From peter.bossew at jrc.it Tue Jul 1 03:20:43 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:20:43 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4869E8DB.4080008@jrc.it> I would like to remind the web site http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html which has an amazing wealth of technical and historical information about a./n. bombs. also: http://www.abomb1.org/index.html http://www.atomicarchive.com/index.shtml http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/resources.htm http://www.nukestrat.com/index.htm regards, p -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it WWW: http://rem.jrc.cec.eu.int "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 1 08:52:10 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:52:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Atomic reactions VS Nuclear reactions. Message-ID: <015101c8db81$aaf22840$9d8da9ac@your4dacd0ea75> "Atomic physics (or atom physics) is the field of physics that studies atoms as an isolated system of electrons and an atomic nucleus. It is primarily concerned with the arrangement of electrons around the nucleus and the processes by which these arrangements change. This includes ions as well as neutral atoms and, unless otherwise stated, for the purposes of this discussion it should be assumed that the term atom includes ions. The term atomic physics is often associated with nuclear power and nuclear bombs, due to the synonymous use of atomic and nuclear in standard English. However, physicists distinguish between atomic physics-which deals with the atom as a system comprising of a nucleus and electrons, and nuclear physics-which considers atomic nuclei alone." Nuclear reactions are those involving the nucleus. Pretty simple idea. Atomic reactions are those involving the atom as a whole. That includes chemical reactions of course. Sorry. The populous masses get their science from Popular Mechanics magazine, so the nuclear bomb will forever be tagged Atomic Bomb in the English popular language. I'm going to go grab a Pop Mechanics magazine and a beer, go watch football and smoke a cigar, and fry something, just to see what it feels like. Or not. No response required. George Dowell From john.p.jones at usu.edu Tue Jul 1 09:29:19 2008 From: john.p.jones at usu.edu (John Jones) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:29:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080630181609.009f2610@mail.swcp.com> References: <5.2.1.1.1.20080628093921.009eb130@mail.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.1.20080630181609.009f2610@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <91F7ACE96B883549BB063A1F576C2AE107D95AAFBC@exchg-be04.aggies.usu.edu> There is a page on "The Manhattan Project, An Interactive History" website with links to PDF's of several books including one to Robert Serber's "The Los Alamos Primer." This link should take you to that page. http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/library.htm#fakley John ---------------- John P. Jones Radiation Safety Utah State Univ. (435) 797 - 2888 john.p.jones AT usu.edu http://www.ehs.usu.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 6:21 PM To: Dukelow, James S Jr; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs June 30 James: Thank you for your explanation of the subtleties of a Pu bomb, and for recommending Serber's book. I also appreciated your explanation of the distinctions between atomic and chemical explosions. I will look on Amazon for Serber's book. Steven Dapra At 10:52 AM 6/30/08 -0700, Dukelow, James S Jr wrote: >Nobody has really answered Dapra's original question, which has some >contemporary relevance. > >The difference between the U-235 bomb and the Pu-239 bomb is that the >Pu-239 was contaminated with other isotopes of Pu that have significant >spontaneous fission rates. If the process of assembling a critical mass >was "slow" (say, tens of milliseconds), there would be a significant >probability that the assembling critical mass would be "pre-ignited" by >stray neutrons from the spontaneous fissions, leading to a lower yield -- >a "fizzle". The answer was to used carefully designed explosive charges >to assemble the critical mass very quickly. Until Trinity, the implosion >design was theoretical and the test was need to give confidence that the >weapon would work. > >All of this is very nicely described in The Los Alamos Primer, by Robert >Serber. It is the annotated notes of the lectures that Serber gave to >physicists and other arriving at Los Alamos to participate in the >Manhattan Project. The notes were published in 1992 and are currently >available from Amazon. > >This problem did not exist with U-235 and the physicists were quite >confident it would work the first time. > >The current relevance is that Iran, and earlier, North Korea is/were using >both plutonium production and uranium enrichment to pursue nuclear weapon >capability. The weaponization issues remain with plutonium weapons and >uranium weapons remain simple to implement once sufficient fissile >material is available (although "deliverable" weapons may be more of an issue). > >Dowell's linguistic distinction between nuclear (fission and fusion) >explosions and atomic/chemical explosions is not standard usage, but is >reasonable. The nuclear weapons involve the release of the nuclear >binding energy of the atomic nucleus, while chemical explosions release >the chemical binding energy of the electron orbitals. > >Hanford's weapons mission is over and it is probably not to hard to >arrange tours of most of the facilities, although I haven't tried to do it. > >Best regards. > >Jim Dukelow >Pacific Northwest National Laboratory >Richland, WA >jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > >These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my >management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Steven Dapra >Sent: Sat 6/28/2008 8:49 AM >To: radsafe at radlab.nl >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs > >June 28, 2008 > > From time to time I have read that one of the Hiroshima and > Nagasaki bombs >had to be tested before it was used, and that one did not --- that the >engineers were so certain the latter bomb would explode that they didn't >bother testing it. I also read recently that hydrogen bombs must be >tested. Of these three types of bombs, which ones must be tested, and >why? For the one that did not have to be tested, why not? (I don't have >any bombs I want to test, I am merely curious.) > >Steven Dapra >sjd at swcp.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/ From mds02 at health.state.ny.us Tue Jul 1 09:32:10 2008 From: mds02 at health.state.ny.us (Michael D. Soucie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:32:10 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing In-Reply-To: <200807010129.m611T4gv026046@pony1.health.state.ny.us> Message-ID: Franz, I think you are wrong. Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? Mike Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist State of New York, Department of Health Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection 547 River Street, Room 530 Troy, New York 12180-2216 Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 mds02 at health.state.ny.us IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. From hreynolds at energysolutions.com Tue Jul 1 10:46:59 2008 From: hreynolds at energysolutions.com (Harry Reynolds) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:46:59 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing In-Reply-To: <20080701145232.F099E190DBF@mailscan.energysolutions.com> References: <200807010129.m611T4gv026046@pony1.health.state.ny.us> <20080701145232.F099E190DBF@mailscan.energysolutions.com> Message-ID: <6638FFB91C092D43BA515FC6E5ACB1268B2F4E@esclexch1.energysolutions.com> Examples: "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station" "Atomic Energy Commission" etc. Harry Reynolds Clive Site Health Physics ENERGYSOLUTIONS 801-649-2219 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael D. Soucie Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:32 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Franz, I think you are wrong. Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? Mike Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist State of New York, Department of Health Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection 547 River Street, Room 530 Troy, New York 12180-2216 Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 mds02 at health.state.ny.us IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 11:51:13 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:51:13 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing In-Reply-To: <6638FFB91C092D43BA515FC6E5ACB1268B2F4E@esclexch1.energysolutions.com> References: <200807010129.m611T4gv026046@pony1.health.state.ny.us> <20080701145232.F099E190DBF@mailscan.energysolutions.com> <6638FFB91C092D43BA515FC6E5ACB1268B2F4E@esclexch1.energysolutions.com> Message-ID: <01c201c8db9a$ad3d6e70$07b84b50$@com> There is, of course: The International Atomic Energy Agency. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Harry Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:47 AM To: Michael D. Soucie; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Examples: "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station" "Atomic Energy Commission" etc. Harry Reynolds Clive Site Health Physics ENERGYSOLUTIONS 801-649-2219 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael D. Soucie Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:32 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Franz, I think you are wrong. Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? Mike Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist State of New York, Department of Health Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection 547 River Street, Room 530 Troy, New York 12180-2216 Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 mds02 at health.state.ny.us IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From cooperc at teleport.com Tue Jul 1 16:13:03 2008 From: cooperc at teleport.com (Chuck Cooper) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:13:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Message-ID: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Good Afternoon, I recently came across a container of Samarium(-40 mesh, 99% trace metals basis). It is unopened. It has a radioactive symbol on it. Does anyone have any information on this material. I know it is a flammable solid. Any thoughts on disposal would also be appreciated? Should it go out as RAM? NORM? Hazardous? Anybody know what EU RAM symbol means? Thanks Dave David J. McDonough, MS, CHMM Hazardous Waste Manager Chemical Hygiene Officer Temple University Environmental Health & Radiation Safety 3307 N. Broad Street, Room B-49 Phila. PA 19140 Office-215-707-0109 Fax-215-707-1600 Cell-215-768-1928 Pager-215-691-0204 Web-www.temple.edu/ehs From csimmons at athompsonlaw.com Tue Jul 1 17:02:21 2008 From: csimmons at athompsonlaw.com (Charlie Simmons) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:02:21 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium In-Reply-To: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <707FEFE89C842E44B34EEE5964D1581318F6F8@file-srv.Thompson.local> Greetings: This issue recently came up in the context of a natural samarium compound. First, if the Sm in issue is a non-natural isotope (Sm-151, for example) then it is likely a "byproduct material" subject to regulation by US NRC or Agreement States. Second, if "natural" - then it is a "NORM" material. Samarium is a rare earth element that naturally occurs as a combination of five stable and three unstable (radioactive) isotopes. The radioactive isotopes of samarium include Sm-147 at a natural abundance of 15% and which undergoes alpha decay with a very long (approximately 106 billion year) half-life. The two other radioactive isotopes, Sm-148 at a natural abundance of 11% and half-life of 8,000 trillion years and Sm-149 at an abundance of 14% and half-life of 10,000 trillion years have such exceedingly slow rates of decay that they are 100,000 times less radioactive than Sm-147, and for all practical purposes, are essentially indistinguishable from stable, non-radioactive isotopes. The specific activity of Sm-147 is 2.3 E-8 Ci/g (23,000 pCi/g or 851 Bq/g) and at its natural abundance in samarium of 15%, pure samarium would be expected to have a specific activity of 127 Bq/g (3450 pCi/g). Natural Sm is not regulated by NRC (or Agreement States) because it is not "source, byproduct or special nuclear" material. Conceivably, natural Sm could be regulated by a State pursuant to NORM regulations, but that depends on the State and how the regulations are drafted. The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations governing Class 7 (radioactive) hazardous materials exclude the following materials from the scope of regulation: "Natural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides which are not intended to be processed for use of these radionuclides, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the values specified in ? 173.436." 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4). The Table in ?173.436 identifies 1.0 E1 Bq/g (10 Bq/g) as the activity concentration for exempt material for Sm-147, so natural samarium would be outside the scope of DOT regulations provided it does not exceed 10 x 10 = 100 Bq/g. Depending on the quantity of Sm in your container, and assuming it is, in fact, natural samarium, then it could be subject to DOT regulations - probably as LSA-1 Class 7 (radioactive) material when offered for transportation or transported. I can offer no opinion on the meaning of the EU RAM symbol - however, I believe the trefoil symbol is universally adopted pursuant to IAEA's TS-R-1 transportation regulations. Please advise if this understanding is incorrect. Regards, Charlie Simmons -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Chuck Cooper Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:13 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Good Afternoon, I recently came across a container of Samarium(-40 mesh, 99% trace metals basis). It is unopened. It has a radioactive symbol on it. Does anyone have any information on this material. I know it is a flammable solid. Any thoughts on disposal would also be appreciated? Should it go out as RAM? NORM? Hazardous? Anybody know what EU RAM symbol means? Thanks Dave David J. McDonough, MS, CHMM Hazardous Waste Manager Chemical Hygiene Officer Temple University Environmental Health & Radiation Safety 3307 N. Broad Street, Room B-49 Phila. PA 19140 Office-215-707-0109 Fax-215-707-1600 Cell-215-768-1928 Pager-215-691-0204 Web-www.temple.edu/ehs _______________________________________________ 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/ From john.p.jones at usu.edu Tue Jul 1 17:29:29 2008 From: john.p.jones at usu.edu (John Jones) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:29:29 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium In-Reply-To: <707FEFE89C842E44B34EEE5964D1581318F6F8@file-srv.Thompson.local> References: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <707FEFE89C842E44B34EEE5964D1581318F6F8@file-srv.Thompson.local> Message-ID: <91F7ACE96B883549BB063A1F576C2AE107D95AB1D5@exchg-be04.aggies.usu.edu> We also discovered a small bottle of Samarium a couple months back, and arrived at the same conclusions as Charlie. We took a conservative approach and added it to our long-lived waste stream. John ---------------- John P. Jones Radiation Safety Utah State Univ. (435) 797 - 2888 john.p.jones AT usu.edu http://www.ehs.usu.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Charlie Simmons Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:02 PM To: Chuck Cooper; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Greetings: This issue recently came up in the context of a natural samarium compound. First, if the Sm in issue is a non-natural isotope (Sm-151, for example) then it is likely a "byproduct material" subject to regulation by US NRC or Agreement States. Second, if "natural" - then it is a "NORM" material. Samarium is a rare earth element that naturally occurs as a combination of five stable and three unstable (radioactive) isotopes. The radioactive isotopes of samarium include Sm-147 at a natural abundance of 15% and which undergoes alpha decay with a very long (approximately 106 billion year) half-life. The two other radioactive isotopes, Sm-148 at a natural abundance of 11% and half-life of 8,000 trillion years and Sm-149 at an abundance of 14% and half-life of 10,000 trillion years have such exceedingly slow rates of decay that they are 100,000 times less radioactive than Sm-147, and for all practical purposes, are essentially indistinguishable from stable, non-radioactive isotopes. The specific activity of Sm-147 is 2.3 E-8 Ci/g (23,000 pCi/g or 851 Bq/g) and at its natural abundance in samarium of 15%, pure samarium would be expected to have a specific activity of 127 Bq/g (3450 pCi/g). Natural Sm is not regulated by NRC (or Agreement States) because it is not "source, byproduct or special nuclear" material. Conceivably, natural Sm could be regulated by a State pursuant to NORM regulations, but that depends on the State and how the regulations are drafted. The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations governing Class 7 (radioactive) hazardous materials exclude the following materials from the scope of regulation: "Natural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides which are not intended to be processed for use of these radionuclides, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the values specified in ? 173.436." 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4). The Table in ?173.436 identifies 1.0 E1 Bq/g (10 Bq/g) as the activity concentration for exempt material for Sm-147, so natural samarium would be outside the scope of DOT regulations provided it does not exceed 10 x 10 = 100 Bq/g. Depending on the quantity of Sm in your container, and assuming it is, in fact, natural samarium, then it could be subject to DOT regulations - probably as LSA-1 Class 7 (radioactive) material when offered for transportation or transported. I can offer no opinion on the meaning of the EU RAM symbol - however, I believe the trefoil symbol is universally adopted pursuant to IAEA's TS-R-1 transportation regulations. Please advise if this understanding is incorrect. Regards, Charlie Simmons -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Chuck Cooper Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:13 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Good Afternoon, I recently came across a container of Samarium(-40 mesh, 99% trace metals basis). It is unopened. It has a radioactive symbol on it. Does anyone have any information on this material. I know it is a flammable solid. Any thoughts on disposal would also be appreciated? Should it go out as RAM? NORM? Hazardous? Anybody know what EU RAM symbol means? Thanks Dave David J. McDonough, MS, CHMM Hazardous Waste Manager Chemical Hygiene Officer Temple University Environmental Health & Radiation Safety 3307 N. Broad Street, Room B-49 Phila. PA 19140 Office-215-707-0109 Fax-215-707-1600 Cell-215-768-1928 Pager-215-691-0204 Web-www.temple.edu/ehs _______________________________________________ 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/ From efforrer at aol.com Tue Jul 1 18:00:47 2008 From: efforrer at aol.com (efforrer at aol.com) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:00:47 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LLRW Waste minimization Message-ID: <8CAA9E56F188581-98C-7A1@webmail-nc15.sysops.aol.com> I am Putting together a presentation on LLRW minimization.? I thought I wuld pick the collective brain on the topic.? I was hoping some of you might have some interesting methods of reduction you would share. Gene Forrer ARSO UCSC From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 1 20:00:47 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] LLRW Waste minimization Message-ID: <388971.55807.qm@web80807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Although my experience was at a nuclear power plant, some of this may be helpful.? There are three major types of programs: 1.? Keep the waste from being generated.? You have to take a close look at your processes.? Sometimes, unnecessary materials are brought into the restricted area.? For example, packaging materials should be removed from materials before they enter the restricted area, if feasible.? Sometimes, disposable equipment can be replaced with reusable equipment.? In some cases unneeded radioactive materials are being ordered, just because it's "what we always do."? You will need the help of the users for this. 2.? Waste reduction technologies should be used, when feasible, such as compaction or incineration.? If you wish to incinerate LLRW, check with the incinerator operator to determine accepted and prohibited materials.? Try to have waste generators use disposable materials that are incinerable. 3.? You may have material which may be clean, but has to be handled as LLRW since it's been used in the restricted area.? Some waste processors will accept this material for monitoring and sorting.? The clean material can be sent to a nonradioctive landfill, which saves big $$$. Bill Lipton It's not about dose it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: "efforrer at aol.com" To: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 7:00:47 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] LLRW Waste minimization I am Putting together a presentation on LLRW minimization.? I thought I wuld pick the collective brain on the topic.? I was hoping some of you might have some interesting methods of reduction you would share. Gene Forrer ARSO UCSC _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 21:20:54 2008 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] ALARA In-Reply-To: <062420082340.3748.486185FC0009D44E00000EA42215561264B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Message-ID: <542676.98906.qm@web54305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> At the NCRP meeting an NRC presentative indicated that they were not going to eliminate there ALARA requirements in their regulations.? So it goes. ? I thought that it was interesting?when the monitor at one question session told Ted Rockwell that if he did not a valid question of the panel to sit down.? Sad but true. ? Sorry you could not make it Dr. Long. +++++++++++++++++++ -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com --- On Tue, 6/24/08, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net wrote: From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA To: NeilKeeney at aol.com, radsafe at radlab.nl Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:40 PM ALARA Supporters, You have strong help from Ted Rockwell in, Creating the New World: Stories and Images from the Dawn of the Atomic Age. Therein, Ted relates the value of submariner perfectionism in selling and making the first nuclear power plants safely. However, now that instrumentation and evidence that up to 20 rem/year actually promotes longevity and reduces cancer, isn't it time to draw that line? Prompt energy increase depends on it. All would agree that great pains must be taken to assure there is no repeat of Chernobyl. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: NeilKeeney at aol.com > > Gary or Joe et al: > > In direct response to your question, we unquestionably 'get something' from > ALARA. I've primarily been associated with planning and implementation of > major projects at commercial nuclear facilities around the country for the last > couple of decades. My observations and conclusions closely align with what > Dr. Lipton has indicated. > > To take it a couple of steps further, the depth and degree of planning and > preparation necessary to achieve some of the key objectives of ALARA, which, > in the aggregate result in reduced collective dose may be summarized in a few > points: > 1. There is generally less rework necessary to be performed across our > major project tasks because: > > a. We have workable plans that were compelled to be developed in detail > in part as the result of ALARA considerations. Some of these go so far as to > specify the exact tools, parts and pieces necessary to perform the work. In > some cases they call for backup equipment or components. These variables are > based on the lessons-learned for the activity. I have often observed, in > the 'old' days, a work group exiting the work areas because they had the wrong > bolt, forgot a wrench, the tool broke, the wrong gasket; on and on. That > doesn't happen anymore at a facility with a good ALARA program. It simply > results in greater efficiency all around which, in turn, optimizes the activity > in terms of collective dose expenditure. > > b. We have superior scheduling that takes into consideration work > sequences that result in avoiding unnecessary exposure. For example, if it > were not > for the ALARA concept, there would be nothing preventing any particular > project management team from draining the Steam Generator shell of secondary > water (shielding) thus exposing the workforce to 30,000 manhours of increased > dose-rates on the order of 2 - 3 times that of a filled shell. An extreme > example but I've seen the results of premature drain-down. > > c. Via this concept, we have been able to reconcile internal and external > exposure via TEDE ALARA precepts. This took thousands of people out of > respirators and also greatly increased worker efficiency and, therefore > improved > production making us more reliable as an industry. This also compelled > advances in the use and utility of engineering controls for ventilation and > Containment At The Source concepts for contamination control. > > 2. Enhanced proficiency in performing difficult or complex tasks - > previously discussed. There's nothing like achieving greater reality on the > scope > and magnitude of one's part in a complex task. It's a drill of the technique > and methodology and is consistent with other such practices across our > society. This is how a process is debugged prior to actual execution and it's > a > valuable element of reducing or avoiding dose. > > I have observed the improvements across our industry first-hand. Work > implementation used to be carried out in a cavalier fashion without respect to > collective dose. Rework was routine. Schedules ignored shielding > installation, > work group interferences with one another, or water level management > techniques (in PWRs). Workers were worked until they maxed-out on dose and > then you > got another guy and did the same with him. It was pretty ugly. > > Well. These are a few viewpoints about the matter. There are many more but > I've been accused in the past of being too verbose so I will leave it at > this for now. > > Neil Keeney > NRRPT > Currently at CR3 SGRP > > > In a message dated 6/23/2008 6:43:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: > > Bill, > > Did Alara produce the successful facility, or did the successful > facility produce doses that were Alara? > > In other words, if you went into a "dirty" plant and made them > implement Alara, would the plant become a model facility? Or would it > still be "dirty" wherever scrutiny was lacking? I agree that the > correlation you recall exists, but I strongly doubt that Alara is the > causative factor. > > Unless you are willing to insist that Alara is a causative factor, > your concluding statement is unfounded. I assert that the well run > facilities you recall would have been just as well run (perhaps > better) if Alara had never been conceived, had never been made a part > of the compliance requirement. > > So I'm back to this: Do we get anything from ALARA that we could not > have just by writing clear regs? > > And, this is the last I will post on this issue. I am so busy keeping > things Alara that I have no more time to think about whether this is a > good policy. :P > > -Gary Isenhower > > > > > > > > > **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for > fuel-efficient used cars. > (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 21:36:20 2008 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <053120081608.7483.4841781A0005307D00001D3B221652585609020104D20B9D0E990108@comcast.net> Message-ID: <61955.53033.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.? As a physician, I would think you knew what it meant.? ? But I have always been fasicinate with your lack of knowledge.? +++++++++++++++++++ -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com --- On Sat, 5/31/08, howard.long at comcast.net wrote: From: howard.long at comcast.net Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de, garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl Date: Saturday, May 31, 2008, 12:08 PM Evidence of protection from teratogenesis by many times usual background radiation should be added to Ranier's excellent but brief discussion of teratogenesis (genetic disease). "- congenital heart malformations -1.5 cases per 1,000 - under 19. " [10,000 persons 9-20 years in Taiwan apts averaged 0.4Sv from Co60 in construction steel] "-official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalance rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. [in other local population] - it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure." Is Chronic Radiation An Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? Chen WL,Luan YC et al J Am Physicians and Surgeons 9:1 Spring 2004 and www.aapsonline.org Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: > Gary and all, > > to add some more relevant facts ? relevant also with respect to radiation > protection ? to this somewhat confusing ? or in part obfuscated ? exchange: > > Environmental toxins affect either cells of the soma or of the germ-line > yielding somatic or genetic sequelae. Soma and germ-line constitute an > exhaustive and mutually exclusive partition of the cells of higher metazoa. > > Somatic effects affect the exposed individual. Genetic effects are imprinted to > the genome (possibly including the epi-genom) of germ-line cells and thereby > become transmitted to the F1. Non-lethal, genetic effects accumulate in an > exposed population leading to the ? so far - about 3000 known hereditary > diseases in humans. > > Effects to the progeny of exposures between conception and birth can be somatic > and genetic again. Genetic effects in utero again become manifest not until the > next, the F2, generation. > > Somatic effects to progeny of exposures in utero result in untoward outcomes > such as stillbirth, premature birth, or teratogenesis (malformations) such as > spina bifida or microencephaly. Teratogenesis, i.e., ? the disturbed growth > processes involved in the production of a malformed neonate? results from > irregular timing or incomplete sequences of organogenesis due to stimuli from > the environment ? which includes the maternal organism. > > Addressing the business of radsafe by turning to ionizing radiation as an > environmental toxin, the findings from the most important exposure of human > populations, i.e., the survivors of the atomic bombings demonstrate that this so > far most severe exposure did not yield any measurable genetic effect in the F1 > generation. Concerning teratogenesis, fetuses exposed in a period between 8 to > about 15 weeks after gestation showed few incidences of microencephaly as the > only teratogenic sequela from the atomic bombing. Importantly, the corresponding > dose effect relation ? crudely as it could be determined ? displayed the > hallmark of deterministic radiation effects, i.e., a more or less marked dose > threshold below which no effects will ensue. Given this empirical data base, the > claim that radiation from depleted uranium can engender genetic or teratogenic > health effects at the exposures in question must be relegated to the realm of > science fiction. > > Regards, Rainer > > Off topic: From the perspective of the conceptus/fetus the statistically largest > environmental risk of irregular organogenesis and an untoward outcome of a > pregnancy nowadays stems from the mental constitution of the maternal organism ? > in particular if the fetus carries two X chromosomes. > > ----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of garyi at trinityphysics.com > Sent: Fri 30.05.2008 19:22 > To: radsafelist > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] teratogenesis can be pre-utero > > Statements like this show that James is not competent to debate this issue. > When you get > caught with your pants down like this, especially when it is pointed out gently > as Rainer has > done, the correct response is to admit the blunder. Instead, James (whatever > his name is > right now) pretends to be absolutely correct. > > -Gary Isenhower > > On 30 May 2008 at 6:34, James Salsman wrote: > > > Dear Dr. Facius, > > > > Thank you for your message: > > > > >... teratogenesis by definition refers to effects > > > engendered IN UTERO.... > > > > On the contrary, any damage to spermatogonium, oogonium, oocyte, > > ootid, or ovum chromosomes prior to folliculogenesis may also result > > in congenital malformations. _______________________________________________ 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/ From howard.long at comcast.net Wed Jul 2 11:36:04 2008 From: howard.long at comcast.net (howard.long at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:36:04 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ALARA Message-ID: <070220081636.6895.486BAE740001D5B500001AEF221655799609020104D20B9D0E990108@comcast.net> If NCRP did reject Rockwell as Jacobus writes, its incest of ideas misapplies Rockwell's (and others') classic shielding data (which is still a guide for ALARA). Insofar as NCRP meetings may be for self-perpetuation, we learn more from Rockwell and others who actually did the tests and present data (instead of ignorant edicts). Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: John Jacobus > At the NCRP meeting an NRC presentative indicated that they were not going to > eliminate there ALARA requirements in their regulations. So it goes. > > I thought that it was interesting when the monitor at one question session told > Ted Rockwell that if he did not a valid question of the panel to sit down. Sad > but true. > > Sorry you could not make it Dr. Long. > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > --- On Tue, 6/24/08, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net wrote: > > From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA > To: NeilKeeney at aol.com, radsafe at radlab.nl > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:40 PM > > ALARA Supporters, > You have strong help from Ted Rockwell in, > Creating the New World: Stories and Images from the Dawn of the Atomic Age. > Therein, Ted relates the value of submariner perfectionism in selling and > making the first nuclear power plants safely. > > However, now that instrumentation and evidence that up to 20 rem/year actually > promotes longevity and reduces cancer, isn't it time to draw that line? > Prompt energy increase depends on it. > All would agree that great pains must be taken to assure there is no repeat of > Chernobyl. > > Howard Long > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: NeilKeeney at aol.com > > > > > Gary or Joe et al: > > > > In direct response to your question, we unquestionably 'get > something' from > > ALARA. I've primarily been associated with planning and implementation > of > > major projects at commercial nuclear facilities around the country for the > last > > couple of decades. My observations and conclusions closely align with what > > > Dr. Lipton has indicated. > > > > To take it a couple of steps further, the depth and degree of planning and > > > preparation necessary to achieve some of the key objectives of ALARA, > which, > > in the aggregate result in reduced collective dose may be summarized in a > few > > points: > > 1. There is generally less rework necessary to be performed across our > > major project tasks because: > > > > a. We have workable plans that were compelled to be developed in detail > > in part as the result of ALARA considerations. Some of these go so far as > to > > specify the exact tools, parts and pieces necessary to perform the work. > In > > some cases they call for backup equipment or components. These variables > are > > based on the lessons-learned for the activity. I have often observed, in > > the 'old' days, a work group exiting the work areas because they > had the wrong > > bolt, forgot a wrench, the tool broke, the wrong gasket; on and on. That > > doesn't happen anymore at a facility with a good ALARA program. It > simply > > results in greater efficiency all around which, in turn, optimizes the > activity > > in terms of collective dose expenditure. > > > > b. We have superior scheduling that takes into consideration work > > sequences that result in avoiding unnecessary exposure. For example, if it > > > were not > > for the ALARA concept, there would be nothing preventing any particular > > project management team from draining the Steam Generator shell of > secondary > > water (shielding) thus exposing the workforce to 30,000 manhours of > increased > > dose-rates on the order of 2 - 3 times that of a filled shell. An extreme > > example but I've seen the results of premature drain-down. > > > > c. Via this concept, we have been able to reconcile internal and external > > exposure via TEDE ALARA precepts. This took thousands of people out of > > respirators and also greatly increased worker efficiency and, therefore > > improved > > production making us more reliable as an industry. This also compelled > > advances in the use and utility of engineering controls for ventilation > and > > Containment At The Source concepts for contamination control. > > > > 2. Enhanced proficiency in performing difficult or complex tasks - > > previously discussed. There's nothing like achieving greater reality > on the > > scope > > and magnitude of one's part in a complex task. It's a drill of the > technique > > and methodology and is consistent with other such practices across our > > society. This is how a process is debugged prior to actual execution and > it's > > a > > valuable element of reducing or avoiding dose. > > > > I have observed the improvements across our industry first-hand. Work > > implementation used to be carried out in a cavalier fashion without > respect to > > collective dose. Rework was routine. Schedules ignored shielding > > installation, > > work group interferences with one another, or water level management > > techniques (in PWRs). Workers were worked until they maxed-out on dose and > > > then you > > got another guy and did the same with him. It was pretty ugly. > > > > Well. These are a few viewpoints about the matter. There are many more but > > > I've been accused in the past of being too verbose so I will leave it > at > > this for now. > > > > Neil Keeney > > NRRPT > > Currently at CR3 SGRP > > > > > > In a message dated 6/23/2008 6:43:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: > > > > Bill, > > > > Did Alara produce the successful facility, or did the successful > > facility produce doses that were Alara? > > > > In other words, if you went into a "dirty" plant and made them > > implement Alara, would the plant become a model facility? Or would it > > still be "dirty" wherever scrutiny was lacking? I agree that the > > > correlation you recall exists, but I strongly doubt that Alara is the > > causative factor. > > > > Unless you are willing to insist that Alara is a causative factor, > > your concluding statement is unfounded. I assert that the well run > > facilities you recall would have been just as well run (perhaps > > better) if Alara had never been conceived, had never been made a part > > of the compliance requirement. > > > > So I'm back to this: Do we get anything from ALARA that we could not > > have just by writing clear regs? > > > > And, this is the last I will post on this issue. I am so busy keeping > > things Alara that I have no more time to think about whether this is a > > good policy. :P > > > > -Gary Isenhower > > > > > > > > > > > From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 2 12:06:39 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:06:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FYI Message-ID: <001b01c8dc66$00617120$cc4481ac@your4dacd0ea75> >From Glasstone's "Sourcebook of Atomic Energy": "Since the energy of fission is actually due to a decrease of nuclear mass, resulting from a rearrangement of protons and neutrons, it should strictly be called nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the general, historical name "atomic energy", which is widely used, although not quite so precise, is justifiable because the nucleus is part of the atom" The term "atomic energy" was coined at least 20 years before the neutron was even postulated, and 30 years before it was demonstrated to exist. By the same definition, strictly speaking, all chemical reactions involve atoms ( or molecules) are also "atomic" . A reaction to do with only the nucleus is nuclear. To the person who mentioned me as "a person supposedly living on selling used equipment" , you forgot to mention that I also design, manufacture, test, repair and calibrate radiological equipment, both meters and probes. Yes I am happy being merely a meter swinger. George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab From joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil Wed Jul 2 12:33:55 2008 From: joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil (Baumbaugh, Joel SPAWAR) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FYI In-Reply-To: <001b01c8dc66$00617120$cc4481ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <7DB6DF83D2CD9140ADA0622B1A05BF2F0676D320@nawespscez02> George, I enjoy your postings. Joel Baumbaugh SPAWARSYSCEN San Diego -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF To the person who mentioned me as "a person supposedly living on selling used equipment" , you forgot to mention that I also design, manufacture, test, repair and calibrate radiological equipment, both meters and probes. Yes I am happy being merely a meter swinger. From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jul 1 11:48:27 2008 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:48:27 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODE Magazine Message-ID: Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have beneficial effects at very low doses. By Ursula Sautter http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ Tom From muckerheide at comcast.net Tue Jul 1 17:53:17 2008 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:53:17 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Message-ID: Mike, Since you didn't link to the original msg, we can only guess what you are referring to. :-) However, if it's Franz' msg: "George, could you please enlighten a dumb or probably mentally retarded person like me, what your definitions are based upon? They seem to be your private ones and you obviously expect that the whole world "has" to accept them, because you are such an incredible eminent scientist. We have to overthrow all our well established wording in nuclear sciences, just because a person supposedly living on selling used equipment wants to have it his own way." He's right, although you need to go to his earlier msg to get his more specific criticism of George?s terminology. It?s George's ?private definitions? that are "wrong," or at least not recognized by any atomic/nuclear semantic convention applicable to the last 60 years re atomic/nuclear bombs/power plants, etc. And you agree with Franz about the semantics also; just not who?s error it was. :-) And combustion/chemical reactions are really molecular, not "atomic" even under the stressed definition of erroneously calling them "atomic" (as chemical) vs. "nuclear" reactions. Such chemical reactions change molecular bonds, not atoms. Regards, Jim on 7/1/08 10:32 AM, Michael D. Soucie at mds02 at health.state.ny.us wrote: > Franz, > > I think you are wrong. > > Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or > fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. > > However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic > Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one > was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other > than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these > terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a > matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent > physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you > have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" > being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? > > Mike > > > > Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) > Associate Radiological Health Specialist > State of New York, Department of Health > Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection > 547 River Street, Room 530 > Troy, New York 12180-2216 > Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 > mds02 at health.state.ny.us > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or > sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise > protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the > addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not > authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any > attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete > this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From muckerheide at comcast.net Wed Jul 2 00:41:09 2008 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:41:09 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <61955.53033.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John, You misread Howard's statement; and you seem to misunderstand the basic biology: 1. On the biology, see, e.g.: http://www.rwjuh.edu/health_information/centers_pregnancy_typegene.html ?What are the types of genetic disease? The following are the different types of genetic diseases: -chromosomal abnormalities -single gene defects -multifactorial problems -teratogenic problems? 2. But Howard?s statement said nothing about that. He referred to the fact that LDR results in lower birth defect rates. It does this (essentially equivalent to reducing tumors) by enhancing the normal capacity for error-free cellular repair and removal. At the 2- to 4-cell embryo stage (1-3 days in humans) there is increased miscarriage as a result of limitations on cell-society capacity to organize cell removal/replacement. This results in fewer birth defects. (This is pre-implantation stage.) Regards, Jim ========= on 7/1/08 10:36 PM, John Jacobus at crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote: > Dr. Long, > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.? As a physician, I > would think you knew what it meant.? > ? > But I have always been fasicinate with your lack of knowledge.? > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > --- On Sat, 5/31/08, howard.long at comcast.net wrote: > > From: howard.long at comcast.net > Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from > much teratogenesis > To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de, garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl > Date: Saturday, May 31, 2008, 12:08 PM > > Evidence of protection from teratogenesis by many times usual background > radiation > should be added to Ranier's excellent but brief discussion of > teratogenesis (genetic disease). > > "- congenital heart malformations -1.5 cases per 1,000 - under 19. " > [10,000 persons 9-20 years in Taiwan apts averaged 0.4Sv from Co60 in > construction steel] > "-official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalance rate of > congenital malformation is > 23 cases per 1,000 children. [in other local population] > - it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with > this chronic radiation exposure." > Is Chronic Radiation An Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? Chen WL,Luan YC > et al > J Am Physicians and Surgeons 9:1 Spring 2004 and www.aapsonline.org > > Howard Long > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: > >> Gary and all, >> >> to add some more relevant facts ? relevant also with respect to > radiation >> protection ? to this somewhat confusing ? or in part obfuscated ? > exchange: >> >> Environmental toxins affect either cells of the soma or of the germ-line >> yielding somatic or genetic sequelae. Soma and germ-line constitute an >> exhaustive and mutually exclusive partition of the cells of higher > metazoa. >> >> Somatic effects affect the exposed individual. Genetic effects are > imprinted to >> the genome (possibly including the epi-genom) of germ-line cells and > thereby >> become transmitted to the F1. Non-lethal, genetic effects accumulate in an > >> exposed population leading to the ? so far - about 3000 known hereditary > >> diseases in humans. >> >> Effects to the progeny of exposures between conception and birth can be > somatic >> and genetic again. Genetic effects in utero again become manifest not > until the >> next, the F2, generation. >> >> Somatic effects to progeny of exposures in utero result in untoward > outcomes >> such as stillbirth, premature birth, or teratogenesis (malformations) such > as >> spina bifida or microencephaly. Teratogenesis, i.e., ? the disturbed > growth >> processes involved in the production of a malformed neonate? results > from >> irregular timing or incomplete sequences of organogenesis due to stimuli > from >> the environment ? which includes the maternal organism. >> >> Addressing the business of radsafe by turning to ionizing radiation as an >> environmental toxin, the findings from the most important exposure of > human >> populations, i.e., the survivors of the atomic bombings demonstrate that > this so >> far most severe exposure did not yield any measurable genetic effect in > the F1 >> generation. Concerning teratogenesis, fetuses exposed in a period between > 8 to >> about 15 weeks after gestation showed few incidences of microencephaly as > the >> only teratogenic sequela from the atomic bombing. Importantly, the > corresponding >> dose effect relation ? crudely as it could be determined ? displayed > the >> hallmark of deterministic radiation effects, i.e., a more or less marked > dose >> threshold below which no effects will ensue. Given this empirical data > base, the >> claim that radiation from depleted uranium can engender genetic or > teratogenic >> health effects at the exposures in question must be relegated to the realm > of >> science fiction. >> >> Regards, Rainer >> >> Off topic: From the perspective of the conceptus/fetus the statistically > largest >> environmental risk of irregular organogenesis and an untoward outcome of a > >> pregnancy nowadays stems from the mental constitution of the maternal > organism ? >> in particular if the fetus carries two X chromosomes. >> >> ----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of garyi at trinityphysics.com >> Sent: Fri 30.05.2008 19:22 >> To: radsafelist >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] teratogenesis can be pre-utero >> >> Statements like this show that James is not competent to debate this > issue. >> When you get >> caught with your pants down like this, especially when it is pointed out > gently >> as Rainer has >> done, the correct response is to admit the blunder. Instead, James > (whatever >> his name is >> right now) pretends to be absolutely correct. >> >> -Gary Isenhower >> >> On 30 May 2008 at 6:34, James Salsman wrote: >> >>> Dear Dr. Facius, >>> >>> Thank you for your message: >>> >>>> ... teratogenesis by definition refers to effects >>>> engendered IN UTERO.... >>> >>> On the contrary, any damage to spermatogonium, oogonium, oocyte, >>> ootid, or ovum chromosomes prior to folliculogenesis may also result >>> in congenital malformations. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 15:39:28 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:39:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Message-ID: John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Wed Jul 2 17:00:31 2008 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:00:31 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger " Message-ID: Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger Tribune Editorial Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose of their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week. Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each category to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open the door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the more dangerous waste classifications. The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how you mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. The Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the Legislature has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after 100 years. Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven private company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that produce them. Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation very closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to rewrite the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite the law to ban blended waste from the state. ================================================== From garyi at trinityphysics.com Wed Jul 2 17:54:56 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:54:56 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486BC0F0.5422.5F91D8D@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I too had a pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you would technically be right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in previous messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. You would do well to pay more attention to those messages. However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to ignore me and stick with that if you want. -Gary Isenhower On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 2 19:28:32 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:28:32 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702182206.009f0060@mail.swcp.com> July 2 James you certainly (seem to) know a lot about all this stuff. Why don't you do us all a great big favor and post your CV here? We'd love to read the details of your education and knowledge. Please include a list of all the refereed papers you have published, along with full citations to them. Thank you for your prompt and full cooperation. Steven Dapra At 01:39 PM 7/2/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >John Jacobus wrote: > > > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. > >That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. > >James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 2 19:37:19 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:37:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <486BC0F0.5422.5F91D8D@garyi.trinityphysics.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702183153.009f4ec0@mail.swcp.com> July 2 I can remember James calling himself Ben on a regular basis. DIdn't he also hide behind the name Dave for a short time? How about it James --- or do you remember all your fake names? (I can hardly wait to read your CV.) Referring to James' snippy reply, and from a precise and medical standpoint, is a genetic disease the same thing as a heritable defect? Steven Dapra At 05:54 PM 7/2/08 -0500, garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote: >Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I >too had a >pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. > >You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you >would technically be >right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in >previous messages >reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several >people have hinted to >you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your >cause. You would do >well to pay more attention to those messages. > >However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to >ignore me and stick >with that if you want. > >-Gary Isenhower > > >On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: > >[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] > >John Jacobus wrote: > > > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. > >That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. > >James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 20:43:19 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:43:19 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Message-ID: Thank you for writing, Gary, > your usage of the term ["Teratogenesis"? "Teratogens"?] in previous > messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble. We saw how studies in 1952 and 1953 showed that a single acute dose of a uranyl compound is a reproductive toxin. I believe that you have congratulated him in multiple messages up to his admission that he was in the wrong. Why would anyone approve of his position? However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. > Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a > teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity? --- forwarded message --- [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 3 00:54:56 CEST 2008 Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I too had a pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you would technically be right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in previous messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. You would do well to pay more attention to those messages. However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to ignore me and stick with that if you want. -Gary Isenhower On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 21:37:40 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:37:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a701c8dcb5$c3da15e0$4b8e41a0$@rr.com> << Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. >> I thought Doug Rokke had that honor. (:-) Bob C -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:43 PM To: garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Thank you for writing, Gary, > your usage of the term ["Teratogenesis"? "Teratogens"?] in previous > messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble. We saw how studies in 1952 and 1953 showed that a single acute dose of a uranyl compound is a reproductive toxin. I believe that you have congratulated him in multiple messages up to his admission that he was in the wrong. Why would anyone approve of his position? However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. > Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a > teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity? --- forwarded message --- [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 3 00:54:56 CEST 2008 Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I too had a pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you would technically be right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in previous messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. You would do well to pay more attention to those messages. However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to ignore me and stick with that if you want. -Gary Isenhower On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 00:15:19 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:15:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702231109.009f0ba0@mail.swcp.com> July 2 (Some portions of Salsman's message have been omitted.) James Salsman wrote: ?What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble.? Steven Dapra's comment: Most of this is false. I did not hold out for ?years? about uranyl teratogenicity. When JS and I were disputing about DU in March of 2006, we were not talking about the teratogenicity. I was showing that JS?s quotes of eight papers on DU were quotes that had been manipulated in some way. Earlier this year JS dragged out the teratogenicity of DU. Technically, I was wrong. DU is teratogenic in laboratory mice and rats. Whether or not these results can be applied to humans is at best debatable. I don?t think I ?tried to suggest? that uranyl acetate was different from uranyl oxide. I merely asked the question. James Salsman wrote: ?However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second mostt difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic.? SD's comment: Who cares how difficult it was to obtain this paper? What is ?suburb? information? James Salsman wrote: ?Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity?? SD's comment: Singling out a few of JS's comments: ?I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force.? SD's comment: This sounds somewhat on the self-serving side to me. ?Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years.? SD's comment: I rather doubt that potential recruits are asking recruiting sergeants about reproductive health ?issues.? My guess is that the armed services and the soldiers want their weapons to work ?off the battlefield.? What good is a rifle, machine gun, or tank that only works on the battlefield? Pretty hard to do any target shooting when your rifle only works when the user is shooting at the enemy. Cite the so-called international laws that you are invoking here. Here is the abstract to the Miller and McClain paper that JS found it to difficult to obtain. Note the qualifier ?suggest the possibility.? For those who want to take the time, if you look up the work ?controversy? you will find that that everything is controversial. Hence, the word doesn?t mean much of anything. ?The use of depleted uranium in armor-penetrating munitions remains a source of controversy because of the numerous unanswered questions about its long-term health effects. Although no conclusive epidemiologic data have correlated DU exposure to specific health effects, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. Until issues of concern are resolved with further research, the use of depleted uranium by the military will continue to be controversial.? Link and citation: Rev Environ Health. 2007 Jan-Mar;22(1):75-89. Miller, Alexandra and McClain, David. Steven Dapra Interesting aside: Reviews on Environmental Health is published by Freund Publishing House Ltd which is located in Tel Aviv. This is from its web site: ?Freund Publishing House Ltd was founded in 1970 in Tel Aviv, Israel by H.E. Freund. The company is now the largest international publisher of technical and scientific material in Israel. ?Since its inception, Freund Publishing House Ltd has continued to abide by its commitment to customer service and support. ?We publish books and journals on Chemistry, Materials Science and Engineering, Genetics, Endocrinology, Orthopedics, Neuroscience, Psychology, Sociology, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Environment Health, Mathematics, and Education. Also, Children's Books, Judaism, and the Holocaust, as well as Computerized education aids and games in science. Also: Co-publishing, Co-production, Cooperative distribution for new books and journals; and Translation, editing and printing services.? ----- END ----- From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 01:09:28 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:09:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. Dan, How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be rectified. James Salsman From radbloom at comcast.net Thu Jul 3 05:39:02 2008 From: radbloom at comcast.net (Cindy Bloom) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:39:02 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702231109.009f0ba0@mail.swcp.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20080703063234.037b4b58@mail.comcast.net> Although I know it's a bit off this note's point, I can't help but think that any finding of teratogenicity (or other effect) is linked to some minimal dose in mice and rats, which has yet to be related to the range of uranium doses occurring in humans. Cindy At 11:15 PM 7/2/2008 -0600, Steven Dapra wrote: >July 2 > > (Some portions of Salsman's message have been omitted.) > >James Salsman wrote: > >"What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of >teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for >years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally >admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that >uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion >products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble." > >Steven Dapra's comment: > > Most of this is false. I did not hold out for "years" about > uranyl teratogenicity. When JS and I were disputing about DU in March of > 2006, we were not talking about the teratogenicity. I was showing that > JS's quotes of eight papers on DU were quotes that had been manipulated > in some way. Earlier this year JS dragged out the teratogenicity of > DU. Technically, I was wrong. DU is teratogenic in laboratory mice and > rats. Whether or not these results can be applied to humans is at best > debatable. I don't think I "tried to suggest" that uranyl acetate was > different from uranyl oxide. I merely asked the question. <> From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jul 3 09:25:12 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:25:12 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> James; It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. Thanks and regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. Dan, How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be rectified. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jul 3 09:35:56 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:35:56 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002d01c8dd1a$3922a880$ab67f980$@oilfield.slb.com> James: 1) I am happy that you have obtained a copy of the Miller and McClain paper, that you state contains superb information. Does any of it support your position/ would you be willing to share this with us? 2) You state you were born on an army base. Would you care to elaborate, with the name of the base and in what position your family resided there? I believe you have stated that you were brought up in the Religious Society of Friends, who are by belief pacifists. I therefore assume that if a member of your family was in the army, it was in a non-combat position? Regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman ........ However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. ....... I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 10:28:50 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:28:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> <> James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain James; It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. Thanks and regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. Dan, How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be rectified. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From RodgersJ at Theragenics.com Thu Jul 3 10:36:02 2008 From: RodgersJ at Theragenics.com (Joe Rodgers) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:36:02 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Position Opening Message-ID: Please respond to Karen Pfeifer at pfeiferk at theragenics.com Theragenics Corporation Position Title: Director of Health Physics / Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) Supervisor: Director of Quality Systems & Regulatory Affairs, Dotted Line Reporting to the Chief Executive Officer Primary Contact: Karen Pfeifer, 5203 Bristol Industrial Way, Buford, GA 30518. 770-831-4187 or pfeiferk at theragenics.com. Primary Function: Directs the Corporation's radiation safety program for all personnel, products, and facilities. Serves as the designated Radiation Safety Officer on the Corporation's radioactive material licenses, and is responsible for compliance with the provisions of these licenses and state and federal laws pertaining to the use and shipment of radioactive materials. Serves as the Corporation's primary point of contact and communication with appropriate regulatory agencies. Prepares and submits all amendments, applications, and other required documents and reports related to licenses and sealed source certificates. Identifies potential areas of non-compliance and reports these issues along with corrective actions to the Radiation Safety Committee and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. Identifies and mitigates safety risks through application of ALARA principles. Leads and directs the Health Physics function, including the hiring and development of a competent staff, design and implementation of short- and long-term plans and objectives, implementation of corrective actions to ensure compliance, monitoring of outcomes, and achieving desired results. Develops procedures, systems, and programs required to ensure safe and effective operations. Supports the Radiation Physics function by providing technical oversight of the development of source characterization, and safe practices for sealed sources in development, as well as support of the R&D efforts as requested. Position Duties: 1. Directs the general surveillance over all activities involving radioactive material, including routine monitoring and special surveys of all areas in which radioactive material is used or in which sources of ionizing radiation are present. 2. Determines compliance with rules and regulations, license conditions, and procedures as approved by the Radiation Safety Committee. Such compliance shall ensure completion of safety evaluations of proposed uses of radioactive material that take into consideration such matters as the adequacy of facilities and equipment, the training and experience of the user, and the operating or handling procedures. 3. Directs and reviews the inventory of radioactive sources and materials 4. Directs and reviews survey records 5. Directs the evaluation of user training and work practices 6. Evaluates compliance with the RSC permit and safety manual requirements. 7. Maintains detailed knowledge of the radiation safety systems in all facilities (tanks, HEPAs, alarms, shielding, hot cells, etc.) 8. Furnishes internal consulting services in all aspects of radiation protection to personnel at all levels of responsibility. 9. Directs the receiving, delivering, and inspection of all shipments of radioactive material arriving at the site as well as packaging and shipping all radioactive material leaving the site. 10. Directs the distributing of personnel monitoring equipment, determining the need for and evaluation of bioassays, keeping personnel exposure and bioassay records, and notifying individuals and their supervisors of exposures approaching maximum permissible amounts and recommending appropriate remedial action. 11. Directs the conducting of training programs and otherwise instructing personnel in the proper procedures for the use of radioactive material prior to use, at periodic intervals (refresher training), and as required by changes in procedures, equipment, and regulations. 12. Maintains surveillance over the radioactive waste disposal program and keeping waste storage and disposal records. 13. Maintains surveillance over the storing of all radioactive materials not in current use, including wastes. 14. Maintains the performance of required leak tests on all sealed sources. 15. Maintains surveillance over the inventory of all radioisotopes in the Corporation's possession and limiting the quantity of radionuclides to the amounts authorized by the license. 16. Takes timely actions to address any activity found to be a threat to health or property. 17. Notifies the Chairman, Radiation Protection Committee and/or the CEO of Theragenics Corporation, and the Radioactive Materials Unit of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources of any unsafe radiation hazards or serious infraction of the rules or regulations. 18. Maintains other records as may be required. 19. Interfaces with radiation regulatory bodies regarding audits, inspections, license applications, amendments, and renewals; sealed source certifications and amendments, and other matters. 20. Directs the Company ALARA program. 21. Performs audits of radiation protection programs to determine areas of noncompliance with SOPs and regulatory requirements. Implements corrections to identified problems. 22. Directs the counting of samples with the germanium counting system to determine the quantities of radioisotopes in the samples. Maintains a quality control system to ensure accurate results. Interprets the results to ensure accuracy. 