it is
> not viable. I believe that eventually the desirability of reprocessing
> will become so apparent that we will follow that approach. The delay in
> reprocessing caused by Carter's ill-advised cancelling of a program to
> reprocess commercial spent fuel has cost vast amounts of money, but may
> ultimately have been to our benefit, as a facility designed and built
> with current technology will be vastly better than one built in the 70s
> with 60s technology.
>
> I look forward to the HUGE consternation in Nevada when the Feds say,
> "Fine, you win" and cancel all programs, studies, grants, etc.,
> connected with Yucca Mountain, other than what is needed to weld the
> doors shut and bulldoze dirt in front of it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Davis, Wayne
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
> To: Bernard L. Cohen
> Cc: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA); Ted Rockwell; RadiatSafety
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
>
> In his own words...
>>From http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVHQ/CSYB
>
> October 30, 2007
>
> Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer:
>
> I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
> holding a hearing on October 31 entitled, "Examination of the Licensing
> Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository," at which Senator Reid is
> scheduled to testify. I know both of you have been working on this issue
> for many years, so I am writing to share my perspective on the issue
> given its importance to my home state of Illinois. Although I am no
> longer a member of the EPW Committee, I respectfully offer the following
> views and ask that they be included as part of the hearing record.
> Separately, I will be submitting questions for the hearing witnesses.
>
> Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed
> by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free
> energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But we
> cannot deny that nuclear power is - and likely will remain - an
> important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with
> the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that
> has yet to be resolved.
>
> As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors - more than any other
> state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the
> electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel
> is an extremely important issue for my constituents. Currently, in the
> absence of any alternative, spent nuclear fuel generated by Illinois'
> reactors is stored in Illinois.
>
> In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage
> of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the
> scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead
> unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada. During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the
> people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and
> ratepayers in the construction of this location. Millions of dollars
> have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent
> in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual
> obligations to nuclear utilities.
>
> Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuel
> shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest
> we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments.
>
> Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of
> storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca
> Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks
> might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now. In 2004, a federal
> court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental
> Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to
> guarantee the safety of Nevadans.
>
> Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting
> spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the
> country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois - and
> other states with nuclear reactors - to send our waste to another state,
> transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk. In fact,
> since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail,
> this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is the
> transportation hub of the Midwest.
>
> Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the
> people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to
> believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca
> Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent
> solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel.
>
> For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal
> policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository.
> Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions
> of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the
> federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable
> alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible
> alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing
> to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage
> repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources
> toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites
> around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented.
>
> Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide
> federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported
> by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely
> stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents
> to toxic radiation.
>
> Second, we should select a repository location through a process that
> develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in
> which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to
> accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which
> Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly
> expensive endeavor of monumental proportion.
>
> In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for
> debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new
> alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I
> thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your
> consideration of my views.
>
> Sincerely,
> Barack Obama
> United States Senator
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: RadiatSafety; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:33:18 -0500
> From: JMKwasnik at dhhs.state.nh.us
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
> To: "Davis, Wayne" <wayne.davis at wsms.com>
> Cc: "Muckerheide, Jim \(CDA\)" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>, Ted
> Rockwell <tedrock at starpower.net>, RadiatSafety <radsafe at radlab.nl>,
> radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> Message-ID:
> <OF62AF94B8.728669A3-ON8525751B.006B482C-8525751B.006B6B3A at dhhs.state.nh.us>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Don't know if I should laugh or cry. This is sad.
>
> J. Kwasnik
>
>
>
>
>
> "Davis, Wayne"
> <wayne.davis at wsms.com
> >
> Sent by:
> radsafe-bounces at radla
> b.nl
>
>
> 12/10/2008 01:48 PM
>
>
>
>
> To "Bernard L. Cohen" <blc+ at pitt.edu>
>
> cc "Muckerheide, Jim \(CDA\)" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>, Ted
> Rockwell
> <tedrock at starpower.net>, RadiatSafety <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>
> Subject [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
>
>
>
>
>
> In his own words...
>>From http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVHQ/CSYB
>
> October 30, 2007
>
> Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer:
>
> I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
> holding a hearing on October 31 entitled, "Examination of the Licensing
> Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository," at which Senator Reid is
> scheduled to testify. I know both of you have been working on this issue
> for many years, so I am writing to share my perspective on the issue
> given its importance to my home state of Illinois. Although I am no
> longer a member of the EPW Committee, I respectfully offer the following
> views and ask that they be included as part of the hearing record.
> Separately, I will be submitting questions for the hearing witnesses.
>
> Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed
> by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free
> energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But we
> cannot deny that nuclear power is - and likely will remain - an
> important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with
> the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that
> has yet to be resolved.
>
> As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors - more than any other
> state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the
> electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel
> is an extremely important issue for my constituents. Currently, in the
> absence of any alternative, spent nuclear fuel generated by Illinois'
> reactors is stored in Illinois.
>
> In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage
> of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the
> scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead
> unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada. During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the
> people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and
> ratepayers in the construction of this location. Millions of dollars
> have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent
> in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual
> obligations to nuclear utilities.
>
> Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuel
> shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest
> we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments.
>
> Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of
> storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca
> Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks
> might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now. In 2004, a federal
> court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental
> Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to
> guarantee the safety of Nevadans.
>
> Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting
> spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the
> country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois - and
> other states with nuclear reactors - to send our waste to another state,
> transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk. In fact,
> since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail,
> this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is the
> transportation hub of the Midwest.
>
> Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the
> people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to
> believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca
> Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent
> solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel.