23. Directs the security system established for the gamma sterilizer, including attaining clearances required. Incumbents must submit to and successfully pass the comprehensive criminal history and background checks required to direct the system. Ensures compliance of this system with applicable regulations. Education and Experience: Requires a masters degree in Health Physics, Nuclear Engineering, or related field. Requires ten or more years experience in radiation operations or related functions. Certified Health Physicist, Board Certified Radiological Physicist, and/or Professional Engineer Designations or equivalent training, experience, and education are desirable. Skills: Must have proven leadership or supervisory skills. Must be able to wear PPE, personal dosimeter, and respirator. Must also possess the following skills: 1. Communication, both written and verbal 2. Company, community and professional leadership 3. Management (project, personnel, development) 4. Integration of diverse functions (achieve safety in economic manner) 5. Technical (radiation safety, health physics, shielding) 6. Regulatory (licenses preparation, compliance, procedure) 7. Design management (Q.A., design process development, specifications, etc.) 8. Analysis of radiation effects and radiation related processes Confidentiality: Requires access to company intellectual property to verify design compliance with regulatory radiation safety requirements. Interfaces with NRC, Non-Agreement States, Licensing States, the State of Georgia, and foreign regulatory bodies regarding compliance with licenses, sealed source registrations, or other issues. Establishes licenses to 1) operate radiation producing facilities, 2) to manufacture and distribute sealed sources, 3) to possess radiation, 4) to ship, transport and receive radiation, and 5) to perform related R&D, with domestic (state and NRC) and international/foreign regulatory bodies. Joseph J. Rodgers, M.S. Director of Radiation Physics 770-831-4181 (direct) 770-560-3172 (cell) 770-831-4369 (fax) www.theragenics.com From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 10:50:30 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:50:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: personal note Message-ID: <005a01c8dd24$863dd720$92b98560$@com> Dear James: You never answered my question about the San Luis Valley (SLV) analog. Dan ii -----Original Message----- From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:17 PM To: 'radsafelist' Subject: RE: personal note Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com Dear James: I apologize if you feel that my last comment amounted to an ad hominem attack. Please accept my apologies if you have felt slighted by my comments. I do hope that someday that you will complete your degree and add a host of peer-reviewed publications to your CV. I am keenly aware of your obsession with DU, and also your lack of response to the San Luis Valley (SLV) Analog. Analogs are the basis for comparison and form one of the bases of FEPs (Features, Events & Processes) used to assess among other things, nuclear waste repositories. Analogs also provide a typology for mineral deposits, and provide a formalized recognition criteria for exploration. <> Funny, I thought that the purpose of the RadSafe community was to do exactly that! But placing the source term in contact with a human receptor in the critical group through a multi-pathway mechanism sometimes requires a little more than a "medical" opinion, sometimes (Dear Lord!) it requires a geologist, geochemist and hydrologist who can place relationships and timing around "reasonable" dose estimates. Who complained about geologists, hydrologists and their ilk and Yucca Mountain? Steve, was that you? Don't be shy! <> Is this an attempt to "Bait and Switch?" I try to "fool" no one. There are two aquifers in the SLV: 1) a pressurized flowing, artesian aquifer, and 2) An unconfined surficial aquifer. The pressurized artesian aquifer hosts the uranium targets. These are regional redox fronts located at the change in the depositional environment from braded fluvial / fan to reducing lacustrine through which lots of uranium-bearing water has passed for a long time creating the uranium feature. Anthropogene events, notably the drilling of the first artesian well in the 1880s led to the massive development of the aquifer for agriculture by 1910. Drilling in the vicinity of the redox front allows oxidizing waters to flow across the redox front mobilizing uranium. It's the same idea as in situ leach (ISL) uranium mining. Over the past 100 years, the unconfined, surficial aquifer has become very brackish due to high rates of evapotranspiration and brackish recharge. It is no longer usable as a source of agricultural, livestock or domestic water. The pressurized, artesian SLV water is still used as drinking water. The fact is that once DU or any uranium becomes uranyl, it will begin to percolate downward in the soil column via rainwater, be adsorbed, desorbed, mineralized and demineralized until it reaches equilibrium conditions with the soil, or enters groundwater and no longer be available for runoff. I find it quite significant that in the SLV Analog, groundwater alone accounts for 9X to 18X times the annual flux (per unit area) of uranium entering the soil column when compared to the total in the Iraqi theater, 90X-180X the amount over 10 years, and 900X to 1800X the amount since full irrigation was achieved in the SLV as described by Siebenthal (1910). Siebenthal also identified the redox target (methanogenic / oxidizing) and alteration fronts for my uranium feature that seems to have eluded present day USGS personnel. I'm sure that if uranium had been known in 1910, he would have reported it as well. Ref: Siebenthal, C.E., 1910, Geology and water resources of the San Luis Valley, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 240, 128 p. Once uranium is in groundwater, it will take decades to move a significant distance, and the same processes which occur in soils will be present in the rock media. If the uranium encounters oxidizing conditions, it will be mobile in the absence of vanadium; if it encounters reducing conditions it will precipitate and become mineralized. I remember years ago in Grand Junction I left several hand samples (1 kg each) of organic-rich mixed uraninite & coffinite ores out by the walkway in front of the house. When I returned from the field two weeks later, a significant amount of uranium had oxidized and percolated 10-15 cm down into the soil column based on the clearly observed bright autunite / schoepite secondary color halo underneath the samples. The afternoon thunderstorms had provided enough moisture to complex with and mobilize the oxidized phases. After that, I bagged and canned my field samples in a sealed plastic paint bucket outside. I was quite impressed with the kinetics of the reactions. So, in a desert environment, the normal direction of solute transport in a soil is Down! Down! Down! Lickity-Split! ? la vitesse de la lumi?re! Wie schnell als m?glich! Regarding rainfall-runoff: Years ago I reviewed rainfall-runoff data for the Purgatoire River drainage in SE Colorado for estimating flood frequency and magnitude. The monitoring stations recorded volume of water in the drainages as well as specific conductivity, a measure of the ionic strength of the water. Classically, one would expect a pure dilution effect with rainfall-runoff, but there is one exception: caliche-forming soils with perched aquifers on top of impermeable black shales or limestones where water-soluble minerals (CaSO4-2H2O) were stripped from the surface of the soil and carried into the drainage in the initial runoff. A brief increase in Specific Conductivity could be observed in the data at the beginning of runoff. This is the exception to the rule. Initially, rainfall results in absorption by the soil (e.g. montmorillonite-type selling clays), downward percolation through the soil column until the soil becomes saturated, at which time additional rainfall becomes runoff. In steady state, soil can recharge only a certain amount per unit time of water depending on the hydrologic characteristics of the soil; beyond that runoff occurs. Once stripped of soluble materials, further runoff behaves as pure dilution. One other case: a permeable sandstone will form caliches when saturated to close to the surface. Remember that if the upper capillary fringe extends vertically into the upper soil zone, that portion heated by the sun (upper 5-10 cm), evaporative pumping will commence concentrating very large quantities of dissolved solids on the soil surface. Flood irrigation of a portion of the SLV was engineered this way in the 1910s and 1920s causing many square kilometers of surface to build up Na+CaSO4 caliches making those areas unusable for agriculture. Springs in desert climates sometimes build a rind of caliche around the perimeter of the spring. Reservoirs: There is a lot of chemistry going on in lakes and much depends on the nature of the lake. Is the lake itself is holomictic or meromictic, and if there is a chemocline in the lake? The oil shales in the Piceance basin were formed in a large, arid, salty meromictic lake with a strong redox & briny chemocline that precipitated uranium within the water column, at the interface with the highly methanogenic, reducing water in the lower portion of the lake. The sediments were punctuated by periodic limnic eruptions. In holomictic lakes, the sediments at the bottom of the lake are usually reducing and fixate uranium circulated in the oxidizing waters. Circulation occurs because of wind and coriolis forces causing counter-clockwise circulation in most lakes in the northern hemisphere. Vertical circulation are generally from changes in temperature at the surface of the lake. No one has provided numbers for water concentrations of uranium in Iraqi Lakes or water supplies that I have seen. Generally, surface waters, including lakes, have very low uranium concentrations. James, I strictly question your objectivity. The fact that you do not seem to doubt your own premises and remained focused on a "one cause fits all" mindset is prima fascia evidence that you lack objectivity. I will not elaborate on the formalized psychological issues and motivations related to this. D. Harris (1984), "Mineral Resources Appraisal", Chapter 14, formally discusses some of these psychological issues such as: 1) Limitations of evaluation and how effectively can the mind integrate and resolve complex uncertainties. 2) Bounded intelligence - whether we can make rational decisions with spatially limited and complex data; 3) Heuristics and biases - focused on representativeness, availability of data, and anchoring & adjustment. Anchoring & adjustment is basically how much can a person "dumb something down" to ease strain on memory, or "anchor" on what seems "representative". If you have never faced a formal verbal defense or tiered formal elicitation then it can be a daunting challenge. The major oil & gas and minerals companies require a multi-tiered formal process to assess potential projects for validity, representiveness, cost, risk and benefit. The process makes a doctoral defense look like a walk in the park. But, as regards "explaining away" issues: I merely present another viewpoint from a silent society. Sylvia's voice, as represented by her bitter letters spanning over 20 years, was one of the very few that I heard from southern Iraq during the dark days spanning the Iran-Iraq War and the First Gulf War, and up to present. Since they were written in a journal form, signed & dated, they bear first-hand witness to the dire events that occurred during that dark period. No amount of "rewriting history" can erase those expressions of reality in a such a hostile, closed society. Dan ii -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 4:45 PM To: Dan W McCarn Subject: personal note Dan, Do you think you are fooling me by measuring agricultural uptake bioavailability without runoff-sourced drinking water reservoirs? Do you think I am responsible for what Fathallah wrote? There medical reports on the same conditions and observations. Your attempt to explain away the problem using malnutrition failed. I have spent thousands of hours researching the situation, and I am convinced that there is no alternative hypotheses explaining the birth defects in Iraqi civilians, U.S., and U.K. troops forthcoming. Again, if you have an issue with Fathallah, then again, you should be trying to contact him. Does the subject matter of my schooling (math) bear on your ability to answer these questions, or were you asking after my degree because your inability to answer the questions I have posed embarrassed you, and you wish to join Steve Dapra in personal attacks? Do you think such retorical tactics make the readers more or less convinced of your position? Do you think they make me more or less interested in withdrawing from the topic? I have discussed this matter with medical experts, and I can put you in touch with them if you like. James Salsman From efforrer at aol.com Thu Jul 3 10:51:53 2008 From: efforrer at aol.com (efforrer at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:51:53 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" In-Reply-To: <200807031058.58e486ce8f996@rly-df11.mx.aol.com> References: <200807031058.58e486ce8f996@rly-df11.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CAAB3BD90410FA-5F8-12E8@webmail-nc16.sysops.aol.com> OK who ever wrote this article obviously has no clue as to what is Class A, B, And C waste. Half-life has nothing to do with the classification. The waste is characterized by where it originated. H-3 and C-14 will still have plenty of activity left after 100 years. If done properly this idea may not be entirely without merit. While at the Texas BRC I oversaw a soil mixing project that had a lot of promise for releasing former uranium in-situ mining operations. The theory was sound but unfortunately the operators execution made a mess of things. Gene Forrer From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 3 11:08:50 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:08:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <002d01c8dd1a$3922a880$ab67f980$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <002d01c8dd1a$3922a880$ab67f980$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <002d01c8dd27$151cef60$3f56ce20$@rr.com> The Navy and Air Force have bases. The Army has posts. Bob C -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:36 AM To: 'James Salsman'; garyi at trinityphysics.com; 'radsafelist' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis James: 1) I am happy that you have obtained a copy of the Miller and McClain paper, that you state contains superb information. Does any of it support your position/ would you be willing to share this with us? 2) You state you were born on an army base. Would you care to elaborate, with the name of the base and in what position your family resided there? I believe you have stated that you were brought up in the Religious Society of Friends, who are by belief pacifists. I therefore assume that if a member of your family was in the army, it was in a non-combat position? Regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman ........ However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. ....... I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu Jul 3 11:37:49 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:37:49 +0200 Subject: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DE923@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> ________________________________ Von: Facius, Rainer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 11:41 An: Johnston, Thomas; Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine Thank you, Thomas, for his pointer. Given the fact that this lady, Ursula Sautter, writes from Germany, a European stronghold of radiophobia, this article is remarkable indeed. I can only speculate how many German news papers have turned down her attempts to publish it here. The closing 'cautionary' comment of Dave Eaton, director of the Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of Washington in Seattle merits special advertisement as a masterpiece of scientific reasoning: "For example, low levels of DNA damage may well activate certain DNA repair pathways that increase the extent and possibly the efficiency of DNA repair. But it is still possible that some of the low-level DNA damage escapes repair and is ultimately detrimental. Thus I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without potential harm." In other words (in view of the article's message) he appears to concede: We have no empirical evidence that exposure (of healthy people) to (low LET) ionizing radiation up to say 200 mSv acute (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) and to about 500 mSv chronic irradiation (epidemiological studies) are detrimental to human health. To the contrary, we have empirical evidence to the opposite from controlled laboratory work on cells and animals as well as from observations in human populations - bolstered by mounting insight into genetic/molecular control mechanisms which in turn can be successfully described by quantitative models. But - notwithstanding such knowledge: " ... I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without potential harm." This counterfactual 'assuming' is prudent carefulness indeed - but only in a world where there IS a free lunch, i.e., the world of (some) politicians and (some of) their regulators which never pay the bill for their decrees (all of them). The people ruled by such philanthropism pay the prize. Given that escalating costs of energy production will reduce its use, an example would be reduced lifespan. Global studies have shown positive association between lifespan and per capita energy supply. (Unfortunately I can not spot the reference for this paper (in the 1990s) but hopefully someone can add this.) 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 Johnston, Thomas Gesendet: Di 01.07.2008 18:48 An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have beneficial effects at very low doses. By Ursula Sautter http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ Tom _______________________________________________ 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/ From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Thu Jul 3 12:10:26 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:10:26 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste may eliminate the danger " Message-ID: <070320081710.27009.486D08020009FE01000069812216549976B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Only LNT (flat earth) believers can support, "Only time, and we're talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign." (below). Indeed, the solution to pollution may be dilution. "A+B+C=A" is not proposed, as I understand it. First, consider landfill of domestic trash. When large amounts of dirt or cement waste from construction is mixed with vegetable matter waste, the mix makes better topsoil immediately, than either alone. Next, consider radiation waste (which could be better described by most of you than by me). Does dilution make a damaging dose of radiation unlikely, (with unauthorized digging)? That depends on acceptance of hormesis - possible benefit, rather than teratogenesis or cancerfrom the smaller dose. Sell hormesis, to get more nuclear power! Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Jaro" > Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 > Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger > Tribune Editorial > Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT > > > Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical > mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and > Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose of > their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal Nuclear > Regulatory Commission last week. > Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen > at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each category > to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open the > door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste > landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the more > dangerous waste classifications. > The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of > mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only > way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. > Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how you > mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. The > Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the > Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're > talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. > Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's > proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing > more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the Legislature > has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after 100 > years. > Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining > Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power > industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the > radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven private > company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. > Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a > national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, > nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that > produce them. > Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation very > closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to rewrite > the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite > the law to ban blended waste from the state. > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 3 13:05:20 2008 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:05:20 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <200807031814.m63IEh2t013870@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> >July 3, 2008 If the Yucca mountain "repository" is supposed to be a radioactive waste disposal site for used fuel rods, it is not a good idea. We will need to recycle nuclear fuel in those used fuel rods (as the French do now) for the nuclear power plants of the future that will power our nation. Also, the radioactive waste volume and half-life will both be reduced when we recycle nuclear fuel. 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 *********************************************** From Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Thu Jul 3 13:25:46 2008 From: Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:25:46 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" Message-ID: <486CE16B.1E3F.005A.0@dnr.state.ga.us> Gene et al. Actually, the classifications for low-level radioactive waste are concentration-based ... the regulations can be found in 10 CFR 61.55 (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part061/part061-0055.html) For a given radionuclide (yes, even C-14), waste can be Class A, Class C or even "greater than Class C" (GTCC) simply based on the concentration of the radionuclide in curies per cubic meter. I agree that whoever wrote the article doesn't know anything about radioactive waste, and doesn't understand how the classification system works. Jim Hardeman jim.hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> 7/3/2008 11:51 >>> OK who ever wrote this article obviously has no clue as to what is Class A, B, And C waste. Half-life has nothing to do with the classification. The waste is characterized by where it originated. H-3 and C-14 will still have plenty of activity left after 100 years. If done properly this idea may not be entirely without merit. While at the Texas BRC I oversaw a soil mixing project that had a lot of promise for releasing former uranium in-situ mining operations. The theory was sound but unfortunately the operators execution made a mess of things. Gene Forrer From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jul 3 13:47:59 2008 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (Jerry Cohen) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:47:59 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is? Why is radwaste classified according to its concentration? The whole thing makes no sense to me---but then I suppose one needs to be a bureaucrat or politician to understand the "logic" behind it all. Jerry Cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaro" To: "RADSAFE" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " > Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 > Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger > Tribune Editorial > Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT > > > Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical > mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and > Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose > of > their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal > Nuclear > Regulatory Commission last week. > Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen > at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each > category > to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open > the > door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste > landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the > more > dangerous waste classifications. > The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of > mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only > way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. > Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how > you > mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. > The > Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the > Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're > talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. > Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's > proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing > more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the > Legislature > has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after > 100 > years. > Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining > Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power > industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the > radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven > private > company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. > Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a > national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, > nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that > produce them. > Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation > very > closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to > rewrite > the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite > the law to ban blended waste from the state. > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 13:58:50 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:58:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: Dan, You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think both are very important, so I am asking you: What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? Thank you for your help. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > <> > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM > To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > James; > It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. > > Thanks and regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM > To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing > teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of > removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, > general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating > the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying > only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in > any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > > Dan, > > How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" > holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent > water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be > rectified. > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:10:51 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:10:51 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: People have been asking about my background. Both of my parents devoted their lives to educating the children of U.S. officers stationed abroad, in the Defense Dependants' School system. They stand is stark contrast to those such as Dr. Cherry and Dr. Johnson, who have taken millions of taxpayer dollars and omitted mention of multiple long-known health issues with uranium in their reports saying depleted uranium munitions are safe. They follow in the crooked footsteps of Ron Kathren, long a leader in the Health Physics Society, who has always omitted mention of reproductive toxicity in his works on acute uranium toxicity, even though reproductive toxicity has been known to be an effect of a single acute exposure since the 1953 work of Maynard et al. Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth, increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors in nude mice. "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice developed leukemia. "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups. "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure. "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.) "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate the twitch response of ... muscles. "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure. Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased rapidly after injection and remained elevated.... "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well. "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:48:34 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:48:34 -0700 Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" Message-ID: Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jul 3 16:43:41 2008 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (Jerry Cohen) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:43:41 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave, I agree with your assessment and have always thought the NRC LLW rules were nonsense. OTOH, if the NRC rulings were to make technological sense, they would likely be politically unacceptable. Jerry Cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Blaine" To: ; "radsafelist" Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" > Dear Dr. Cohen, > > I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of > concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its > potential danger, then what is?" > > The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to > Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one > million times worse for U238. > > Do you agree with that assessment? > > James Salsman From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 3 17:05:24 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:05:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACC@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> I assume that the author of this editorial also feels that all of Utah should be dug up and processed to remove all NORM for disposal, as it is as dangerous in its current dilute as it would be when concentrated. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jaro Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:01 PM To: RADSAFE Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger Tribune Editorial Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose of their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week. Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each category to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open the door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the more dangerous waste classifications. The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how you mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. The Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the Legislature has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after 100 years. Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven private company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that produce them. Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation very closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to rewrite the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite the law to ban blended waste from the state. ================================================== _______________________________________________ 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 17:08:39 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:08:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <008a01c8dd59$5a18ed30$0e4ac790$@com> Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:59 PM To: Dan W McCarn Cc: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think both are very important, so I am asking you: What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? Thank you for your help. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > <> > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM > To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > James; > It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. > > Thanks and regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM > To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing > teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of > removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, > general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating > the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying > only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in > any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > > Dan, > > How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" > holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent > water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be > rectified. > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 3 17:26:44 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " Message-ID: <95378.58730.qm@web80807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> While the radionuclide concentrations in radioactive waste are an important factor in its hazard, they are not the only consideration.? A major concern is the potential for causing human radiation exposure.? For blended waste with heterogeneous concentrations, there is a concern that, while the average concentration is Class A, someone will be exposed to part of the waste that is Class C.? I recommend reviewing the NRC's "Branch Technical Position On Concentration Averaging And Encapsulation."? Here's a link for this document:? http://rockyflats.apps.em.doe.gov/references/101-NRC%20Branch%20Tech%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Conc%20Avg.pdf Bill Lipton It's not about dose, it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jerry Cohen To: Jaro ; RADSAFE Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 2:47:59 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " If? the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is? Why is radwaste classified? according to its concentration? The whole thing makes no sense to me---but then I suppose one needs to be a bureaucrat or politician to understand the "logic" behind it all. Jerry Cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaro" To: "RADSAFE" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " > Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 > Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger > Tribune Editorial > Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT > > > Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical > mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and > Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose > of > their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal > Nuclear > Regulatory Commission last week. >? ? Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen > at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each > category > to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open > the > door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste > landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the > more > dangerous waste classifications. >? ? The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of > mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only > way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. >? ? Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how > you > mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. > The > Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the > Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're > talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. >? ? Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's > proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing > more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the > Legislature > has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after > 100 > years. >? ? Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining > Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power > industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the > radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven > private > company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. >? ? Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a > national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, > nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that > produce them. >? ? Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation > very > closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to > rewrite > the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite > the law to ban blended waste from the state. > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 3 17:32:15 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:32:15 -0700 Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACD@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Personally, I've always thought that the designation "mixed waste" was among the dumbest ideas foisted on the public (and there is stiff competition). It absorbs resources (money) without giving improved safety to anyone. If the main hazard of a material is it radiological properties, then that should drive the way it is handled. If the main hazard is its toxic hazard, then that should drive its handling. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:49 PM To: radsafelist Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 17:33:02 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:33:02 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Dan, Thank you for your question: > Again, what connection do you bring between > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around everywhere and that can not be good for containment. What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? James Salsman From rad_sci_health at comcast.net Thu Jul 3 17:41:29 2008 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Jim Muckerheide) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:41:29 -0400 Subject: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DE923@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: Dear Rainer et al. The "1993" reference about Misasa is likely the book: "HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION" By Sohei Kondo Kondo reports on the data from a 1992 paper, which is referred to by Sadao Hattori at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4Hattori94.html Kondo provides the tables of the data from all the cancer sites, and the "all cancers" data that is presented in this "Figure 4." There is a subsequent paper by an different group, Suzuki et al., in 1994. See the abstract at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4%20Suzuki94.html The Sobue/Ye et al. group made a later conference presentation in 1997, pub'd again in 1998 in the Jpn J Cancer Res; and a later case-control study in 2000 in the J Radiat Res (Tokyo). All of these can be linked from: http://www.radscihealth.org:9000/rsh/dd3/searchResult2.jsp?keyword4=2.1.2.1. 1.4+Japan (which is also: http://tinyurl.com/5kwhcc ) The full text/pdf of this 2000 paper is open and can be linked from the PubMed abstract. Regards, Jim Muckerheide =========================== on 7/3/08 12:37 PM, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de at Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote: > ________________________________ > > Von: Facius, Rainer > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 11:41 > An: Johnston, Thomas; Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers > listserve > Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different > perspective - ODEMagazine > > Thank you, Thomas, for his pointer. > > Given the fact that this lady, Ursula Sautter, writes from Germany, a > European stronghold of radiophobia, this article is remarkable indeed. I > can only speculate how many German news papers have turned down her > attempts to publish it here. > > The closing 'cautionary' comment of Dave Eaton, director of the Center > for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of Washington > in Seattle merits special advertisement as a masterpiece of scientific > reasoning: > > "For example, low levels of DNA damage may well activate certain DNA > repair pathways that increase the extent and possibly the efficiency of > DNA repair. But it is still possible that some of the low-level DNA > damage escapes repair and is ultimately detrimental. Thus I don't think > one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without potential > harm." > > In other words (in view of the article's message) he appears to concede: > We have no empirical evidence that exposure (of healthy people) to (low > LET) ionizing radiation up to say 200 mSv acute (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) and > to about 500 mSv chronic irradiation (epidemiological studies) are > detrimental to human health. To the contrary, we have empirical evidence > to the opposite from controlled laboratory work on cells and animals as > well as from observations in human populations - bolstered by mounting > insight into genetic/molecular control mechanisms which in turn can be > successfully described by quantitative models. But - notwithstanding > such knowledge: > > " ... I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are > without potential harm." > > This counterfactual 'assuming' is prudent carefulness indeed - but only > in a world where there IS a free lunch, i.e., the world of (some) > politicians and (some of) their regulators which never pay the bill for > their decrees (all of them). The people ruled by such philanthropism pay > the prize. Given that escalating costs of energy production will reduce > its use, an example would be reduced lifespan. Global studies have shown > positive association between lifespan and per capita energy supply. > (Unfortunately I can not spot the reference for this paper (in the > 1990s) but hopefully someone can add this.) > > 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 Johnston, Thomas > Gesendet: Di 01.07.2008 18:48 > An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - > ODEMagazine > > Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group > and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The > magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." > > "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have > beneficial effects at very low doses. > > By Ursula Sautter > > http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ > > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 17:53:47 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:53:47 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ec2f9380807031553k488d7e5r9db84e693b2bd5bb@mail.gmail.com> Again, your assumptions make no sence to me. What assumptions have you made about At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage that could be affected by weather? What do you mean by "load"? Dan ii On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Dan, > > Thank you for your question: > > > Again, what connection do you bring between > > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? > > Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, > leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the > facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling > around everywhere and that can not be good for > containment. > > What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the > storage facilities? > > James Salsman > -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 3 18:53:39 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:39 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACE@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James, this makes no sense at all. Your first sentence has words in it, but they don't have meaning. I think I understand your question, and if you are asking about the current rate of U238 seeping out of spent fuel storage pools at nuclear reactor facilities in the United States, the answer is zero. If you can't figure out why that is, then you need to learn more about nuclear fuel, and holding pools. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:33 PM To: Dan W McCarn; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, Thank you for your question: > Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel > storage pools and weather? Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around everywhere and that can not be good for containment. What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From terryj at iit.edu Thu Jul 3 19:13:20 2008 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:13:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Hi James, What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the storage pools and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather events? Jeff On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Dan, > > Thank you for your question: > >> Again, what connection do you bring between >> at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? > > Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, > leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the > facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling > around everywhere and that can not be good for > containment. > > What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the > storage facilities? > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 19:26:47 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:26:47 -0500 Subject: FW: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: <00a901c8dd6c$a8000840$f80018c0$@com> FYI -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:00 PM To: Dan McCarn Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, I will try to list my assumptions when I think of them. "Load" means output power usage, in Ohms at a fixed voltage. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Dan McCarn wrote: > Again, your assumptions make no sence to me. What assumptions have you made > about At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage that could be affected by weather? What > do you mean by "load"? > > Dan ii > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: >> >> Dan, >> >> Thank you for your question: >> >> > Again, what connection do you bring between >> > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? >> >> Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >> leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >> around everywhere and that can not be good for >> containment. >> >> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >> storage facilities? >> >> James Salsman > > > > -- > Dan W. McCarn > Geologist > > Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 > Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 19:48:59 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:48:59 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> References: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Message-ID: Hey Jeff, I'm not sure of the total of all the different ways fuel storage containment can breach and how often it has been, which is why I've asked Dan. The problem is that the U238 standard was written before the scientists involved knew to care about things other than kidneys, which develop a tolerance to uranyl. It's only going to get harder for the government to find Ph.D.s who are willing to look the other way when it comes to five of the six aspects of uranium toxicity in vivo. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Terry wrote: > Hi James, > > What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the storage pools > and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather events? > > Jeff > > On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> Thank you for your question: >> >>> Again, what connection do you bring between >>> at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? >> >> Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >> leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >> around everywhere and that can not be good for >> containment. >> >> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >> storage facilities? >> >> James Salsman >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:23:50 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:23:50 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703192241.009fd0b0@mail.swcp.com> July 3 James, what are your academic credentials that allow you to spout off about this? Steven Dapra At 11:09 PM 7/2/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing >teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of >removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, >general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating >the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying >only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in >any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > >Dan, > >How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" >holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent >water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be >rectified. > >James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:30:21 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:30:21 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703192804.009f5be0@mail.swcp.com> July 3 James: Give us your CV. (That's curriculum vitae in case you don't already know.) Steven Dapra At 11:58 AM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Dan, > >You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a >geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think >both are very important, so I am asking you: > >What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and >radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the >ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? > >Thank you for your help. > >James Salsman > > >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > > < holding pools?>> > > > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > > > Dan ii > > > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:41:13 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:41:13 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703193054.009f5d80@mail.swcp.com> July 3 James: What is your CV? Knock it off with the self-serving stuff about your parents, and answer the question about where you were born. You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson; and on Ron Kathren. Don't you ever get tired of vilifying your opponents? Have you no sense of decency at long last? Yesterday you were moaning and groaning about me and uranyl acetate and uranyl oxide. You said I "tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, . . .." Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*. Steven Dapra At 01:10 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >People have been asking about my background. Both of my parents >devoted their lives to educating the children of U.S. officers >stationed abroad, in the Defense Dependants' School system. They >stand is stark contrast to those such as Dr. Cherry and Dr. Johnson, >who have taken millions of taxpayer dollars and omitted mention of >multiple long-known health issues with uranium in their reports saying >depleted uranium munitions are safe. They follow in the crooked >footsteps of Ron Kathren, long a leader in the Health Physics Society, >who has always omitted mention of reproductive toxicity in his works >on acute uranium toxicity, even though reproductive toxicity has been >known to be an effect of a single acute exposure since the 1953 work >of Maynard et al. > >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: > >"Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast >cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... [edt] From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:42:42 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:42:42 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703194150.009f6b50@mail.swcp.com> July 3 Yeah, there's a lot of floods and forest fires around power reactors. Steven Dapra At 03:33 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Dan, > >Thank you for your question: > > > Again, what connection do you bring between > > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? > >Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >around everywhere and that can not be good for >containment. > >What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >storage facilities? > >James Salsman From terryj at iit.edu Thu Jul 3 22:29:51 2008 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:29:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Message-ID: <397DD81A-1D51-4A16-A491-547BCD6419F8@iit.edu> Hi James, I don't see how your response pertains to my question, so I guess that I will take a shot at answering it myself. I would be very surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle. I would expect that weather events such as you describe would lead to the zero net leaks in spent fuel pools due to accidents with heavy vehicles. While Ph.D.s are in short supply, the world certainly suffers from an overabundance of crackpots. Jeff On Jul 3, 2008, at 7:48 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Hey Jeff, > > I'm not sure of the total of all the different ways fuel storage > containment can breach and how often it has been, which is why I've > asked Dan. > > The problem is that the U238 standard was written before the > scientists involved knew to care about things other than kidneys, > which develop a tolerance to uranyl. > > It's only going to get harder for the government to find Ph.D.s who > are willing to look the other way when it comes to five of the six > aspects of uranium toxicity in vivo. > > James Salsman > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Terry wrote: >> Hi James, >> >> What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the >> storage pools >> and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather >> events? >> >> Jeff >> >> On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: >> >>> Dan, >>> >>> Thank you for your question: >>> >>>> Again, what connection do you bring between >>>> at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? >>> >>> Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >>> leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >>> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >>> around everywhere and that can not be good for >>> containment. >>> >>> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >>> storage facilities? >>> >>> James Salsman >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 3 22:33:28 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" Message-ID: <153717.5028.qm@web80806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The EPA agrees with you.? See 40 CFR 266 Subpart N--CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR LOW-LEVEL MIXED WASTE STORAGE, TREATMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL. These conditional exemptions allow low level mixed waste to be managed as radioactive waste.? CAUTION:? If you generate mixed waste in a state with its own RCRA program, this provision must be adopted in state regulations before a conditional exemption can be claimed. Bill Lipton It's not about dose it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" To: radsafelist Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 6:32:15 PM Subject: RE: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" ...? If the main hazard of a material is it radiological properties, then that should drive the way it is handled.? If the main hazard is its toxic hazard, then that should drive its handling.? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:49 PM To: radsafelist Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential? danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse,? According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 02:08:04 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:08:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: Jeff Terry wrote: >.... I would be very > surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool > has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle. The cask- and rod assembly-related accidents that have happened almost all involve heavy vehicles or other large-frame conveyance. A lot of the casks are susceptible to attack because their exact specifications are a matter of public record. Steven Dapra wrote: > What is your CV? The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports of actual experiments and compare them to the official work product of people such as Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson after they scrubbed their reports clean of any mention of reproductive toxicity. How much of your taxes were used to call that pathetic exercise in censorship "science"? > Answer the question about where you were born. Why? I already did. I was born on an Army base (that is what the host country called it, as did everyone else when they weren't in parade dress.) What difference does it make to be any more specific than that? > You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson; > and on Ron Kathren. Does anyone endorse their position of omitting mention of reproductive toxicity or other non-kidney-related health effects in their reports on uranium toxicity? > Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper > and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*. What do you think the percentage difference in solubility would be between the oxide and the chloride of uranyl, as the percentage of each in solution after seven days in lung fluid? James Salsman From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jul 4 06:04:16 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:04:16 +0200 Subject: AW: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a differentperspective - ODEMagazine In-Reply-To: References: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DE923@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DEB20@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Dear Jim, thank you for these references demonstrating once more that -in the low dose regime - the opposite of the LNT postulate is more often observed than the postulated association - to put it cautiously. However, this was not the topic addressed by the reference I am straining my memory to recover it. I have in mind a scatter plot with the x-axis giving annual (electric) energy production/consumption in kWh per caput and the y-axis some measure of the health status of the citizens of a given country - say lifespan. The entries for (nearly) all of the world's countries scattered neatly around a strictly monotonic increasing (straight?) regression line with the poor or developing countries populating the low energy supply/low lifespan quadrant and the rich industrialized countries populating the high energy supply/high lifespan quadrant! Maybe I read this paper even in the 1980s. Perhaps someone else's memory is better. Thank you one more and kind 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Jim Muckerheide Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juli 2008 00:41 An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe Betreff: Re: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a differentperspective - ODEMagazine Dear Rainer et al. The "1993" reference about Misasa is likely the book: "HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION" By Sohei Kondo Kondo reports on the data from a 1992 paper, which is referred to by Sadao Hattori at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4Hattori94.html Kondo provides the tables of the data from all the cancer sites, and the "all cancers" data that is presented in this "Figure 4." There is a subsequent paper by an different group, Suzuki et al., in 1994. See the abstract at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4%20Suzuki94.html The Sobue/Ye et al. group made a later conference presentation in 1997, pub'd again in 1998 in the Jpn J Cancer Res; and a later case-control study in 2000 in the J Radiat Res (Tokyo). All of these can be linked from: http://www.radscihealth.org:9000/rsh/dd3/searchResult2.jsp?keyword4=2.1.2.1. 1.4+Japan (which is also: http://tinyurl.com/5kwhcc ) The full text/pdf of this 2000 paper is open and can be linked from the PubMed abstract. Regards, Jim Muckerheide =========================== on 7/3/08 12:37 PM, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de at Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote: > ________________________________ > > Von: Facius, Rainer > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 11:41 > An: Johnston, Thomas; Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers > listserve > Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different > perspective - ODEMagazine > > Thank you, Thomas, for his pointer. > > Given the fact that this lady, Ursula Sautter, writes from Germany, a > European stronghold of radiophobia, this article is remarkable indeed. > I can only speculate how many German news papers have turned down her > attempts to publish it here. > > The closing 'cautionary' comment of Dave Eaton, director of the Center > for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of > Washington in Seattle merits special advertisement as a masterpiece of > scientific > reasoning: > > "For example, low levels of DNA damage may well activate certain DNA > repair pathways that increase the extent and possibly the efficiency > of DNA repair. But it is still possible that some of the low-level DNA > damage escapes repair and is ultimately detrimental. Thus I don't > think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without > potential harm." > > In other words (in view of the article's message) he appears to concede: > We have no empirical evidence that exposure (of healthy people) to > (low > LET) ionizing radiation up to say 200 mSv acute (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) > and to about 500 mSv chronic irradiation (epidemiological studies) are > detrimental to human health. To the contrary, we have empirical > evidence to the opposite from controlled laboratory work on cells and > animals as well as from observations in human populations - bolstered > by mounting insight into genetic/molecular control mechanisms which in > turn can be successfully described by quantitative models. But - > notwithstanding such knowledge: > > " ... I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are > without potential harm." > > This counterfactual 'assuming' is prudent carefulness indeed - but > only in a world where there IS a free lunch, i.e., the world of (some) > politicians and (some of) their regulators which never pay the bill > for their decrees (all of them). The people ruled by such > philanthropism pay the prize. Given that escalating costs of energy > production will reduce its use, an example would be reduced lifespan. > Global studies have shown positive association between lifespan and per capita energy supply. > (Unfortunately I can not spot the reference for this paper (in the > 1990s) but hopefully someone can add this.) > > 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 Johnston, Thomas > Gesendet: Di 01.07.2008 18:48 > An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective > - ODEMagazine > > Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group > and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The > magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." > > "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have > beneficial effects at very low doses. > > By Ursula Sautter > > http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ > > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Fri Jul 4 07:58:54 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:58:54 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.> > That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First: A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable _effects_ (not necessarily defects). Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s). Second: Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! Third: It is unlikely, for theoretical reasons, that a teratogen which also affects the germ cells by inducing mutations would have a chance to do anything bad that would show up in the next or future generations - simply because of the selection pressure against mutated germ cells that reach the fertilized (diploid) stage. A fundamental reason for this statement from my side also comes from follow-up studies of F1 and F2 generations of atomic bomb survivors - had F1 or F2 shown anything in terms of heritable defects I would not have posted these lines. My personal ideas only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ The i?m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 12:59:58 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:59:58 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704115510.009f3100@mail.swcp.com> July 4 Has a spent fuel storage containment ever been breached at a US commercial power reactor? At any commercial power reactor anywhere else in the world? If the answer to both of these questions is No, I don't think we have much to worry about --- not that our prophet of gloom and doom will fold up his tent and silently steal away. Steven Dapra At 05:48 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Hey Jeff, > >I'm not sure of the total of all the different ways fuel storage >containment can breach and how often it has been, which is why I've >asked Dan. > >The problem is that the U238 standard was written before the >scientists involved knew to care about things other than kidneys, >which develop a tolerance to uranyl. > >It's only going to get harder for the government to find Ph.D.s who >are willing to look the other way when it comes to five of the six >aspects of uranium toxicity in vivo. > >James Salsman > > >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Terry wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the storage pools > > and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather events? > > > > Jeff > > > > On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > > > >> Dan, > >> > >> Thank you for your question: > >> > >>> Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel > storage pools and weather? > > > Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to > cooling needs beyond the scope of the > >> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around > everywhere and that can not be good for > >> containment. > >> > >> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? > >> > >> James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 13:23:57 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:23:57 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704120837.009f7ec0@mail.swcp.com> July 4 (Steven Dapra's comments interspersed below.) At 12:08 AM 7/4/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Jeff Terry wrote: > > >.... I would be very > > surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool > > has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle. > >The cask- and rod assembly-related accidents that have happened almost >all involve heavy vehicles or other large-frame conveyance. A lot of >the casks are susceptible to attack because their exact specifications >are a matter of public record. Steven Dapra's (SD) comments: On July 3 James Salsman (JS) wrote, "What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain?" He began with fuel holding pools. Now, he appears to be squawking about shipping cask accidents, and is moaning about the possibility of attacks on shipping casks. James, you can't even stay on the subject, or you are (apparently) unable to remember what you have asked about. To remind you, you asked about breaches of spent fuel containment holding ponds. >Steven Dapra wrote: > > > What is your CV? > >The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports >of actual experiments and compare them to the official work >product of people such as Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson after >they scrubbed their reports clean of any mention of reproductive >toxicity. How much of your taxes were used to call that pathetic >exercise in censorship "science"? SD: James, you can't read reports (or refereed papers) and quote from them properly or construe them properly. This looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. How much of our taxes have been wasted on your nonsensical delaying tactics and obstructionism at the NRC? And who cares about "reproductive toxicity" in laboratory rats and mice? I reiterate, show us your CV. You think you know so much, prove it. (Show us the money.) > > Answer the question about where you were born. > >Why? I already did. I was born on an Army base (that is what >the host country called it, as did everyone else when they >weren't in parade dress.) What difference does it make to >be any more specific than that? > > > You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson; > > and on Ron Kathren. > >Does anyone endorse their position of omitting mention of >reproductive toxicity or other non-kidney-related health effects >in their reports on uranium toxicity? SD: Can you show that they *have* omitted it? Has it ever occurred to you that this reproductive toxicity in lab rats and mice may not have been germane to the matter under discussion? > > Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper > > and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*. > >What do you think the percentage difference in solubility >would be between the oxide and the chloride of uranyl, as >the percentage of each in solution after seven days in lung fluid? SD: My point, James, is that you were talking out of both sides of your mouth. You derided me for switching around between uranyl acetate and uranyl oxide, while the Miller and McClain paper you're waving around is talking about uranyl chloride. Steven Dapra From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 13:40:18 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:40:18 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704123605.009f81b0@mail.swcp.com> At 01:10 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: [edit] >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: [edit] >McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed >to DU in >friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the >study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a >statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as >compared with low-exposure groups. James, you have broadly insinuated that you have a copy of this Miller and McClain paper. Assuming that you actually have a copy of it, what is the full citation for the McDairmid et al. (2004) paper? Include the title. Steven Dapra From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 13:51:14 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:51:14 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704124905.009fcb00@mail.swcp.com> In a message a few minutes ago I asked for the citation to McDiarmid 2004. You need not send it, James. I already have it. Steven Dapra >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: >McDairmid et al >(2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in >friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the >study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a >statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as >compared with low-exposure groups. From frantaj at aecl.ca Fri Jul 4 13:33:47 2008 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:33:47 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704115510.009f3100@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again, there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Steven Dapra Sent: July 4, 2008 2:00 PM To: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain July 4 Has a spent fuel storage containment ever been breached at a US commercial power reactor? At any commercial power reactor anywhere else in the world? If the answer to both of these questions is No, I don't think we have much to worry about --- not that our prophet of gloom and doom will fold up his tent and silently steal away. Steven Dapra CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 16:50:05 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:50:05 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Message-ID: Dear Dr. Cedervall, Thank you for your request: > Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s). I just posted them here: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010491.html In particular here: "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups. "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure. "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.) "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate the twitch response of ... muscles. "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure. Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased rapidly after injection and remained elevated.... "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well. "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth, increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors in nude mice. "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice developed leukemia. -- the above is from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89. James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 16:55:01 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:55:01 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Dr. Franta: > At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again Do you still contend that the intent of those who have been complaining about the health effects of depleted uranium intend to help terrorists? Since your accusation, the Colombian FARC -- themselves terrorists -- have been found with 33 kg of DU this past March which according to the "senior intelligence official" quoted by the L.A. times said, "the health threat was negligible.... what's the use of that other than irritating people?" http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28 "Negligible" -- the word appears in the reports which describe risk from cancer due to radiation and kidney effects only, such as those of Dr. Al Marshal from Sandia, not just the work of Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson -- all are pathetic attempts to keep information from the public. > there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military > production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... The U.S. overflow casks are a product of Yucca Mountain remaining closed, and are only rated for eight hours submerged. Flooding for as long as we've seen near some of the reactor sites could have easily gone twenty times that. The Baltimore tunnel fire has shown us that those casks were under-engineered for real-world conditions. Anyone who thinks the seepage rate is exactly zero is living in the imaginary magical world of absolutes. The question is not whether U(VI) has seeped into the water table from spent fuel, but: How much has, and how much is expected over time? James Salsman From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 17:22:58 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:22:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <014401c8de24$845cead0$8d16c070$@com> Dear James: I merely pointed-out that in order to understand the potential for dose / risk in a geogene / anthropogene system, one needs to include several areas of expertise, not solely a physician. Sometimes Health Physicists are even required! Radiation Safety in the larger sense involves a community of scientists, engineers and policy makers working from basic principles to frame and direct the overall discussion in order to reach consensus. In this case, Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question, but it leaves me puzzled at your seeming lack of knowledge about this feature of nuclear energy. I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse. If not, perhaps you might care to browse the NFCIS at the IAEA in order to learn a little more about Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/Default.asp There are also literally thousands of free IAEA publications which can be downloaded as pdf files in the form of TECDOCs at the IAEA site that you might inform yourself about specifics of at-reactor spent fuel storage. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/publications.asp Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:59 PM To: Dan W McCarn Cc: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think both are very important, so I am asking you: What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? Thank you for your help. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > <> > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM > To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > James; > It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. > > Thanks and regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM > To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing > teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of > removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, > general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating > the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying > only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in > any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > > Dan, > > How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" > holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent > water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be > rectified. > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jul 4 17:52:45 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:52:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect frommuch teratogenesis References: Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73DFE@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Mr. Salsman, with all due respect, I suggest you stop making an exhibition of yourself, or more precisely, of your inability to read. How otherwise should readers of your latest 'comment' interpret the fact, that not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Please! Sincerly, Rainer Facius Dr. Rainer Facius DLR, German Aerospace Center Institute of Aerospace Medicine Department of Radiation Biology 51147 K?ln GERMANY Tel: +49 2203 601 3147 ________________________________ Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von James Salsman Gesendet: Fr 04.07.2008 23:50 An: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafelist Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect frommuch teratogenesis Dear Dr. Cedervall, Thank you for your request: > Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s). I just posted them here: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010491.html In particular here: "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups. "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure. "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.) "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate the twitch response of ... muscles. "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure. Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased rapidly after injection and remained elevated.... "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well. "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth, increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors in nude mice. "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice developed leukemia. -- the above is from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 4 18:00:54 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: <15479.3532.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, ? ??? Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's?CEO?? If not, don't you think that it is only reasonable that Dr. Franta, and other readers, should be apprehensive about corresponding with you?? I bring this up because I too have been subjected to a rather pointed attack from you about my personal opinions and your accusations that?my?opinions were somehow the byproduct of some dis-information campaign by my employer.? I understand that you are personally frustrated?in that your?point of view hasn't received the recognition that you would have hoped for, but that doesn't excuse your personal attacks against individuals very livelihoods.? If you want your?opinion's to be respected then a good starting point would be for you?to be respectful to others! ?Roy Herren ----- Original Message ---- From: James Salsman To: frantaj at aecl.ca; radsafelist Sent: Friday, July 4, 2008 2:55:01 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dr. Franta: > At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again Do you still contend that the intent of those who have been complaining about the health effects of depleted uranium intend to help terrorists?? Since your accusation, the Colombian FARC -- themselves terrorists -- have been found with 33 kg of DU this past March which? according to the "senior intelligence official" quoted by the L.A. times said, "the health threat was negligible.... what's the use of that other than irritating people?" ? http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28 "Negligible" -- the word appears in the reports which describe risk from cancer due to radiation and kidney effects only, such as those of Dr. Al Marshal from Sandia, not just the work of Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson -- all are pathetic attempts to keep information from the public. >? there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military > production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... The U.S. overflow casks are a product of Yucca Mountain remaining closed, and are only rated for eight hours submerged.? Flooding for as long as we've seen near some of the reactor sites could have easily gone twenty times that.? The Baltimore tunnel fire has shown us that those casks were under-engineered for real-world conditions. Anyone who thinks the seepage rate is exactly zero is living in the imaginary magical world of absolutes. The question is not whether U(VI) has seeped into the water table from spent fuel, but: How much has, and how much is expected over time? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 18:05:17 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:05:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704170313.009fbec0@mail.swcp.com> At 01:10 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: July 4 James Salsman (JS) presented us with some quotes from a paper by Miller and McClain that he appears to believe suggest or prove that depleted uranium is harmful. One of JS's quotes has Miller and McClain invoking McDairmid et al. (2004) as saying: "McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups." These are not the exact words of McDiarmid et al., this is how Miller and McClain summarize them. What about McDairmid et al., (2004)? I located their paper (Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10 Year Follow-up) on line. I'll present some quotes from it, and discuss them. "Baseline CAs [chromosomal aberrations] were statistically different, with the high uranium group displaying a higher, but minimally different, CA frequency per cell. This difference was not observed in previous surveillance rounds. Due to the limited number of chromosomal aberrations observed, it was not possible to use regression to assess its relationship with ln urine uranium or a method to test for the persistence of the relationship despite the presence of confounders. However, the association between chromosomal aberrations and urine uranium observed here does not appear to be the result of smoking, exposure to mutagens, or age in this cohort, since none of these were found to be significantly associated with either average chromosomal aberrations or urinary uranium levels." (from p. 289) (Note: ln means log normal.) According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. How can there be a "statistically significant increase" when the aberrations can't even be analyzed? Also: "In two previous observations, no differences in chromosomal aberrations (CAs) were noted between the high and low uranium groups, although there was a statistically significant increase in SCE observed in the high uranium group in the last evaluation (McDiarmid et al., 2001) . . .." (from p. 293) This statistically significant increase was found in sister chromatid exchanges, not in chromosomal aberrations. McDiarmid et al. note "a statistical difference in CAs (higher in the high U group)." They do not say it's significant, only that it's different. According the next sentence, "This is, however, based on close to normal absolute frequencies of CAs per cells." Look at that, James a "normal" frequency, not a statistically significant one. McDiarmid et al. also write: "Because multiple outcomes are being examined, there exists the risk that statistically significant findings may be observed by chance alone. Although the kidney is the putative "critical" target organ for uranium toxicity under acute and chronic exposure conditions, no evidence of renal dysfunction (glomerular or tubular) was found. The biomarkers for proximal tubule dysfunction, the presumed target of uranium, showed minimal differences between the groups." (p. 292; citations omitted.) I think this speaks for itself about any so-called statistically significant increase. I would like to emphasize the authors' statement that no damage was found in the kidneys. In light of that, I rather doubt that exposure to depleted uranium, or any type of uranium, did any damage anywhere else. The authors also say that since they only studied 39 veterans, "the power to detect subtle effects is low." Earlier today, James, in response to my request for your CV, you wrote, "The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports of actual experiments . . .." If you'll pardon me for saying so, it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steven Dapra REFERENCE McDiarmid, et al. Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10 Year Follow-up. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 67:277-296; (2004). Available on line at: < www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/Env_Health%20Effects_DU.pdf>. From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 05:10:06 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 03:10:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish. He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment. For example, that answer also omits this: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm > I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse.... Ha! You accuse me of feigned ignorance but neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer an accurate figure for the rate at which spent fuel has and is expected to enter the environment. > This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the > IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all > non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. Then why are you unable to state a number? Rainer Facius wrote: > not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Incorrect. As Dr. Cedervall almost correctly pointed out: "A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable ... defects" http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html (His "necessarily" part is wrong -- a mutagen is a mutagen and a teratogenic mutagen has the mechanism of action in the germ cells.) The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? Why? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you magically lose your right to free association and speech? Would you magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? Steven Dapra wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were > found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? > it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office. She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 5 10:15:07 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:15:07 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705090754.009ee820@mail.swcp.com> At 03:10 AM 7/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Dan McCarn wrote: > > > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... > >No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish. He hasn't even >begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the >environment. For example, that answer also omits this: > >http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm [edit] July 5 James: You're an idiot. The first sentence of this article says, "The Pentagon has tracked traces of plutonium found in U.S. ammunition to contaminated equipment at plants in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee." The article is about minute amounts of plutonium being found in depleted uranium. It is not about spent fuel entering the environment. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? Why don't you read this junk before you post it to RADSAFE? Furthermore, some of the statements in the article tend to undercut your anti-DU historioncs. Later today I will have more to say about the balance of your unusually brainless message. Steven Dapra From rjgunter at chpconsultants.com Sat Jul 5 10:48:37 2008 From: rjgunter at chpconsultants.com (Robert J. Gunter) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:48:37 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain detecting Fuel failures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01c8deb6$98881b50$c99851f0$@com> Greetings All, There are quite a few meters, probes, and laboratory equipment available on ebay that can be used by anyone to assess for fuel element failures and leaks. You don't have to take anyones word for it. Sample away! That is one of the great aspects of radiation. Anyone can go sample for it and you will find plenty at background levels from atmospheric testing of nukes and should there be any leakage, it would be easy to find, and ..... impossible to hide. Rob Robert J. Gunter, CHP CHP Consultants rjgunter at chpconsultants.com www.chpconsultants.com www.chpdosimetry.com Tel: +(865) 387-0028 Fax: +(865) 483-7189 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 5:55 PM To: frantaj at aecl.ca; radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dr. Franta: > At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again Do you still contend that the intent of those who have been complaining about the health effects of depleted uranium intend to help terrorists? Since your accusation, the Colombian FARC -- themselves terrorists -- have been found with 33 kg of DU this past March which according to the "senior intelligence official" quoted by the L.A. times said, "the health threat was negligible.... what's the use of that other than irritating people?" http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28 "Negligible" -- the word appears in the reports which describe risk from cancer due to radiation and kidney effects only, such as those of Dr. Al Marshal from Sandia, not just the work of Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson -- all are pathetic attempts to keep information from the public. > there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military > production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... The U.S. overflow casks are a product of Yucca Mountain remaining closed, and are only rated for eight hours submerged. Flooding for as long as we've seen near some of the reactor sites could have easily gone twenty times that. The Baltimore tunnel fire has shown us that those casks were under-engineered for real-world conditions. Anyone who thinks the seepage rate is exactly zero is living in the imaginary magical world of absolutes. The question is not whether U(VI) has seeped into the water table from spent fuel, but: How much has, and how much is expected over time? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 5 19:02:53 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:02:53 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705175930.009f2010@mail.swcp.com> July 5 Comments from Steven Dapra (SD). [edit] James Salsman (JS): The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 SD: This page of the National Research Council book cites two papers by Miller. One was published in 1998 and McClain is not one of the co-authors. The other was published in 2003, and McClain is the fifth of six co-authors. Even if Miller and McClain did write a paper in 2007 about mutations and other chromosome aberrations, it is not cited in the link given by JS. The Council has not "adopted" anything. All it did was report what Miller and an assortment of co-workers said in 1998 and in 2003. The Introduction to the 1998 Miller paper says, "In spite of epidemiological studies that suggest that uranium is a carcinogen (1), there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] Did you see that James? NO EVIDENCE. Following the Abstract, Miller and her co-authors say, "The contributions of Eric Daxon, [and various others] are greatly appreciated and were invaluable to the success of this project." On March 6, 2007, on RADSAFE, James Salsman wrote, "Then Eric Daxon lies that Kang actually found a decrease after medical records review, not an increase." Salsman calls Eric Daxon a liar, while Alexandra Miller --- whose work Salsman is waving around all over the place --- thanks him for his "invaluable" contributions. This would be funny if it weren't so utterly pathetic. [edit] Steven Dapra (SD) wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. James Salsman (JS): What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? SD: It doesn't matter what the relation is. All that matters is that so few aberrations were found that no analysis (regression) could be performed. (McDiarmid et al. wrote, ". . . it was not possible to use regression to assess its relationship with ln urine uranium . . .." There's your "relation" --- it's not possible.) Steven Dapra wrote: > it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. JS: Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office. She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. SD: I wasn't trying to convince anyone that uranyl wasn't teratogenic. I was asking you to present some evidence (for example the Domingo paper) to substantiate your anti-DU histrionics. As it turned out, the Domingo paper didn't do much to support your histrionics, and after some perfunctory comments you dropped the matter. Miller and McClain summarized McDiarmid et al. thus: "McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups." McDiarmid et al. did not say there was a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations. If you had bothered to read McDiarmid you would have known this. If anyone on RADSAFE is playing the fool, it's you, James. Even if I'm the only one willing to say so, I'm certain it's obvious to everyone. Steven Dapra From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 20:06:04 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, ? ?? Why do you owe Dr. Franta an apology?? Simply because what you did was to take his?personal opinion?(free speech) from this very public forum and make it into a personal attack on his?very?livelihood.? Do you recall the Golden Rule,?"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?? ? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? I am not suggesting anything, nor am I threatening, but how would you feel if "everyone" on this mailing list who has taken exception to something that you have written over the years were to take it upon themselves to contact your employer about their many grievances with you?? I don't think your employer would appreciate such an action, and I certainly don't think?that you would enjoy the potential negative outcome.? There is nothing?"magic" about common decency!??Just ask yourself before you do something, if you would be upset if someone did to you whatever it is that you are planning.? If the answer is that you wouldn't appreciate the action, then? reconsider the action before hitting the ""Send" button.? We should all?impose self constraint in regards to our?"rights to free association and speech".? Our?rights should end when they start to trample on anothers rights.? You?know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very means of making a living.? You trampled on?his rights!? Dr. Franta didn't represent his "free speech" public opinion as being that of his employer, therefore you didn't have any need to drag his employer into the fray other than your own malicious intent to inflict harm.? Simple put, you owe Dr. Franta an apology because you let your anger cause you to launch a personal vendetta. Roy Herren ? Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? >Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you >magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you >magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a >situation like that is frowned on? ----- Original Message ---- From: James Salsman To: radsafelist ; Dan McCarn ; ROY HERREN ; Steven Dapra ; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 3:10:06 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish.? He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment.? For example, that answer also omits this: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm > I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse.... Ha!? You accuse me of feigned ignorance but neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer an accurate figure for the rate at which spent fuel has and is expected to enter the environment. > This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the > IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all > non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. Then why are you unable to state a number? Rainer Facius wrote: > not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Incorrect.? As Dr. Cedervall almost correctly pointed out: "A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable ... defects" http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html? (His "necessarily" part is wrong -- a mutagen is a mutagen and a teratogenic mutagen has the mechanism of action in the germ cells.) The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? Steven Dapra wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were > found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? >? it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic.? How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office.? She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 22:01:33 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:01:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Roy Herren wrote: > Do you recall the Golden Rule, "Do unto others > as you would have them do unto you"? Does that rule apply to people who accuse others of supporting terrorism? > You know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very > means of making a living. How would one less very senior nuclear engineer accusing people in other countries of terror crimes from his work email make a difference? > You trampled on his rights! There is no right in Canada or anywhere else to make accusations of murderous crimes from your corporate email account and not have your employer brought in to the situation. If anyone should be apologizing, Dr. Franta should. Terrorists have apparently been trying to accumulate DU as dirty bomb material years before I had become aware of the issues with uranium toxicity publications. Steven Dapra quoted: > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 5 23:03:37 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:03:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705214225.009f2250@mail.swcp.com> At 08:01 PM 7/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: [edit] >Steven Dapra quoted: > > > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally > > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic > > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] > >That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to >the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. > >James Salsman July 5 James, you are dumber than dumb. I was quoting Alexandra Miller, whose work you have been waving around as though it is the Holy Grail of anti-DU fanatics everywhere. If you have a problem with the way Miller talks about "uranium of any type," why don't you call her or send her an e-mail? Less than a month ago you were demanding that we all bow and scrape before some source material from 1954. Now, you are loftily proclaiming that something from the 1980s isn't worth the paper it's written on. Your whiny excuse that BEIR IV "was in the 80s" reminds me of Danton. Steven Dapra From brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au Sun Jul 6 05:41:36 2008 From: brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au (Brent Rogers) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:41:36 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c8df54$dfcc6360$7400a8c0@brent28417bbe6> I had one of these types of letters sent to my CEO once. Anyone remember that Gofman disciple L.H. Ricciuti, who was always on about nuclear contamination of Niagara Falls and pretty much the whole of Western New York? I asked him once to clarify a statement he made on Radsafe and he sent an e-mail to my CEO asking why I, a public servant, had so much time on my hands that I'd be able to spend it correcting his grammar (something I didn't actually do, I just needed him to clarify!). Don't see L.H. around the traps any more. I wonder if that's one of James' early pseudonyms. Or maybe James is a pseudonym for L.H.! Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen them together... Brent Rogers Sydney Australia -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of ROY HERREN Sent: Sunday, 6 July 2008 11:06 AM To: James Salsman; radsafelist; Dan McCarn; Steven Dapra; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 James, ? ?? Why do you owe Dr. Franta an apology?? Simply because what you did was to take his?personal opinion?(free speech) from this very public forum and make it into a personal attack on his?very?livelihood.? Do you recall the Golden Rule,?"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?? ? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? I am not suggesting anything, nor am I threatening, but how would you feel if "everyone" on this mailing list who has taken exception to something that you have written over the years were to take it upon themselves to contact your employer about their many grievances with you?? I don't think your employer would appreciate such an action, and I certainly don't think?that you would enjoy the potential negative outcome.? There is nothing?"magic" about common decency!??Just ask yourself before you do something, if you would be upset if someone did to you whatever it is that you are planning.? If the answer is that you wouldn't appreciate the action, then? reconsider the action before hitting the ""Send" button.? We should all?impose self constraint in regards to our?"rights to free association and speech".? Our?rights should end when they start to trample on anothers rights.? You?know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very means of making a living.? You trampled on?his rights!? Dr. Franta didn't represent his "free speech" public opinion as being that of his employer, therefore you didn't have any need to drag his employer into the fray other than your own malicious intent to inflict harm.? Simple put, you owe Dr. Franta an apology because you let your anger cause you to launch a personal vendetta. Roy Herren ? Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? >Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you >magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you >magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a >situation like that is frowned on? ----- Original Message ---- From: James Salsman To: radsafelist ; Dan McCarn ; ROY HERREN ; Steven Dapra ; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 3:10:06 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish.? He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment.? For example, that answer also omits this: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm > I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse.... Ha!? You accuse me of feigned ignorance but neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer an accurate figure for the rate at which spent fuel has and is expected to enter the environment. > This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the > IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all > non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. Then why are you unable to state a number? Rainer Facius wrote: > not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Incorrect.? As Dr. Cedervall almost correctly pointed out: "A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable ... defects" http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html? (His "necessarily" part is wrong -- a mutagen is a mutagen and a teratogenic mutagen has the mechanism of action in the germ cells.) The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? Steven Dapra wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were > found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? >? it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic.? How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office.? She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From rhelbig at california.com Sun Jul 6 05:41:35 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 03:41:35 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> Salsman made the following claim " Terrorists have apparently been trying to accumulate DU as dirty bomb material years before I had become aware of the issues with uranium toxicity publications." Since DU makes very poor dirty bomb material because it is not radioactive enough, the only terrorists who would be trying to accumulate DU would be either nuts or just pretty darn dumb. The claim that FARC had DU is probably the result of someone who did not know what they were doing. There is no way that an organization that walks hundreds of miles a year in the deep jungle would be lugging DU around in a backpack. Is there anyone on this list with a Columbia connection who can verify the DU story that came out a couple of months ago. Roy, Salsman is not dumb, he is crafty; he has cost the taxpayer large sums of money with his petitions to the NRC - I am going to put up some of the 100 plus documents in the ADAMS system resulting from Salsman's petitions. The transcript of the phone hearing on one has so much brass on the phone that it alone cost $10-20K just in the salaries of the individuals on the phone plus their prep time. Roger Helbig PS .. all of his RADSAFE arguments have been presented to the NRC and found wanting in a formal 2005 decision. He does not give up -- he is waiting for someone to slip so that he can claim that someone on RADSAFE basically agreed with him. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:02 PM To: ROY HERREN Cc: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Roy Herren wrote: > Do you recall the Golden Rule, "Do unto others > as you would have them do unto you"? Does that rule apply to people who accuse others of supporting terrorism? > You know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very > means of making a living. How would one less very senior nuclear engineer accusing people in other countries of terror crimes from his work email make a difference? > You trampled on his rights! There is no right in Canada or anywhere else to make accusations of murderous crimes from your corporate email account and not have your employer brought in to the situation. If anyone should be apologizing, Dr. Franta should. Terrorists have apparently been trying to accumulate DU as dirty bomb material years before I had become aware of the issues with uranium toxicity publications. Steven Dapra quoted: > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. James Salsman _______________________________________________ From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Sun Jul 6 17:42:46 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:42:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs References: <5.2.1.1.1.20080628093921.009eb130@mail.swcp.com> <4866F127.8040202@peoplepc.com> <04ab01c8d991$2b5b53f0$9d8da9ac@your4dacd0ea75> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AC3@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> <081f01c8dad0$e05db730$9d8da9ac@your4dacd0ea75> <39102BB89B2E41F58E9FF7EA4C1E8C78@JohnPC> Message-ID: <0d5901c8dfb9$9ea5a9e0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> John, wouldn't you say that by definition, even when an X-Ray is formed following a nuclear reaction, it is still formed by atomic reactions in the electron shell area? If it is an X-Ray it is coming from the electron shell area, not the nucleus. If it comes from the nucleus, it is a Gamma Ray. There are no other differences between Gamma- and X- Rays. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R Johnson" To: "Geo>K0FF" ; "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" ; Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs > All > > Unless the X-Rays result from a nuclear reaction. > > John > *************** > John R Johnson, PhD > CEO, IDIAS, Inc. > 4535 West 9th Ave > 604-676-3556 > Vancouver, B. C. > V6R 2E2, Canada > idias at interchange.ubc.ca > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Geo>K0FF" > To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" ; > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:46 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs > > >> Sure Mike, I know that, but technically speaking and being precise, any >> reaction dealing with elements (atoms) are atomic by nature. Reactions >> dealing with the nucleus are nuclear. >> >> Hence, Gamma Rays are nuclear, X-Rays are atomic. >> >> >> >> Positronium is sometimes considered an atom. If it is, then sometime >> positron annihilation is nuclear, other times it is atomic. >> >> ATOMIC: Pertaining to the atoms >> >> Nuclear: Pertaining to the nucleus of an atom. >> >> from Electronics and Nucleonics Dictionary, 3rd ed. Markus, McGraw Hill. >> >> Therefore all chemical reactions are technically and correctly called >> atomic in nature. >> >> By the way, once in a while I offer a for sale item on Radsafe, this was >> pre approved by the list owner. If members don't like it, I will take >> them elsewhere and charge fair market value. my policy has always been to >> offer to the trade, especially students at a low price first. These mare >> my own personal items have been upgraded by newer or more capable >> equipment in my private lab. >> >> George Dowell >> New London Nucleonics Lab >> GEOelectronics at netscape.com >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:11 AM >> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs >> >> >> Hi, George. >> >> Speaking as someone who at one point was a qualified Weapons Officer in >> the Navy's nuclear weapons program, the way we divided up things that go >> BANG! was: (1) energy from chemical sources - conventional (2) energy >> from fission - atomic >> (3) energy from fusion (usually deuterium - tritium) - nuclear. This >> was useful because all our strategic weapons had all three components, >> and we needed to be able to discuss how they worked together. >> >> As to the Trinity test, if I remember correctly the package was the same >> as the one used in Fat Man, but it was not put into the casing suitable >> for dropping from and airplane, and the triggering system was obviously >> different, so I'd say it was a "device" rather than a "weapon", but with >> no enthusiasm for arguing the point. Based on a fair amount of reading, >> there was a great desire to test to make sure the weapons would work, >> and it was decided to test only the plutonium design because (1) there >> wasn't enough purified U235 for two weapons, and wouldn't be for some >> time, and (2) the plutonium design was much more technically >> challenging. The challenge came not from whether or not a chain >> reaction was possible in plutonium, but from whether or not the large >> number of conventional explosive charges could be detonated with the >> extreme precision necessary to make the reaction happen. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >> Behalf Of Geo>K0FF >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:38 PM >> To: Maury Siskel; Steven Dapra >> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs >> >> All these bombs are nuclear bombs., that is having to do with the >> nucleus The fusion bombs are "Hydrogen bombs". All other explosive, TNT >> etc. are atomic bombs by definition, that is having to do with atomic >> reactions outside the nucleus. >> >> George Dowell >> NLNL >> New London Nucleonics lab >> >> GEOelectronics at netscape.com >> ----- Original Message ----- >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Maury Siskel" >> To: "Steven Dapra" >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs >> >> >>> If memory serves (and it certainly may not) Trinity was a test of an >>> atomic explosive device, not of either Little Boy or Fat Man. The test >> >>> simply confirmed that the explosive device did in fact work. Little >>> Boy and Fat Man both were explosive devices in suitable shapes >>> suitable for release from a B-29 bomber. Little Boy weighed about 4.5 >>> tons and had an explosive yield of about 13 KT; Fat Man was larger >>> with an explosive yield of about 21 KT. Both employed nuclear >>> fission and were the only bombs completed then by the US . They were >>> transported aboard the cruiser, USS Indianapolis to Tinian and then >>> dropped first on Hiroshima and a few days later on Nagasaki. >>> >>> So called nuclear bombs were developed after the war and employed >>> nuclear fusion. These used a fission 'trigger' to start the fusion >>> process. Thus far, they have never been used in warfare -- the two >>> atomic devices were the only ones ever used in war. >>> >>> Nuclear weapons development and testing ensued for some years >>> including the largest known single weapon yield by Russia which >> exceeded 50 MT. >>> Present day testing to the best of my understanding is done by means >>> of simulations along with some destructive reliability tests of some >>> components. Concerns are related to the deterioration of some >>> components as a function of age. >>> >>> Most others, including Franz, on this List are far more capable than >>> am I of telling this story. Everyone must have begun their July 4th >> vacations. >>> Google also will quickly yield good accounts. (Pun intended) >>> Cheers, Maury&Dog >>> >>> ================== >>> Steven Dapra wrote: >>> >>>> June 28, 2008 >>>> >>>> From time to time I have read that one of the Hiroshima and >>>> Nagasaki bombs had to be tested before it was used, and that one did >>>> not --- that the engineers were so certain the latter bomb would >>>> explode that they didn't bother testing it. I also read recently >>>> that hydrogen bombs must be tested. Of these three types of bombs, >>>> which ones must be tested, and why? For the one that did not have to >> >>>> be tested, why not? (I don't have any bombs I want to test, I am >>>> merely curious.) >>>> >>>> Steven Dapra >>>> sjd at swcp.