>
> For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal
> policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository.
> Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions
> of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the
> federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable
> alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible
> alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing
> to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage
> repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources
> toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites
> around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented.
>
> Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide
> federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported
> by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely
> stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents
> to toxic radiation.
>
> Second, we should select a repository location through a process that
> develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in
> which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to
> accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which
> Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly
> expensive endeavor of monumental proportion.
>
> In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for
> debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new
> alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I
> thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your
> consideration of my views.
>
> Sincerely,
> Barack Obama
> United States Senator
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: RadiatSafety; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 10
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:36:01 -0800
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] query
> To: "RadiatSafety" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID:
> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101C5D at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Using voting records to tell how a politician feels about a subject is
> almost impossible. Almost any bill with have so many different,
> sometimes contradictory, elements and amendments that muddy the water (I
> believe intentionally, in some cases) so that incumbents can claim, or
> their opponents can charge, to hold almost any position. I looked at
> one of the bill you linked to, and it literally had money going to
> projects from one end of the country to the other; Maine to California.
>
>
> One of the fundamental changes we need to get our economic house in
> order is a mechanism to keep bills clean and to the point, rather than
> use them a rack to hang unrelated pork on. But I don't expect to see
> that any time soon.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Strickert, Rick
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:48 AM
> To: Bernard L. Cohen; RadiatSafety
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> The reasons Sen. 0bama gave in an October 30, 2007, letter he sent to
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Environment and Public Works
> Committee Chair Barbara Boxer can be seen in copy of the letter
> (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVHQ/CSYB).
>
> However, in 2005 Sen. 0bama voted twice for H.R. 2419
> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2419:), a bill which
> included appropriations for the Yucca Mountain repository site
> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:7:./temp/~c109XxiM3W:e85528:
> ).
>
> 1. July 1, 2005
> (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf
> m.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00172)
>
> 2. November 14, 2005
> (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cf
> m.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00321)
>
> More on 0bama and his changing position nuclear waste can be seen in a
> May 15, 2007, Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial by Erin Neff, "Obama
> and Yucca" (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7509662.html).
>
>
> Rick Strickert
> Austin, TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:57 PM
> To: RadiatSafety; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 11
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:38:25 -0800
> From: "Jim Darrough" <darrougj at onid.orst.edu>
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
> To: "'Davis, Wayne'" <wayne.davis at wsms.com>, "'Bernard L. Cohen'"
> <blc+ at pitt.edu>
> Cc: "'Muckerheide, Jim \(CDA\)'" <Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us>, 'Ted
> Rockwell' <tedrock at starpower.net>, 'RadiatSafety' <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID: <000001c95afe$de85e640$9b91b2c0$@orst.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Another victim of far-left radical media, imho.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf
> Of Davis, Wayne
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:31 AM
> To: Bernard L. Cohen
> Cc: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA); Ted Rockwell; RadiatSafety
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Obama Explains Yucca Mountain Stance
>
> In his own words...
>>From http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/NVHQ/CSYB
>
> October 30, 2007
>
> Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer:
>
> I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is
> holding a hearing on October 31 entitled, "Examination of the Licensing
> Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository," at which Senator Reid is
> scheduled to testify. I know both of you have been working on this issue
> for many years, so I am writing to share my perspective on the issue
> given its importance to my home state of Illinois. Although I am no
> longer a member of the EPW Committee, I respectfully offer the following
> views and ask that they be included as part of the hearing record.
> Separately, I will be submitting questions for the hearing witnesses.
>
> Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed
> by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free
> energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But we
> cannot deny that nuclear power is - and likely will remain - an
> important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with
> the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that
> has yet to be resolved.
>
> As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors - more than any other
> state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the
> electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel
> is an extremely important issue for my constituents. Currently, in the
> absence of any alternative, spent nuclear fuel generated by Illinois'
> reactors is stored in Illinois.
>
> In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage
> of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the
> scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead
> unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain,
> Nevada. During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the
> people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and
> ratepayers in the construction of this location. Millions of dollars
> have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent
> in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual
> obligations to nuclear utilities.
>
> Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuel
> shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest
> we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments.
>
> Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of
> storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca
> Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks
> might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now. In 2004, a federal
> court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental
> Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to
> guarantee the safety of Nevadans.
>
> Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting
> spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the
> country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois - and
> other states with nuclear reactors - to send our waste to another state,
> transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk. In fact,
> since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail,
> this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is the
> transportation hub of the Midwest.
>
> Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the
> people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to
> believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca
> Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent
> solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel.
>
> For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal
> policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository.
> Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions
> of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the
> federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable
> alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible
> alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing
> to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage
> repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources
> toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites
> around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented.
>
> Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide
> federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported
> by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely
> stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents
> to toxic radiation.
>
> Second, we should select a repository location through a process that
> develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in
> which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to
> accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which
> Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly
> expensive endeavor of monumental proportion.
>
> In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for
> debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new
> alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I
> thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your
> consideration of my views.
>
> Sincerely,
> Barack Obama
> United States Senator
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: RadiatSafety; Ted Rockwell; Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] query
>
> Can someone remind me of the reasons President-elect Obama gives for
> opposing construction of the Yucca Mountain repository?
>
> --
> Bernard L. Cohen
> Physics Dept., University of Pittsburgh
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> Tel: (412)624-9245 Fax: (412)624-9163
> e-mail: blc at pitt.edu web site: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc
> _______________________________________________
> 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 176, Issue 2
> ***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list