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/ >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > > From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 18:46:16 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:46:16 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: Roger Helbig wrote: > DU makes very poor dirty bomb material because it is not radioactive enough Another former Colonel who pretends that people won't laugh when he ignores the proven mutagenicty. Martin et al (1991) "A cytogenetic study of men occupationally exposed to uranium" Br J Ind Med 48(2) 98-102. > Salsman is not dumb, he is crafty To be honest, I'm not very good at destroying soldiers' health by trying to keep a secret about stuff that was published as early as the 1950s. There are others here with championship-level skills. > he has cost the taxpayer large sums of money with his petitions A tiny fraction of the cost of treating Dr. Kang's patients. It is people such as Cols. Helbig and Cherry who are causing billions of dollars of damage to the economy by gunning for the health of their own soldiers as well as trying to shoot down a perfectly legitimate reason to start scheduling transits to Yucca Mountain first thing in the morning. A very tangled web that they have woven holding them so tight that they are unable to do a thing about spent fuel casks rated for merely eight (8) hours under water in this day of absurdly increasing carbon. There are a hell of a lot more people who can be helped by recognizing the mutagenicity of DU than can be harmed. Families. Men, women, and children in the heartland. And we have the officially sanctioned myth that Helbig spouts, telling us that there's nothing to worry about. What do we want? Viable nuclear power or soldiers with sick kids? Even if a magnitude 10 earthquake hits right under Yucca Mountain, the people of Las Vegas will be safer, healthier from communicable diseases, and better defended if the fuel was in the Yucca tunnels than in overflow casks nearly anywhere in lower 49 United States. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jul 6 18:56:14 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:56:14 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705214225.009f2250@mail.swcp.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080706174530.009f2770@mail.swcp.com> >At 08:01 PM 7/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: > >[edit] > > >>Steven Dapra quoted: >> >> > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally >> > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic >> > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] >> >>That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to >>the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. >> >>James Salsman July 6 Note that above James Salsman is speaking derisively of BEIR IV. On July 4, he posted a message that consisted largely of some quotes from Miller and McClain that were supposed to prove James' point about something or other. He even quoted something Miller and McClain said about BEIR IV, to wit: "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." On one day James uses BEIR IV to make his anti-DU point ("cautions against"), yet on another day BEIR IV "was in the 80s" and hence has little or no merit. What's the matter, James? Don't you read what you post here? Or do you find it titillating to talk out of both sides of your mouth? Steven Dapra From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jul 6 19:10:37 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:10:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080706175809.009f02d0@mail.swcp.com> July 6 My comments (SD) interspersed. At 04:46 PM 7/6/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Roger Helbig wrote: > > > DU makes very poor dirty bomb material because it is not radioactive > enough > >Another former Colonel who pretends that people won't laugh when he >ignores the proven mutagenicty. Martin et al (1991) "A cytogenetic >study of men occupationally exposed to uranium" Br J Ind Med 48(2) >98-102. SD: James you're out of your mind. For a dirty bomb (or any type of bomb) to be effective it must do damage at the time it is exploded, not (possibly) 30 or 40 years in the future. > > Salsman is not dumb, he is crafty > >To be honest, I'm not very good at destroying soldiers' health by >trying to keep a secret about stuff that was published as early as the >1950s. There are others here with championship-level skills. SD: You're very good at blathering away for months on end. > > he has cost the taxpayer large sums of money with his petitions > >A tiny fraction of the cost of treating Dr. Kang's patients. > >It is people such as Cols. Helbig and Cherry who are causing billions >of dollars of damage to the economy by gunning for the health of their >own soldiers as well as trying to shoot down a perfectly legitimate >reason to start scheduling transits to Yucca Mountain first thing in >the morning. A very tangled web that they have woven holding them so >tight that they are unable to do a thing about spent fuel casks rated >for merely eight (8) hours under water in this day of absurdly >increasing carbon. SD: If you, James, want shipments to Yucca Mountain to begin, why don't you petition Sen. Reid of Nevada who is violently opposed to opening YM? Why don't you petition the no-nuke kooks who are also obstructing its opening? RADSAFErs are not opposed to opening YM, it's your fellow travelers who are. Talk to them. What do you think the likelihood is that a spent fuel cask is going to spend eight hours under water? This complaint is so silly it defies description. >There are a hell of a lot more people who can be helped by recognizing >the mutagenicity of DU than can be harmed. Families. Men, women, and >children in the heartland. And we have the officially sanctioned myth >that Helbig spouts, telling us that there's nothing to worry about. SD: Once again, Danton. (And naughty, naughty, James. You used a bad word.) >What do we want? Viable nuclear power or soldiers with sick kids? > >Even if a magnitude 10 earthquake hits right under Yucca Mountain, the >people of Las Vegas will be safer, healthier from communicable >diseases, and better defended if the fuel was in the Yucca tunnels >than in overflow casks nearly anywhere in lower 49 United States. > >James Salsman SD: Again, tell it to Sen. Reid. ----- END ----- From BenjB4 at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 00:03:06 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:03:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Steven Dapra wrote: > Note that above James Salsman ... quoted something Miller and McClain > said about BEIR IV, to wit: "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... > cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." Those studies have become available, and they have gone from neutral -- no evidence of carcinogenicity -- to positive, meaning that uranyl exposure causes leukemia in animals. The teratogenicity and mutagenicity have never been in doubt since the 50s and 90s, respectively. That was in the portions of Miller and McClain that I quoted. > For a dirty bomb (or any type of bomb) to be effective it must do damage > at the time it is exploded, not (possibly) 30 or 40 years in the future. What source could you possibly have for such an absurd statement? Do you know that weapons which act off the battlefield have been against international law for almost a century? > If you, James, want shipments to Yucca Mountain to begin, why don't > you petition Sen. Reid of Nevada who is violently opposed to opening YM? Do you mean "violently" in the literal sense, or is that the sort of accusation that you think it is okay to make? Senator Reid can't do anything to stop Yucca Mountain, it has been entirely in the NRC's hands since last month's submission of the DoE's application. What we really need is an emergency petition to the NRC to modify the existing licenses of facilities with overflow spent fuel casks rated for only eight hours submerged (most all of them) to use the Yucca Mountain facility according to its existing application on a tentative basis. What we don't need is the idiots who turn their backs on the mutagenicity of U(VI) drafting it. > RADSAFErs are not opposed to opening YM You have clearly not been reading. Dr. Rabbe along with a small minority of nuclear scientists and engineers want to begin reprocessing and they think Yucca Mountain will somehow impede it. Opening Yucca Mountain to overflow cask storage will not impede the ability to reprocess spent fuel. Even if Yucca Mountain was one-way there would still be plenty of fuel to get to in non-overflow facilities. James Salsman From dfblaine at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:40:26 2008 From: dfblaine at gmail.com (Dave Blaine) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:40:26 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" Message-ID: Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Mon Jul 7 08:59:22 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:59:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Seeking Roentgen Kits Message-ID: <0e7c01c8e039$aa5b3180$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Seeking donations of Roentgen Kits, yellowcake samples, and other exempt quantity items for recycling as educational tools at the Advanced Technical Center. There is an immediate need of 20 units, with 50 needed for next years class. George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab GEOelectronics at netscape.com George Dowell 56791 Rivere Au Sel Pl New London MO 63459 573-221-3418 From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jul 7 10:19:36 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:19:36 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> Message-ID: <005101c8e044$df02cdc0$9d086940$@oilfield.slb.com> -----Original Message----- From: Roger Helbig Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:42 AM .... There is no way that an organization that walks hundreds of miles a year in the deep jungle would be lugging DU around in a backpack. Is there anyone on this list with a Columbia connection who can verify the DU story that came out a couple of months ago. I guess it is possible that the FARC came into possession of some DU salvaged from a downed aircraft or helicopter.... But I would think it of little utility. Other than a door stop...... ;~) Doug (personal reflection only.....) From hpsolutions at comcast.net Mon Jul 7 11:12:10 2008 From: hpsolutions at comcast.net (hpsolutions at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:12:10 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments Message-ID: <070720081612.17283.4872405A0004437C0000438322155517249D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH for use in the US in a uranium facility. Instruments include the Portable Contamination Monitor CoMo -170, the hand-foot-clothing contamination monitor with large-area, thin-layer plastic scintillation detectors, the hand-foot-clothing monitor- standard version, the W I M P 60 x 10 PC-based smear test measuring system with 10 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 8 PC-based smear test measuring system with 8 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 6 PC-based smear test measuring system with 6 x detector geometry and PD 32 and 42 internal pipe detectors. I am not familar with the S.E.A. products and was trying to see if anyone had experience with them. I would appreciate your opinions, good and bad, so that we can make a decision on using the S.E.A. products or products that are commercially available in the US. Thanks for your help. Paul Jones, CHP From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 11:23:01 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:23:01 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <005101c8e044$df02cdc0$9d086940$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> <005101c8e044$df02cdc0$9d086940$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <030801c8e04d$bb514bf0$31f3e3d0$@com> Hi Doug: For years, I tracked news reports about R/A materials smuggling and remember one report from India about someone who was reported to have been smuggling highly enriched uranium inside yellow cakes. After that, I gave little credence to the media. When I first went to the Former Soviet Union in 1995, I was dismayed to discover that not even nuclear professionals knew that the world price of yellowcake only amounted to about $15 per kilogram at the time. Street word was that it was worth some unimaginable price. I have previously posted some of my concerns (and usually the lack thereof) about various countries' access to sources, such as the soil moisture and density gauges that were being sold to Iran that became a news item one or two years ago when they were stopped in transit in Hungary. I imagine that the gauges were allowed to continue although no media outlet reported other than the initial concern that Iran might be acquiring nuclear materials. They obviously had never heard that the oil industry (big in Iran) has numerous, much larger sources. It is highly doubtful that anyone is in a position to verify FARCs possession of DU. All they need to do is plant the doubt in someone's mind that they might have DU or other nuclear sources (exempt or otherwise) and the media will run wild regardless of the veracity. Or simply place a kilogram of uranium ore in a container and let the media believe what they will. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:20 AM To: 'Roger Helbig'; 'Radsafe' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 -----Original Message----- From: Roger Helbig Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:42 AM .... There is no way that an organization that walks hundreds of miles a year in the deep jungle would be lugging DU around in a backpack. Is there anyone on this list with a Columbia connection who can verify the DU story that came out a couple of months ago. I guess it is possible that the FARC came into possession of some DU salvaged from a downed aircraft or helicopter.... But I would think it of little utility. Other than a door stop...... ;~) Doug (personal reflection only.....) _______________________________________________ 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 12:20:53 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:20:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Message-ID: <031201c8e055$d04e8d30$70eba790$@com> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. Dan ii http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrvz0Q2BcoolsBxBgT8A8sD6S-Q Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman. "The operation was completed over the weekend, on Saturday," Whitman said. The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yellowcake is a form of processed uranium ore that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors, or if further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons. Whitman said the Iraqi government asked the United States for help in selling and transferring the uranium to another country. Cameco, a Canadian company, agreed to buy the yellowcake for a reported sum in the tens of millions of dollars. The cost to the United States of transferring the uranium came to about 70 million dollars, Whitman said. He said the Iraqi government has agreed in principle to repay part of the transfer costs. The US State and Energy Departments also played roles in the operation, Whitman said. But the Defense Department took the lead in carrying out the transfer, he said. It took 110 shipping containers to carry the drums loaded with yellowcake, he said. They were transferred by convoy from Tuwaitha to a secure facility within the Green Zone, the international zone, Whitman said. Then they were flown by C-17 military transport planes to an undisclosed third country. Whitman said it took 37 planeloads to complete that portion of the transfer. "At this intermediate location the cargo was loaded onto a US-flagged cargo ship, a military sealift container ship, the USS Gopher State," he said. Whitman said the arrangements for the sale began several months ago, but the transfer itself took "weeks not months." With the transfer, no yellowcake was known to be left in Iraq, Whitman said. News of the operation broke over the weekend when Cameco acknowledged the arrival of the uranium shipment at Montreal. Lyle Khran, a Cameco spokesman, said the company had responded to a bid request made last year by the US government. "We are satisfied at having been able to remove uranium from one of the most unstable regions of the world, and to have transferred it to a stable region to produce our own electric power," he said on Sunday. He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. From radbloom at comcast.net Mon Jul 7 12:47:37 2008 From: radbloom at comcast.net (Cindy Bloom) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:47:37 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> Chemical and radiological toxicity are both related to dose which is related to concentration. If the concentration of a "hazard" is very low (and I mean low relative to that level which has been shown to cause harm), it is likely that the risk to a cell, organ, individual or society is very low. Most of us would agree that the uranium found in our garden soils causes little or no harm (and some believe that it might even be beneficial). Regarding U-238, it's not at all clear what is meant by the phrase "about one million times worse for U238". What else was being tested? What is meant by worse? What effect do you mean? What mode of exposure do you mean - external exposure, ingestion, inhalation, injection, skin absorption? What is U-238 1,000,000 worse than - other uranium isotopes? Carbon? Nickle? Arsenic? Lead? Do you mean that the dosage to cause damage from the chemical is 1,000,000 times the dosage to cause damage from the radiation? I tend to believe that damage depends on uranium's isotopic mix (DU while mostly U-238 on mass or atomic scale includes other U isotopes) and chemical form and intake mode as well as dosage and dose, and that the numbers specified in regulations and guidance are provided as a way to control risks, and that there are levels of risk that are just too low to worry about, because worry is associated with its own risk and resources used to control reduce small risks take away from resources available to reduce large risks. Cindy At 01:40 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, Dave Blaine wrote: >Dear Dr. Cohen, > >I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of >concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its >potential danger, then what is?" > >The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to >Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one >million times worse for U238. > >Do you agree with that assessment? > >James Salsman >_______________________________________________ >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/ From efforrer at aol.com Mon Jul 7 12:49:12 2008 From: efforrer at aol.com (efforrer at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:49:12 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Arguing With... In-Reply-To: <200807071309.95e48724db8306@rly-mf05.mx.aol.com> References: <200807071309.95e48724db8306@rly-mf05.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CAAE70E5F635FD-1174-B7E@webmail-ne15.sysops.aol.com> My dear departed Daddy always said you should never argue with a pig.? It makes you look really stupid and it annoys the pig.? May I suggest we cease arguing with those who have absolutely no interest in an intelligent conversation. Gene Forrer From frantaj at aecl.ca Mon Jul 7 13:18:35 2008 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:18:35 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Message-ID: He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. There are no "nuclear power plants" at Blind River and Port Hope -- just Cameco refineries. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Mon Jul 7 13:33:28 2008 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:33:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium References: <031201c8e055$d04e8d30$70eba790$@com> Message-ID: Dan McCarn and the Associated Press wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Dan W McCarn Sent: Mon 7/7/2008 10:20 AM To: 'Radsafe' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. Dan ii http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrvz0Q2BcoolsBxBgT8A8sD6S-Q Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman. "The operation was completed over the weekend, on Saturday," Whitman said. The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yellowcake is a form of processed uranium ore that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors, or if further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons. Whitman said the Iraqi government asked the United States for help in selling and transferring the uranium to another country. Cameco, a Canadian company, agreed to buy the yellowcake for a reported sum in the tens of millions of dollars. The cost to the United States of transferring the uranium came to about 70 million dollars, Whitman said. He said the Iraqi government has agreed in principle to repay part of the transfer costs. The US State and Energy Departments also played roles in the operation, Whitman said. But the Defense Department took the lead in carrying out the transfer, he said. It took 110 shipping containers to carry the drums loaded with yellowcake, he said. They were transferred by convoy from Tuwaitha to a secure facility within the Green Zone, the international zone, Whitman said. Then they were flown by C-17 military transport planes to an undisclosed third country. Whitman said it took 37 planeloads to complete that portion of the transfer. "At this intermediate location the cargo was loaded onto a US-flagged cargo ship, a military sealift container ship, the USS Gopher State," he said. ================= Dan's calculations incorporate the assumption that when AP wrote "550 metric tons of uranium" they were referring to metallic uranium. It seems more likely that, with typical media sloppiness in science/technology stories, AP's reference to "hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium" and "550 metric tons of uranium" are actually referring to the same 550 metric tons of yellowcake. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 13:56:56 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:56:56 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium In-Reply-To: References: <031201c8e055$d04e8d30$70eba790$@com> Message-ID: <032301c8e063$3c291a90$b47b4fb0$@com> Hi Jim: I agree the media is sloppy. Having worked at the IAEA for 8 years, most international reported uranium transfers as yellowcake when reported as metric tonnes is as metallic U equivalent, not U3O8, for processed yellowcake. At least that is my IAEA REDBOOK experience spanning 1980 to present. There are exceptions, but generally, that is the rule. It may in fact be U3O8 that is being reported, but coming from an international source, I'd first guess that it would be metallic U equivalent. But media reports are vague. I await Cameco's official statement on quantity. So it is either expressed as Tonnes U or pounds U3O8. The multiplier for pounds U3O8 from Tonnes U is 2600 The multiplier for pounds U3O8 from Tonnes U3O8 is 2205 The multiplier for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Dukelow, James S Jr [mailto:jim.dukelow at pnl.gov] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:33 PM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Dan McCarn and the Associated Press wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Dan W McCarn Sent: Mon 7/7/2008 10:20 AM To: 'Radsafe' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. Dan ii http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrvz0Q2BcoolsBxBgT8A8sD6S-Q Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman. "The operation was completed over the weekend, on Saturday," Whitman said. The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yellowcake is a form of processed uranium ore that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors, or if further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons. Whitman said the Iraqi government asked the United States for help in selling and transferring the uranium to another country. Cameco, a Canadian company, agreed to buy the yellowcake for a reported sum in the tens of millions of dollars. The cost to the United States of transferring the uranium came to about 70 million dollars, Whitman said. He said the Iraqi government has agreed in principle to repay part of the transfer costs. The US State and Energy Departments also played roles in the operation, Whitman said. But the Defense Department took the lead in carrying out the transfer, he said. It took 110 shipping containers to carry the drums loaded with yellowcake, he said. They were transferred by convoy from Tuwaitha to a secure facility within the Green Zone, the international zone, Whitman said. Then they were flown by C-17 military transport planes to an undisclosed third country. Whitman said it took 37 planeloads to complete that portion of the transfer. "At this intermediate location the cargo was loaded onto a US-flagged cargo ship, a military sealift container ship, the USS Gopher State," he said. ================= Dan's calculations incorporate the assumption that when AP wrote "550 metric tons of uranium" they were referring to metallic uranium. It seems more likely that, with typical media sloppiness in science/technology stories, AP's reference to "hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium" and "550 metric tons of uranium" are actually referring to the same 550 metric tons of yellowcake. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From Marty.Bourquin at grace.com Mon Jul 7 13:58:41 2008 From: Marty.Bourquin at grace.com (Bourquin, Marty) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:58:41 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Mon Jul 7 14:14:43 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:14:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACF@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James: Here is your entire post I responded to: Dan, Thank you for your question: > Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel > storage pools and weather? Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around everywhere and that can not be good for containment. What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? James Salsman The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities?" By the context I took "storage facility" to mean "at-reactor spent fuel storage pools". I further assumed that the storage pools under discussion were connected with commercial reactors in the United States: the validity of the "commercial" assumption supported by your definition in another post of "load" as being an electrical load. "Current" in this context, means "now; at this moment, not the past or the future". "Rate", again in context, means "amount per unit of time (let's use day in this case)". "Seepage" means "something that seeps or leaks out". Seep means "to pass, flow, or ooze gradually through a porous substance: Water seeps through cracks in the wall." U238 is a pretty specific isotope, with well defined meaning. So, your question was "What is the amount of U238 per day passing or oozing from the at-reactor spent fuel storage pools in the United States?" The answer is, indeed, zero. First, the pools are designed with multiple redundancies to not leak, to detect any leaks, and are maintained to prevent leaks. Should a leak be detected, the liquid would be contained and the leak fixed. There is, at this moment, "currently", if you will, no indication that there are any spent fuel storage pools at any commercial reactors in the United States that are leaking. The current rate is "zero". There is also no indication that there has, in the past, been leakage that has ever reached the outside environment from any of these pools. Second, the U238 is chemically in a form that is very resistant to being dissolved in water. It is, after all expected to be very hot in very hot water, and not dissolve. The U238 is also inside of multiple layers of cladding (how many depending on the type of fuel). The cladding is very resistant to leaking, and thus prevents the U238 from being in contact with the water. So, James, I answered the question you asked, based on the words you used to ask it. If that was not the question you wanted answered, then perhaps you should have used different words that would have let people know what question you wanted answered. I acknowledge that it is possible for me to be wrong, and even foolish, however, in this case there is no indication that I am either. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:10 AM To: radsafelist; Dan McCarn; ROY HERREN; Steven Dapra; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish. He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment. For example, that answer also omits this: From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 15:18:30 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:18:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. Another example of media fuzziness in reporting. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:19 PM To: Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. There are no "nuclear power plants" at Blind River and Port Hope -- just Cameco refineries. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From mrrmw1 at aol.com Mon Jul 7 15:49:43 2008 From: mrrmw1 at aol.com (mrrmw1 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:49:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Licensing Fee Audits Message-ID: <8CAAE8A1E02D90C-938-17C7@Webmail-mg13.sim.aol.com> I am trying to find out?if anyone has?experienced the NRC?review covering annual fees for fiscal years 2002 through 2007of all active small materials license. The review?uncovered administrative billing errors which have?resulted in incorrect assessment of annual fees.?? From edmond0033 at comcast.net Mon Jul 7 16:46:40 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:46:40 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium References: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> Message-ID: <002101c8e07a$f17cd0a0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Try India or Brazil!! Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bourquin, Marty" To: "radsafelist" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 _______________________________________________ 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/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Mon Jul 7 16:47:14 2008 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:47:14 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium In-Reply-To: <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> Message-ID: Here's a good source of nice, concentrated Thorium nitrate -- 3215 metric tonnes : http://www.energyfromthorium.com/images/thorium_ANWR.jpg Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Bourquin, Marty Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:59 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 _______________________________________________ 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/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Mon Jul 7 16:53:13 2008 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:53:13 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium In-Reply-To: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> Message-ID: Actually, there's a nice short blurb on their web site -- including the part about conversion to UO2 (non-enriched) for use in CANDU reactors.... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.cameco.com/operations/refining_conversion/blind_river/ The Blind River refinery processes uranium concentrates from Cameco's mining operations, as well as from other Canadian and foreign producers. - world's largest commercial uranium refinery - includes a uranium trioxide (UO3) processing plant, water treatment plant, power plant, nitric acid recovery system and analytical lab services - refinery produces UO3, a high-purity intermediate product, shipped to Cameco's Port Hope conversion facility for further processing - licensed production capacity of 18,000 tonnes of uranium per year - receives drums of uranium ore concentrates from mines around the world including in Canada, Australia and the United States - achieved International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 certification for environmental management systems in 2002 - shipping UO3 to Springfields, UK for toll conversion to UF6 - utilizing unused production capacity ---------------------- Cameco transports the UO3 to Port Hope where it is converted to uranium dioxide (UO2) or uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The UO3 is transported in specially designed tote bins, which carry 9.5 tonnes of product each. ================================== -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:19 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. Another example of media fuzziness in reporting. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:19 PM To: Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. There are no "nuclear power plants" at Blind River and Port Hope -- just Cameco refineries. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Mon Jul 7 17:09:28 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:09:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACF@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: , <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACF@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <48724DC8.21394.1F8FA43E@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Debating James is a singular waste of time. He's not launching his attacks from reality as we know it. He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy, no matter what factual evidence gets thrown his way. I don't know what drives him, but I have a theory. My theory is that, for some psychological reason, he needs to be a hero, and he's settled on DU as a conspiracy/cover up, with Radsafe as the ogre against which he must tilt. I think if the whole world joined him, and got every government remotely connected with DU to commit seppuku, then he *might* move on. Short of that he's never going to shut up. Nevertheless, I am sincerely grateful for every person who ever bothered to refute his DU fantasy. I dislike the idea of the Radsafe archives being browsed by some unsuspecting person, who might find, unchallenged and unexamined, assertions of widespread DU related illnesses. -Gary Isenhower From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 18:44:55 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:44:55 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium In-Reply-To: <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> Message-ID: <036101c8e08b$76d3ff20$647bfd60$@com> Hi Marty: Perhaps contact parthasarathy k s [ksparth at yahoo.co.uk] in India. There is quite a bit of interest in processing the monazite beach placers for thorium and some work on a thorium fuel cycle. A company such as Molycorp also produces other rare earths from monazite sands, and are likely to have a some production capacity for thorium as well. http://www.molycorp.com/data_sheets/lanthology_m-z.pdf START OF QUOTE << The processing of monazite ores begins with gravity, electrostatic and magnetic separation to produce a monazite concentrate with a Ln oxide content of ? 60 %. Monazite can be cracked by reaction with sulfuric acid, like bastnasite, to yield a mixture of sulfates but the usual process is with alkali [3]. The concentrate is finely ground and digested with an excess of caustic soda at?150?C for several hours. (Ln,Th)Po4 + NaOH => Na3PO4 + Ln(OH)3 + Th(OH)4 The phosphate portion produces a soluble sodium tripolyphosphate while the lanthanides, along with thorium, form insoluble hydroxides (hydrated oxides) that can be recovered. The next step is hydrochloric acid attack, at ?70 ?C and pH 3-4, on the solids portion. The thorium remains insoluble and a crude thorium hydroxide can be filtered off.>> END OF QUOTE Although interest in thorium lags far behind uranium, these are the OECD (NEA) / IAEA numbers for RAR and EAR resources. RAR - Reasonably Assured Resources; EAR - Estimated Additional Resources Country RAR Th (tonnes) EAR Th (tonnes) Brazil 606,000 700,000 Turkey 380,000 500,000 India 319,000 - United States 137,000 295,000 Norway 132,000 132,000 Greenland 54,000 32,000 Canada 45,000 128,000 Australia 19,000 - South Africa 18,000 - Egypt 15,000 309,000 Other Countries 505,000 - World Total 2,230,000 2,130,000 Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Bourquin, Marty Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:59 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Mon Jul 7 20:54:45 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:54:45 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080707191213.009e8ec0@mail.swcp.com> July 6 My comments (SD) interspersed. At 10:03 PM 7/6/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Steven Dapra wrote: > > > Note that above James Salsman ... quoted something Miller and McClain > > said about BEIR IV, to wit: "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... > > cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." > >Those studies have become available, and they have gone from neutral >-- no evidence of carcinogenicity -- to positive, meaning that uranyl >exposure causes leukemia in animals. SD: Let's all run out and warn the animals that they should not eat uranyl. Naturally James has omitted any citations for his claim. >The teratogenicity and mutagenicity have never been in doubt since the 50s >and 90s, >respectively. That was in the portions of Miller and McClain that I quoted. > > > For a dirty bomb (or any type of bomb) to be effective it must do damage > > at the time it is exploded, not (possibly) 30 or 40 years in the future. > >What source could you possibly have for such an absurd statement? Do >you know that weapons which act off the battlefield have been against >international law for almost a century? SD: James, you are soooo dumb. Can you imagine someone saying "I'm going to set off a bomb by you, but don't worry. You won't suffer any ill effects for at least 20 years (the typical latency period for hard tumors), and it may be 30 or 40 years before you see any ill effects, and you may *never* see any ill effects." What good is a bomb like that? All weapons act off the battlefield. We know that because in training exercises weapons are fired and they do damage. What is the source for your "against international law" assertion? > > If you, James, want shipments to Yucca Mountain to begin, why don't > > you petition Sen. Reid of Nevada who is violently opposed to opening YM? >Do you mean "violently" in the literal sense, or is that the sort of >accusation that you think it is okay to make? Senator Reid can't do >anything to stop Yucca Mountain, it has been entirely in the NRC's >hands since last month's submission of the DoE's application. SD: Sen Reid has been fighting Yucca Mountain for a good long while. For example: Las Vegas Review Journal December 4, 2007 http://www.lvrj.com/news/12110841.html WASHINGTON -- With Congress nearing decisions on federal spending for the coming year, Yucca Mountain critics are winding up for another swing at chopping the nuclear waste budget to crippling levels. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is seeking to cut beyond a $50 million decrease the Senate has written into its fiscal 2008 spending for energy programs, a spokesman said Monday. The goal of the Senate majority leader is to disable the Department of Energy's drive to apply, by next summer, for a construction license to build a repository at the Nevada site for thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from power plants and for other forms of highly radioactive waste. "We are working with the House side to further cut Yucca Mountain, but I don't have a firm number just yet," Reid aide Jon Summers said Monday. "The goal always is to kill Yucca Mountain and to ensure the dump is never built." [edit] To quote something you once said to me, James, "Why were you unable to use Google" to find out about Sen. Reid's opposition to YM? (said on RADSAFE, April 5, 2007). It's not only Reid either. The entire Nevada Congressional delegation is opposed to YM. >What we really need is an emergency petition to the NRC to modify the >existing licenses of facilities with overflow spent fuel casks rated >for only eight hours submerged (most all of them) to use the Yucca >Mountain facility according to its existing application on a tentative >basis. What we don't need is the idiots who turn their backs on the >mutagenicity of U(VI) drafting it. SD: What we don't need is the idiots who are fulminating about uranyl causing leukemia in animals. > > RADSAFErs are not opposed to opening YM > >You have clearly not been reading. Dr. Rabbe along with a small >minority of nuclear scientists and engineers want to begin >reprocessing and they think Yucca Mountain will somehow impede it. >Opening Yucca Mountain to overflow cask storage will not impede the >ability to reprocess spent fuel. Even if Yucca Mountain was one-way >there would still be plenty of fuel to get to in non-overflow >facilities. SD: You haven't been reading much either, James. As far as I'm concerned Yucca Mountain isn't the most important thing on tap. I do not know what Dr. Raabe's views are on YM. He will have to speak for himself, because I'm certainly not going to believe you, James, even if on this rare occasion you somehow manage to be correct. I would merely reiterate that by and large your no-nuke fellow travelers are adamantly opposed to YM. If they find out that you support it they will probably revoke your honorary life membership in Physicians for Disease and Surrender (aka Physicians for Social Responsibility). By the way, James, when are you going to post your CV? Steven Dapra From rwhelbig at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 22:10:29 2008 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:10:29 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7f90ec870807072010p1dad0525p2d5559824bc35cbe@mail.gmail.com> This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual information despite using his MD to back it up - From: theroyprocess at cox.net Comment: Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of whistleblowers at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic blueprints of the wire they used did not match, and more! All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you want to bet your life on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will not make you less dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation. http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 ________________________________ Nuclear mortality Public Forum Letter Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions, premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children. These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these studies underestimate the causal relationship. A recent study of large numbers of people in many different countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to build more nuclear plants. Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power." Brian Moench President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment Salt Lake City for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ From Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk Tue Jul 8 04:21:22 2008 From: Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk (Arvic Harms) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:21:22 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium-in-steel reference material Message-ID: Dear all, Are you aware of any currently available tritium-in-steel reference materials suitable for nuclear decommissioning work? Kind regards, Arvic Harms Dr Arvic Harms Radioactivity and Neutrons Group National Physical Laboratory Hampton Road Teddington Middlesex United Kingdom TW11 0LW ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From spencer.fisher at opg.com Tue Jul 8 06:34:29 2008 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:34:29 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jul 8 08:47:42 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:47:42 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: <20156255.1215524862741.JavaMail.root@viefep12> Spencer, Please pay attention, that Darn explicitely wrote U (elemental uranium) and U3O8 (tri-uranium oct-oxide). You forgot in your calculation obviously the contribution of the eight oxygen atoms. Best regards, Franz ---- FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR schrieb: > If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = > 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. > > "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at > UConcentrate at gmail.com > > By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 > having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 09:34:42 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:34:42 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> Message-ID: <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Tue Jul 8 10:08:19 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:08:19 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality Message-ID: <070820081508.12910.487382E2000ED6300000326E2215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Friday I will be touring Palo Verde with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. I hope they will let me use my Palm Rad (counter) to compare readings there with ambient in my office (~0.015mR/hr) and seat (~0.084, to give me exposure more like a denverite, from thorium welding rods under the pillow). Then I would like to confront that Utah physician with his lack of information about amount of exposure I measure at a nuclear plant and the potential benefit (hormesis) he would withhold - longevity and cancer data. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Roger Helbig" > This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect > that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual > information despite using his MD to back it up - > > From: theroyprocess at cox.net > > Comment: > Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of > whistleblowers at > Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic > blueprints of the wire they > used did not match, and more! > > All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you > want to bet your life > on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will > not make you less > dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation. > > http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 > > ________________________________ > > Nuclear mortality > Public Forum Letter > Salt Lake Tribune > > Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT > > Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that > when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel > cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of > nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are > tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions, > premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired > intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children. > These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by > Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed > at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other > debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades > after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these > studies underestimate the causal relationship. > A recent study of large numbers of people in many different > countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher > mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood > leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this > year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with > cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to > build more nuclear plants. > Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their > family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power." > > Brian Moench > President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment > Salt Lake City > > for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur > http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 10:43:58 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:43:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03bc01c8e111$71426750$53c735f0$@com> Hi Spencer: Yellowcake, the mine concentrate, is always represented as the weight equivalent either as pounds U3O8 or as metric Tonnes metal U. This standardized the amount of uranium in the material, regardless of chemical form. Yellowcake may come in several chemical forms, but is frequently converted into one of two commercial weights for sale: either as pounds U3O8 equivalent (even though it may not be an oxide) or as Kg or Tonnes U metal equivalent. This standardizes the actual amount of uranium that the customer is buying. Yellowcake is commonly produced as: Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 Not U3O8. This product, covered under ANSI standards, is shipped to the conversion plant to produce UO3 and eventually UF6. So, if the yellowcake has a reported equivalent assay as Tonnes metal U, the equivalent, represented as pounds U3O8 is as follows: Factor for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Factor for Tonnes to pounds is 2205 Factor for Tonnes U to pounds U3O8 is 2205/0.848 = 2600 My assumption about the Iraqi yellowcake is that since the weight was reported as Tonnes, the "weight equivalent" was probably expressed as metal U (usually the case for international trades). So I multiplied the 550 Tonnes by 2600 to express the "weight equivalent" as pounds U3O8. If the yellowcake was simply the weight of the material, and that was 550 Tonnes, then it would still have to be corrected for the equivalent U3O8 (or metal U) in the product to understand the actual U (or U3O8) equivalent content of the material. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell: ?+43-676-725-6622 HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:34 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Tue Jul 8 11:47:34 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:34 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco In-Reply-To: <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD1@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Interesting pictures. Thanks for sharing them with us, George. I suspect that the placement of the canisters on the truck/trailer was because of weight considerations, not criticality issues. I am not sure that UF6 could ever achieve a critical geometry, even if it is enriched to a fairly high level. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 11:58:34 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:58:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 12:22:16 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> A couple of listmembers who are familiar with these shipments correct my assumption that the spacing might have to do with neutrons, but rather they are quite heavy and are spaced out, over the axels, to distribute that weight. Thanks for the update. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo>K0FF" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:34 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco > Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far > apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together > on the truck. > > > I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes > neutron detection. > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ > > > George Dowell > NLNL > New London Nucleonics Lab > > > Message ----- > From: "Dan W McCarn" > To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium > > > Hi: > > That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind > River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From cehn at aol.com Tue Jul 8 13:07:38 2008 From: cehn at aol.com (Joel Cehn) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:07:38 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality Message-ID: <8CAAF3CA40E791B-DB8-174B@webmail-nc06.sysops.aol.com> Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. Joel I. Cehn, CHP Oakland, California From spencer.fisher at opg.com Tue Jul 8 13:31:58 2008 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:31:58 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: Thank you for the good explanation. Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 -----Original Message----- From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:44 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Hi Spencer: Yellowcake, the mine concentrate, is always represented as the weight equivalent either as pounds U3O8 or as metric Tonnes metal U. This standardized the amount of uranium in the material, regardless of chemical form. Yellowcake may come in several chemical forms, but is frequently converted into one of two commercial weights for sale: either as pounds U3O8 equivalent (even though it may not be an oxide) or as Kg or Tonnes U metal equivalent. This standardizes the actual amount of uranium that the customer is buying. Yellowcake is commonly produced as: Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 Not U3O8. This product, covered under ANSI standards, is shipped to the conversion plant to produce UO3 and eventually UF6. So, if the yellowcake has a reported equivalent assay as Tonnes metal U, the equivalent, represented as pounds U3O8 is as follows: Factor for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Factor for Tonnes to pounds is 2205 Factor for Tonnes U to pounds U3O8 is 2205/0.848 = 2600 My assumption about the Iraqi yellowcake is that since the weight was reported as Tonnes, the "weight equivalent" was probably expressed as metal U (usually the case for international trades). So I multiplied the 550 Tonnes by 2600 to express the "weight equivalent" as pounds U3O8. If the yellowcake was simply the weight of the material, and that was 550 Tonnes, then it would still have to be corrected for the equivalent U3O8 (or metal U) in the product to understand the actual U (or U3O8) equivalent content of the material. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell: ?+43-676-725-6622 HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:34 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ 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/ ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com Tue Jul 8 13:32:02 2008 From: Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com (NIXON, Grant) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:32:02 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> Message-ID: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 15:56:14 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:56:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <1bc801c8e13d$11e00d90$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> I agree with Dan too. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "NIXON, Grant" To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Lee_M_Livesey at RL.gov Tue Jul 8 16:06:51 2008 From: Lee_M_Livesey at RL.gov (Livesey, Lee M) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:06:51 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Tue Jul 8 18:29:13 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:29:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - More nuclear power OK'd Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3A9D@gdses.corp.gds.com> Index: More nuclear power OK'd Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion ---------------------------------- More nuclear power OK'd G8 calls it an 'essential instrument' in cutting use of fossil fuels TOYAKO, Hokkaido - The Group of Eight leaders gave the green light Tuesday to expanded development of nuclear power, saying it is a vital energy source in the fight against global warming. But they warned that further development of nuclear plants must adhere to nonproliferation standards. "A growing number of countries have expressed interest in nuclear power programs as a means to addressing climate change and energy security concerns. These countries regard nuclear power as an essential instrument in reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and hence greenhouse gas emissions," the leaders said in a statement on environment and climate change. At the same time, the G8 leaders said those nations wishing to pursue atomic power must assure the international community that nuclear materials are tightly controlled and not diverted for arms. "We reiterate that safeguards (against nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security are fundamental principles for the peaceful use of nuclear energy," the statement added. Some 29 countries worldwide have indicated they wish to introduce nuclear power, while countries that currently use the energy source, especially Japan, the United States and Russia, have announced plans to expand capacity. In a separate report on global energy security principles, Japan said it plans to increase nuclear power generation to as much as 40 percent of total electricity generation by 2030. However, plans to continue to build not only conventional uranium-powered plants but also a spent fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, and to promote plutonium-burning fast-breeder reactors have long been a source of controversy within and without the G8. Antinuclear activists and environmental NGOs have dismissed G8 plans to increase reliance on nuclear power as a solution to climate change, while nonproliferation experts and many IAEA officials have expressed concerns about increased proliferation. "All this talk of a worldwide nuclear renaissance is just that. The reality is that no new plants have come on line in years, and given the huge investment and long time frame it takes to start up a nuclear power plant, it's unrealistic to think that they can help alleviate climate change anytime in the future," said Jurgen Maier, a German NGO representative. ------------ Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- A report from a State Department advisory panel says a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation poses proliferation risks, but the United States must embrace it to ensure that nuclear supplier nations build safeguards into the growing market. The report highlights division among experts about the future of civil nuclear power across the globe, the risks it poses, and the degree to which U.S. policy should support its spread. Some critics of the report say the expansion of nuclear power is not inevitable and should be resisted. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The task force, led by former Reagan and Bush I arms negotiator and government scientist C. Paul Robinson, produced their relatively brief (10 pages, with about twice that in appendices and introductory material) report in just two months earlier this year. A copy was posted recently on the State Department Web site. The report says global demand for power is likely to rise by 100 percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and natural gas and the fact that nuclear power produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil nuclear energy generation is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see that this is the case," he told United Press International. The report cites a list prepared by the State Department in 2007 of a dozen countries planning to join the nuclear power club, or "giving serious consideration" to it, within the next 10 years -- including the former Soviet Central Asian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan; Islamic giants Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey; and Poland and the Baltic states. Fifteen other nations -- including Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Malaysia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen -- have "longer-term plans or studies under way," according to the State Department list. While wealthier countries "can try to buy their way out" of the looming energy crunch, "the Third World does not have that option," and there are few real alternatives to nuclear power for many countries. "There has proved to be no silver bullet in renewable or other alternative energy sources." The report says there are currently 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with 28 new ones currently under construction. It says 222 more are being planned. "It's a pretty depressing prospect," Robinson concluded. One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. So the panel recommends the United States -- in partnership with other countries that already have the capacity to make fuel, the "supplier nations" -- volunteer to "provide reliable, economical supplies of fuel to nations undertaking new or additional nuclear energy plants" with tough safeguards to prevent them developing their own capacities. But critics challenge their premise, saying the idea that the growth of nuclear power generation is inevitable is a canard. Many of those 435 reactors currently operating are due to be retired in the next 20 to 30 years, points out Henry Sokolski, a proliferation expert who worked for Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration and currently sits alongside him on the congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel examining the threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too risky to be a commercially viable venture without government support, he told UPI. "There's a reason no one in the private sector wants to do this with their own money," Sokolski said. "Nuclear power is a hard sell, literally. ... What the (U.S.) nuclear industry is doing is asking for government handouts, in the form of tax credits, loan guarantees and insurance caps." Reprocessing is also not economically feasible without government financial support. "Working with plutonium requires special safety measures which are very expensive," Sokolski said. The idea that new technologies could help make generation or reprocessing economical is "atomic pie in the sky. The advances required are as far off as making fusion-generation practical, in terms of technology." Expansion is "not inevitable, it is contingent" on U.S. policy changes. "Maybe nuclear power won't expand. It shrank by 2 percent last year," he said. Sokolski called the report "disappointing." He said its authors "seem to be in the business of promoting the expansion of nuclear power, rather than examining the risks associated with its expansion. ... They should have explained in more detail why we should be concerned." But the report does make a bald statement, that the expansion of civil nuclear generating capacity "particularly within Third World nations, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation. What the United States must do," it concludes, "is find ways to mitigate those risks." "Something is afoot, and we can't put on blinkers and pretend it's not happening," said Robinson. ---------------- Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France PARIS (AP) July 8 - France's nuclear safety agency says liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked at a nuclear site in southern France. The agency says some of the solution ran into two rivers. Authorities are banning the consumption of well water in three nearby towns and the watering of crops from the two rivers. Swimming, water sports and fishing are also banned in the area. A spokeswoman for the nuclear safety agency says about 30,000 litres of solution containing uranium spilled at a factory at the Tricastin nuclear site. The site is about 40 kilometres from the historic city of Avignon. Another nuclear safety agency official said the liquid contained about 360 kilograms of unenriched natural uranium, which he said is toxic but only slightly radioactive. "The risk is slight," Charles-Antoine Louet said. The factory handles materials and liquids contaminated by uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants. The liquid spilled from a reservoir that overflowed. It leaked both into the ground and into two rivers, the Gaffiere and the Lauzon, the nuclear safety agency said. It said the cause of the spill was not yet known. Local authorities said the leak happened during the washing of a tank. The nuclear safety agency said uranium concentrations in the Gaffiere river were about 1,000 times the normal levels but were dropping rapidly. ------------ Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. EDMONTON (Canwest News Service ) July 8 - A nuclear power plant proposed for northern Alberta would create about 2,700 long-term jobs and $280 million in annual labour income for the area, says the company that may build the facility. The 10-year site preparation and construction period alone would generate $12 billion for the Alberta economy, and $7.3 billion for the Peace River region, according to a preliminary study commissioned by Ontario-based Bruce Power Alberta. There would be about 1,900 full-time jobs at the plant, and 800 indirect jobs in the region, it says. President Duncan Hawthorne of Ontario's Bruce Power says a new nuclear plant proposed for northern Alberta would bring good economic benefits to the region. The report is the first step toward a more thorough assessment of the social and environmental impact of the $6.2-billion plant, CEO Duncan Hawthorne said Tuesday. "While more work needs to be done, this early report paints a good picture of the economic benefits our proposal would bring to Peace Country." Earlier this year, the company filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for permission to prepare the site at Lac Cardinal, 30 kilometres west of the town, for two to four Candu reactors that would generate as much as 4,000 megawatts of electricity. The company has said nuclear power would be a greener alternative to natural gas to fuel Alberta's oilsands projects. But the proposal has faced strong criticism from provincial opposition parties and environmental groups, who say the province is producing enough power without a nuclear plant. Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said Tuesday the report is all part of the company's public relations efforts. "The public needs to realize the nuclear industry is very sophisticated at lobbying, and this is part of a lobbying and public relations campaign," he said. "It's not all milk and honey. There are very significant financial and environmental risks with nuclear power plants." Most nuclear plants receive huge public subsidies, and should be a last resort after improving energy efficiency and using more wind and hydro power, he said. "We are way behind the rest of the world in energy efficiency." A panel appointed by the province in April is examining issues associated with nuclear plants, including safety, toxic waste, health and environmental impacts. It's expected to take 10 years for the plant to get through all the regulatory and construction stages. ---------- Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile The time needed to develop a nuclear power program, however, can take 12-15 years, according to the minister. "We haven't reached the point where we need to make a decision on the potential use of nuclear energy in Chile," Tokman said after speaking at a conference on nuclear energy hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) in Santiago. "We're not yet even in a condition to make such a decision." "But it would be irresponsible to approach 2020 hoping that any one of the other policies we are using will be a magic solution," he added. Chile, meanwhile, has enough planned new capacity from hydro, coal and renewable sources to provide a safe margin between installed capacity and power demand to last until 2020. The timeframe could extend further if efficient practices are implemented. If no new major source of power is developed however, the country will begin to face a long-term power gap after 2020. By 2030, capacity demand in Chile is expected to reach 25GW, which would require an installed capacity of 35GW for an appropriate safety margin, according Tokman's presentation. The country's current installed capacity is around 12GW. TREMENDOUS EFFORTS The efforts required to implement a nuclear program, meanwhile, would be tremendous, according to the minister. "The efforts that we would need to make to implement a safe nuclear program would be equivalent to what the US had to do to put a man on the moon," Tokman said. "We can't make this decision using the prospective of our current tight power situation." FURTHER STUDIES Chile will continue with its studies of nuclear energy, as no country can rule out the power source, he said, citing some of the benefits that could be seen from the implementation of nuclear energy. The power source could cushion the country - which imports 90% of its fossil fuels - from prices shocks like the one Chile is facing. Uranium, which can be purchased from a wide variety of suppliers, does not account for a large portion of the total cost of power generated by nuclear plants. The power source also emits relatively low amounts of CO2, the minister said. "Nuclear power is competitive, reliable and safe if it's done right," Tokman said. The country will continue studying the potential use of the power source. "It's a very serious discussion and you have to have the answers beforehand," Tokman said, adding that no company would invest in a project if a large part of society were against the use of nuclear energy. ------------- South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion South Africa's power utility Eskom is going slow on regional energy projects to enable it to put in place its nuclear power option - putting a question mark over longer term regional strategies. This was the view of energy analysts at this week's Africa Energy Forum, which took place in Nice, France this week. Representatives of international and regional power utilities were surprised at the absence of Eskom at the annual gathering - some saw it as reflecting the company's embarrassment after the power blackouts that have been hitting hit SA and its neighbours since January. Eskom has been using use gas turbine plants to cope with the demand at a cost of 23.08 cents/kWh, substantially higher that 1.28 cents/kWh average cost to operate coal-fired plant. The power crisis has also meant that mining production in the first quarter declined 11.4% over 2007. Eskom's expansion plans will only bring relief by 2012. To bridge the gap, Eskom plans to double its current generation capacity, reaching 80,000MW by 2025, and is investigating options to build a conventional nuclear power 20,000MW capacity equivalent to 25% of the total projected capacity. Five sites have already been identified - Brazil and Schulpfontein on the Northern Cape west coast, Duynefontein and Bantamsklip on the Western Cape coast and Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast. Analysts quoted in the ESI Africa magazine anticipate that by 2030 some 30% of South Africa's energy mix will be nuclear. Eskom will have to bridge the gap between now and 2012 but has clearly decided to downgrade its regional projects. Since last year there has been no major progress elsewhere. The Mmamabula coal-fired power station in Botswana is expected to produce 2,400MW during its first phase but the development of the project is experiencing delays. The start of commercial operations was scheduled for early 2012, but in Nice the head of the Canadian CIC-Energy company, Gregory Kinross, said that a power purchase agreement between the company and Eskom for most of the electricity generated has not yet been signed. This means that commercial operations may have to wait another year to 2013. Meanwhile, Margaret van der Merwe, the head of the 675MW Kudu gas power station project in Namibia, complained that "Eskom's risk appetite is limited". Likewise, representatives of the Congolese SNEL electricity parastatal told SouthScan that over the last few months neither Eskom nor other South African entities had been involved in the development of the Inga III or Grand Inga projects. Other Southern African utilities have shown much more enthusiasm because they fear that in the event of a further power crunch they will come second in Eskom's supply priorities; Eskom shares power with other SADC countries. In the view of a South African-based energy consultant, Eskom, which has a good deal of control over the regional energy market, is deliberately dragging its feet, preferring to rely on costly "interim solutions" offered by diesel-powered engines in order to secure a market for its future nuclear industry. But the result could be a deterioration of Eskom's relationship with other countries in the region. The Inga dam project, for instance, is much more than just a hydro power scheme; it is projected to be the centre of a grid that will supply much of Africa and will integrate SA's industrial hub into the wider region. This is as much a political strategy as an economic one. "If Eskom tends to think less regional, we may be forced to reassess our projects under a more local scenario", a representative from another power utility in the region told SouthScan. This would be a blow to South Africa's ambition to be the locomotive of the regional energy sector. However, it indicates the extent to which the nuclear power option has become central to the SA government's strategy forthe coming decades, as exemplified in its just agreed nuclear programme. ----------------------------------- Sander C.?Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division? 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 ? +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) ? Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ ? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 18:38:22 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:38:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com><0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <1c5201c8e153$b8004620$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> http://www.rampac.com/DOT-SP/SP14215.pdf East Tennessee Industrial Park = K-25 site. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Oak%20Ridge%20Trip/K-25.jpg Pictures by George Dowell George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Livesey, Lee M" To: "'NIXON, Grant'" ; "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:06 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). From LCS at golden.net Tue Jul 8 19:37:15 2008 From: LCS at golden.net (Michael LaFontaine, P.Phys.) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:37:15 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] addendum to Sandy Perle's posting Message-ID: <200807090038.m690coku021320@smtp2.execulink.net> Darlington to get two new nuclear reactors Posted: June 16, 2008, 10:39 AM by Rob Roberts By Becky Rynor, Canwest News Service Two new nuclear reactors will be built at the site of the Darlington A power station near Toronto, Ontario Energy Minister Gerry Phillips announced today. "The decision to go with Darlington was made after a review of all the relevant issues," said Alan Findlay, a spokesman for the province's Ministry of Energy. Findlay said the decision to build the reactors came down to a choice between Darlington, 75 kilometres east of Toronto, and the Bruce nuclear plant in Tiverton, 223 kilometres northwest of Toronto. With the new plants going to Darlington, the Bruce facility will continue to provide approximately 6,300 megawatts of electricity, either through a refurbishing and upgrade of the Bruce B plant or by putting in new units at what would be called Bruce C, Findlay added. "Maintaining and renewing Ontario's nuclear energy fleet is an important part of the Ontario government's climate change plan and its 20-year plan to bring clean, affordable and reliable electricity to Ontarians," the minister said in an news release. The notion of a nuclear reactor as a green energy source has caused deep divisions among activists. Several prominent environmentalists, including Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, are vocal proponents. Others dismiss nuclear's environmental benefits as propaganda put forward by the industry. "You'd have to have a pretty high price on carbon for that benefit to start to show because of the large upfront costs involved in building a new nuclear plant," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a Greenpeace campaigner. Monday's announcement outlines the latest steps in the process to select and build a two-unit nuclear power plant and maintain Ontario's nuclear generation capacity at 14,000 megawatts. In the same announcement, AREVA NP, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and Westinghouse Electric Company were also identified as the three organizations invited to bid on the nuclear power plant construction project. Their bids will be evaluated on the basis of three key considerations: lifetime cost of the power; ability to meet Ontario's timetable to bring the new power supply online in 2018, and the level of investment they will bring to Ontario. The successful vendor will be chosen by the end of this year. Construction of the new plant is expected to create about 3,500 direct construction and engineering jobs between 2012 and 2018. The new plant will be operated by Ontario Power Generation. _________________ The province of Ontario, Canada currently has 20 nuclear power generating stations. From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jul 8 20:18:02 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:18:02 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality In-Reply-To: <8CAAF3CA40E791B-DB8-174B@webmail-nc06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080708191646.009f3a20@mail.swcp.com> July 8 I did a Google search for "Atomic veterans" "mortality study" and was referred to an online book by the National Academy Press. The link below will take you to page one of the front matter. This is the material on page one: Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test Medical Follow-up Agency INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE by J. Christopher Johnson Susan Thaul William F. Page Harriet Crawford with oversight from the Institute of Medicine Committee on the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5428&page=R1 I would recommend reading the Summary, the Study Rationale, and Other Studies of the Human Health Effects of Radiation Exposure. Of course, this is only about the CROSSROADS test, however it should get you started. The first Reference is to Beebe GW and Simon AH. Ascertainment of mortality in the U.S. veteran population. American Journal of Epidemiology 89:636---643, 1969; which will doubtless give a broader picture. Steven Dapra At 02:07 PM 7/8/08 -0400, Joel Cehn wrote: >Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish >that >when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality >study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. > > >Joel I. Cehn, CHP >Oakland, California From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Tue Jul 8 22:27:23 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 05:27:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality References: <5.2.1.1.1.20080708191646.009f3a20@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E01@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Steve and all: Results of a more recent and more comprehensive study are reported in another publication by the National Academy Press: Susan Thaul, William F. Page, Harriet Crawford, and Heather O'Maonaigh, Committee to Study the Mortality of Military Personnel Present at Atmospheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests NAP #9697 (2000) http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9697 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 Steven Dapra Gesendet: Mi 09.07.2008 03:18 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality July 8 I did a Google search for "Atomic veterans" "mortality study" and was referred to an online book by the National Academy Press. The link below will take you to page one of the front matter. This is the material on page one: Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test Medical Follow-up Agency INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE by J. Christopher Johnson Susan Thaul William F. Page Harriet Crawford with oversight from the Institute of Medicine Committee on the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5428&page=R1 I would recommend reading the Summary, the Study Rationale, and Other Studies of the Human Health Effects of Radiation Exposure. Of course, this is only about the CROSSROADS test, however it should get you started. The first Reference is to Beebe GW and Simon AH. Ascertainment of mortality in the U.S. veteran population. American Journal of Epidemiology 89:636---643, 1969; which will doubtless give a broader picture. Steven Dapra At 02:07 PM 7/8/08 -0400, Joel Cehn wrote: >Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish >that >when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality >study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. > > >Joel I. Cehn, CHP >Oakland, California _______________________________________________ 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/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Tue Jul 8 23:53:24 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:53:24 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco In-Reply-To: <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <48744444.7090803@peoplepc.com> My sincere thanks also for allowing access to your website and multiple links. Not being an HP, I was especially pleased to see pictures of many tools of your work, the shipping canisters, and so on. I even enjoyed your ham radio muf charts and items that I had not used or seen for many years. Thanks very much for the pleasure, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis at peoplepc.com) ========================== Geo>K0FF wrote: > A couple of listmembers who are familiar with these shipments correct > my assumption that the spacing might have to do with neutrons, but > rather they are quite heavy and are spaced out, over the axels, to > distribute that weight. ----------------snipped------------- From jim.talty at usu.edu Tue Jul 8 11:03:31 2008 From: jim.talty at usu.edu (James Talty) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:03:31 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality In-Reply-To: <070820081508.12910.487382E2000ED6300000326E2215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> References: <070820081508.12910.487382E2000ED6300000326E2215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8795050EDD735240AA49D027F481FC760C90C9CAA2@exchg-be01.aggies.usu.edu> The physician (he is an (anesthesiologist out of LDS hospital) mentioned in the article has spoken out strongly for the past three or so years about the evils of coal fired power plants. If he had his way we would shut down all coal fired power plants because of the respiratory damage they incur. He and his group seem to have taken up another evil- radiation. In the last sentence he asks who in your family are you willing to sacrifice for clean nuclear power? If we take the road he proposes somewhere around 70% (50% coal and 20% nuclear) of the power in the US would be removed from the grid. I would like to ask him which states would he chose to go send back to the dark ages. As a physician one would expect him to appreciate the benefits provided by nuclear energy and the countless lives it has saved. I used this article yesterday in a presentation and contrasted it to an article in Science (17 Oct 2003, Vol 302) "A healthful Dab of Radiation". I told the students they must be very careful when they evaluate such articles as many have a hidden agenda. Jim Talty RSO Utah State University -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:08 AM To: Roger Helbig; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality Friday I will be touring Palo Verde with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. I hope they will let me use my Palm Rad (counter) to compare readings there with ambient in my office (~0.015mR/hr) and seat (~0.084, to give me exposure more like a denverite, from thorium welding rods under the pillow). Then I would like to confront that Utah physician with his lack of information about amount of exposure I measure at a nuclear plant and the potential benefit (hormesis) he would withhold - longevity and cancer data. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Roger Helbig" > This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect > that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual > information despite using his MD to back it up - > > From: theroyprocess at cox.net > > Comment: > Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of > whistleblowers at > Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic > blueprints of the wire they > used did not match, and more! > > All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you > want to bet your life > on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will > not make you less > dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation. > > http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 > > ________________________________ > > Nuclear mortality > Public Forum Letter > Salt Lake Tribune > > Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT > > Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that > when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel > cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of > nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are > tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions, > premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired > intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children. > These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by > Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed > at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other > debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades > after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these > studies underestimate the causal relationship. > A recent study of large numbers of people in many different > countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher > mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood > leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this > year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with > cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to > build more nuclear plants. > Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their > family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power." > > Brian Moench > President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment > Salt Lake City > > for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur > http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr Wed Jul 9 01:41:02 2008 From: nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr (BRISSON Nicolas) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:41:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Message-ID: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> Hi all, Here are some more information about the uranium leak at SOCATRI yesterday. This in only in French but I'll try to make a short summary if I get some free time during the day. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 03:52:18 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 03:52:18 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant In-Reply-To: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> References: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> Message-ID: <045b01c8e1a1$18f17240$4ad456c0$@com> France's Areva says uranium leaked into river Tue Jul 8, 2008 3:09pm EDT PARIS (Reuters) - French nuclear firm Areva said on Tuesday 30 cubic meters of a liquid containing natural uranium was accidentally poured on the ground and into a river at a site in southeastern France. The uranium, which was not enriched, was poured on the ground during the cleaning of a tank at the Socatri group, an Areva subsidiary, on the site of the Tricastin nuclear plant. "Around 30 cubic meters of a liquid containing uranium, with a concentration of 12 grams of uranium per liter, was poured on the ground," France's nuclear safety authority said in a statement, adding that it will carry out an investigation on July 10 to determine the causes of the accident. Socatri specializes in the maintenance and dismantling of nuclear material as well as managing nuclear waste. Part of the liquid soaked into the ground at the company's premises while the rest ran into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers, which flow into the Rhone. A Socatri spokesman said the firm will monitor the impact of the accident on the environment. (Reporting by Muriel Boselli) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of BRISSON Nicolas Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:41 AM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Hi all, Here are some more information about the uranium leak at SOCATRI yesterday. This in only in French but I'll try to make a short summary if I get some free time during the day. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 From hermann.jossen at suva.ch Wed Jul 9 03:37:57 2008 From: hermann.jossen at suva.ch (Jossen Hermann (JOH)) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:37:57 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AW: radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <617aeece-be2a-4222-89c7-699bbc772fad@s991015.suvanet.ch> References: <617aeece-be2a-4222-89c7-699bbc772fad@s991015.suvanet.ch> Message-ID: <7D2CD5CF6F0BA14DAC43CED3A787E9C808796AFD32@s991017.suvanet.ch> Freundliche Gr?sse Suva Abteilung Arbeitssicherheit Luzern Bereich Physik Hermann Jossen Postfach 4358 6002 Luzern Tel: 041 419 6030 mailto: hermann.jossen at suva.ch http://www.suva.ch -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von radsafe-request at radlab.nl Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008 01:47 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 4 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: Cameco (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) 2. RE: Cameco (Dan W McCarn) 3. Re: Cameco (Geo>K0FF) 4. Nuclear mortality (Joel Cehn) 5. RE: Metric Tonne (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) 6. RE: RE: Cameco (NIXON, Grant) 7. Re: RE: Cameco (Geo>K0FF) 8. RE: RE: Cameco (Livesey, Lee M) 9. Nuclear News - More nuclear power OK'd (Perle, Sandy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:34 -0700 From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cameco To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD1 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Interesting pictures. Thanks for sharing them with us, George. I suspect that the placement of the canisters on the truck/trailer was because of weight considerations, not criticality issues. I am not sure that UF6 could ever achieve a critical geometry, even if it is enriched to a fairly high level. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:58:34 -0500 From: Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "'Radsafe \(E-mail\)'" Message-ID: <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:22:16 -0500 From: "Geo>K0FF" Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cameco To: "Geo>K0FF" , "'Radsafe \(E-mail\)'" , "Dan W McCarn" Message-ID: <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac at your4dacd0ea75> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response A couple of listmembers who are familiar with these shipments correct my assumption that the spacing might have to do with neutrons, but rather they are quite heavy and are spaced out, over the axels, to distribute that weight. Thanks for the update. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo>K0FF" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:34 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco > Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are > far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close > together on the truck. > > > I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes > neutron detection. > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ > > > George Dowell > NLNL > New London Nucleonics Lab > > > Message ----- > From: "Dan W McCarn" > To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium > > > Hi: > > That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at > Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. > _______________________________________________ > 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:07:38 -0400 From: Joel Cehn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <8CAAF3CA40E791B-DB8-174B at webmail-nc06.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. Joel I. Cehn, CHP Oakland, California ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:31:58 -0400 From: "FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne To: "Dan W McCarn" , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thank you for the good explanation. Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 -----Original Message----- From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:44 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Hi Spencer: Yellowcake, the mine concentrate, is always represented as the weight equivalent either as pounds U3O8 or as metric Tonnes metal U. This standardized the amount of uranium in the material, regardless of chemical form. Yellowcake may come in several chemical forms, but is frequently converted into one of two commercial weights for sale: either as pounds U3O8 equivalent (even though it may not be an oxide) or as Kg or Tonnes U metal equivalent. This standardizes the actual amount of uranium that the customer is buying. Yellowcake is commonly produced as: Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 Not U3O8. This product, covered under ANSI standards, is shipped to the conversion plant to produce UO3 and eventually UF6. So, if the yellowcake has a reported equivalent assay as Tonnes metal U, the equivalent, represented as pounds U3O8 is as follows: Factor for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Factor for Tonnes to pounds is 2205 Factor for Tonnes U to pounds U3O8 is 2205/0.848 = 2600 My assumption about the Iraqi yellowcake is that since the weight was reported as Tonnes, the "weight equivalent" was probably expressed as metal U (usually the case for international trades). So I multiplied the 550 Tonnes by 2600 to express the "weight equivalent" as pounds U3O8. If the yellowcake was simply the weight of the material, and that was 550 Tonnes, then it would still have to be corrected for the equivalent U3O8 (or metal U) in the product to understand the actual U (or U3O8) equivalent content of the material. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell: ?+43-676-725-6622 HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:34 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ 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/ ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:32:02 -0400 From: "NIXON, Grant" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "Dan W McCarn" , "Radsafe \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA at CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:56:14 -0500 From: "Geo>K0FF" Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "NIXON, Grant" , "Dan W McCarn" , "Radsafe \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <1bc801c8e13d$11e00d90$cc2984ac at your4dacd0ea75> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original I agree with Dan too. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "NIXON, Grant" To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:06:51 -0700 From: "Livesey, Lee M" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "'NIXON, Grant'" , Dan W McCarn , "Radsafe (E-mail)" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: 9 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:29:13 -0700 From: "Perle, Sandy" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - More nuclear power OK'd To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3A9D at gdses.corp.gds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Index: More nuclear power OK'd Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion ---------------------------------- More nuclear power OK'd G8 calls it an 'essential instrument' in cutting use of fossil fuels TOYAKO, Hokkaido - The Group of Eight leaders gave the green light Tuesday to expanded development of nuclear power, saying it is a vital energy source in the fight against global warming. But they warned that further development of nuclear plants must adhere to nonproliferation standards. "A growing number of countries have expressed interest in nuclear power programs as a means to addressing climate change and energy security concerns. These countries regard nuclear power as an essential instrument in reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and hence greenhouse gas emissions," the leaders said in a statement on environment and climate change. At the same time, the G8 leaders said those nations wishing to pursue atomic power must assure the international community that nuclear materials are tightly controlled and not diverted for arms. "We reiterate that safeguards (against nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security are fundamental principles for the peaceful use of nuclear energy," the statement added. Some 29 countries worldwide have indicated they wish to introduce nuclear power, while countries that currently use the energy source, especially Japan, the United States and Russia, have announced plans to expand capacity. In a separate report on global energy security principles, Japan said it plans to increase nuclear power generation to as much as 40 percent of total electricity generation by 2030. However, plans to continue to build not only conventional uranium-powered plants but also a spent fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, and to promote plutonium-burning fast-breeder reactors have long been a source of controversy within and without the G8. Antinuclear activists and environmental NGOs have dismissed G8 plans to increase reliance on nuclear power as a solution to climate change, while nonproliferation experts and many IAEA officials have expressed concerns about increased proliferation. "All this talk of a worldwide nuclear renaissance is just that. The reality is that no new plants have come on line in years, and given the huge investment and long time frame it takes to start up a nuclear power plant, it's unrealistic to think that they can help alleviate climate change anytime in the future," said Jurgen Maier, a German NGO representative. ------------ Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- A report from a State Department advisory panel says a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation poses proliferation risks, but the United States must embrace it to ensure that nuclear supplier nations build safeguards into the growing market. The report highlights division among experts about the future of civil nuclear power across the globe, the risks it poses, and the degree to which U.S. policy should support its spread. Some critics of the report say the expansion of nuclear power is not inevitable and should be resisted. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The task force, led by former Reagan and Bush I arms negotiator and government scientist C. Paul Robinson, produced their relatively brief (10 pages, with about twice that in appendices and introductory material) report in just two months earlier this year. A copy was posted recently on the State Department Web site. The report says global demand for power is likely to rise by 100 percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and natural gas and the fact that nuclear power produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil nuclear energy generation is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see that this is the case," he told United Press International. The report cites a list prepared by the State Department in 2007 of a dozen countries planning to join the nuclear power club, or "giving serious consideration" to it, within the next 10 years -- including the former Soviet Central Asian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan; Islamic giants Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey; and Poland and the Baltic states. Fifteen other nations -- including Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Malaysia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen -- have "longer-term plans or studies under way," according to the State Department list. While wealthier countries "can try to buy their way out" of the looming energy crunch, "the Third World does not have that option," and there are few real alternatives to nuclear power for many countries. "There has proved to be no silver bullet in renewable or other alternative energy sources." The report says there are currently 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with 28 new ones currently under construction. It says 222 more are being planned. "It's a pretty depressing prospect," Robinson concluded. One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. So the panel recommends the United States -- in partnership with other countries that already have the capacity to make fuel, the "supplier nations" -- volunteer to "provide reliable, economical supplies of fuel to nations undertaking new or additional nuclear energy plants" with tough safeguards to prevent them developing their own capacities. But critics challenge their premise, saying the idea that the growth of nuclear power generation is inevitable is a canard. Many of those 435 reactors currently operating are due to be retired in the next 20 to 30 years, points out Henry Sokolski, a proliferation expert who worked for Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration and currently sits alongside him on the congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel examining the threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too risky to be a commercially viable venture without government support, he told UPI. "There's a reason no one in the private sector wants to do this with their own money," Sokolski said. "Nuclear power is a hard sell, literally. ... What the (U.S.) nuclear industry is doing is asking for government handouts, in the form of tax credits, loan guarantees and insurance caps." Reprocessing is also not economically feasible without government financial support. "Working with plutonium requires special safety measures which are very expensive," Sokolski said. The idea that new technologies could help make generation or reprocessing economical is "atomic pie in the sky. The advances required are as far off as making fusion-generation practical, in terms of technology." Expansion is "not inevitable, it is contingent" on U.S. policy changes. "Maybe nuclear power won't expand. It shrank by 2 percent last year," he said. Sokolski called the report "disappointing." He said its authors "seem to be in the business of promoting the expansion of nuclear power, rather than examining the risks associated with its expansion. ... They should have explained in more detail why we should be concerned." But the report does make a bald statement, that the expansion of civil nuclear generating capacity "particularly within Third World nations, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation. What the United States must do," it concludes, "is find ways to mitigate those risks." "Something is afoot, and we can't put on blinkers and pretend it's not happening," said Robinson. ---------------- Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France PARIS (AP) July 8 - France's nuclear safety agency says liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked at a nuclear site in southern France. The agency says some of the solution ran into two rivers. Authorities are banning the consumption of well water in three nearby towns and the watering of crops from the two rivers. Swimming, water sports and fishing are also banned in the area. A spokeswoman for the nuclear safety agency says about 30,000 litres of solution containing uranium spilled at a factory at the Tricastin nuclear site. The site is about 40 kilometres from the historic city of Avignon. Another nuclear safety agency official said the liquid contained about 360 kilograms of unenriched natural uranium, which he said is toxic but only slightly radioactive. "The risk is slight," Charles-Antoine Louet said. The factory handles materials and liquids contaminated by uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants. The liquid spilled from a reservoir that overflowed. It leaked both into the ground and into two rivers, the Gaffiere and the Lauzon, the nuclear safety agency said. It said the cause of the spill was not yet known. Local authorities said the leak happened during the washing of a tank. The nuclear safety agency said uranium concentrations in the Gaffiere river were about 1,000 times the normal levels but were dropping rapidly. ------------ Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. EDMONTON (Canwest News Service ) July 8 - A nuclear power plant proposed for northern Alberta would create about 2,700 long-term jobs and $280 million in annual labour income for the area, says the company that may build the facility. The 10-year site preparation and construction period alone would generate $12 billion for the Alberta economy, and $7.3 billion for the Peace River region, according to a preliminary study commissioned by Ontario-based Bruce Power Alberta. There would be about 1,900 full-time jobs at the plant, and 800 indirect jobs in the region, it says. President Duncan Hawthorne of Ontario's Bruce Power says a new nuclear plant proposed for northern Alberta would bring good economic benefits to the region. The report is the first step toward a more thorough assessment of the social and environmental impact of the $6.2-billion plant, CEO Duncan Hawthorne said Tuesday. "While more work needs to be done, this early report paints a good picture of the economic benefits our proposal would bring to Peace Country." Earlier this year, the company filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for permission to prepare the site at Lac Cardinal, 30 kilometres west of the town, for two to four Candu reactors that would generate as much as 4,000 megawatts of electricity. The company has said nuclear power would be a greener alternative to natural gas to fuel Alberta's oilsands projects. But the proposal has faced strong criticism from provincial opposition parties and environmental groups, who say the province is producing enough power without a nuclear plant. Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said Tuesday the report is all part of the company's public relations efforts. "The public needs to realize the nuclear industry is very sophisticated at lobbying, and this is part of a lobbying and public relations campaign," he said. "It's not all milk and honey. There are very significant financial and environmental risks with nuclear power plants." Most nuclear plants receive huge public subsidies, and should be a last resort after improving energy efficiency and using more wind and hydro power, he said. "We are way behind the rest of the world in energy efficiency." A panel appointed by the province in April is examining issues associated with nuclear plants, including safety, toxic waste, health and environmental impacts. It's expected to take 10 years for the plant to get through all the regulatory and construction stages. ---------- Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile The time needed to develop a nuclear power program, however, can take 12-15 years, according to the minister. "We haven't reached the point where we need to make a decision on the potential use of nuclear energy in Chile," Tokman said after speaking at a conference on nuclear energy hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) in Santiago. "We're not yet even in a condition to make such a decision." "But it would be irresponsible to approach 2020 hoping that any one of the other policies we are using will be a magic solution," he added. Chile, meanwhile, has enough planned new capacity from hydro, coal and renewable sources to provide a safe margin between installed capacity and power demand to last until 2020. The timeframe could extend further if efficient practices are implemented. If no new major source of power is developed however, the country will begin to face a long-term power gap after 2020. By 2030, capacity demand in Chile is expected to reach 25GW, which would require an installed capacity of 35GW for an appropriate safety margin, according Tokman's presentation. The country's current installed capacity is around 12GW. TREMENDOUS EFFORTS The efforts required to implement a nuclear program, meanwhile, would be tremendous, according to the minister. "The efforts that we would need to make to implement a safe nuclear program would be equivalent to what the US had to do to put a man on the moon," Tokman said. "We can't make this decision using the prospective of our current tight power situation." FURTHER STUDIES Chile will continue with its studies of nuclear energy, as no country can rule out the power source, he said, citing some of the benefits that could be seen from the implementation of nuclear energy. The power source could cushion the country - which imports 90% of its fossil fuels - from prices shocks like the one Chile is facing. Uranium, which can be purchased from a wide variety of suppliers, does not account for a large portion of the total cost of power generated by nuclear plants. The power source also emits relatively low amounts of CO2, the minister said. "Nuclear power is competitive, reliable and safe if it's done right," Tokman said. The country will continue studying the potential use of the power source. "It's a very serious discussion and you have to have the answers beforehand," Tokman said, adding that no company would invest in a project if a large part of society were against the use of nuclear energy. ------------- South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion South Africa's power utility Eskom is going slow on regional energy projects to enable it to put in place its nuclear power option - putting a question mark over longer term regional strategies. This was the view of energy analysts at this week's Africa Energy Forum, which took place in Nice, France this week. Representatives of international and regional power utilities were surprised at the absence of Eskom at the annual gathering - some saw it as reflecting the company's embarrassment after the power blackouts that have been hitting hit SA and its neighbours since January. Eskom has been using use gas turbine plants to cope with the demand at a cost of 23.08 cents/kWh, substantially higher that 1.28 cents/kWh average cost to operate coal-fired plant. The power crisis has also meant that mining production in the first quarter declined 11.4% over 2007. Eskom's expansion plans will only bring relief by 2012. To bridge the gap, Eskom plans to double its current generation capacity, reaching 80,000MW by 2025, and is investigating options to build a conventional nuclear power 20,000MW capacity equivalent to 25% of the total projected capacity. Five sites have already been identified - Brazil and Schulpfontein on the Northern Cape west coast, Duynefontein and Bantamsklip on the Western Cape coast and Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast. Analysts quoted in the ESI Africa magazine anticipate that by 2030 some 30% of South Africa's energy mix will be nuclear. Eskom will have to bridge the gap between now and 2012 but has clearly decided to downgrade its regional projects. Since last year there has been no major progress elsewhere. The Mmamabula coal-fired power station in Botswana is expected to produce 2,400MW during its first phase but the development of the project is experiencing delays. The start of commercial operations was scheduled for early 2012, but in Nice the head of the Canadian CIC-Energy company, Gregory Kinross, said that a power purchase agreement between the company and Eskom for most of the electricity generated has not yet been signed. This means that commercial operations may have to wait another year to 2013. Meanwhile, Margaret van der Merwe, the head of the 675MW Kudu gas power station project in Namibia, complained that "Eskom's risk appetite is limited". Likewise, representatives of the Congolese SNEL electricity parastatal told SouthScan that over the last few months neither Eskom nor other South African entities had been involved in the development of the Inga III or Grand Inga projects. Other Southern African utilities have shown much more enthusiasm because they fear that in the event of a further power crunch they will come second in Eskom's supply priorities; Eskom shares power with other SADC countries. In the view of a South African-based energy consultant, Eskom, which has a good deal of control over the regional energy market, is deliberately dragging its feet, preferring to rely on costly "interim solutions" offered by diesel-powered engines in order to secure a market for its future nuclear industry. But the result could be a deterioration of Eskom's relationship with other countries in the region. The Inga dam project, for instance, is much more than just a hydro power scheme; it is projected to be the centre of a grid that will supply much of Africa and will integrate SA's industrial hub into the wider region. This is as much a political strategy as an economic one. "If Eskom tends to think less regional, we may be forced to reassess our projects under a more local scenario", a representative from another power utility in the region told SouthScan. This would be a blow to South Africa's ambition to be the locomotive of the regional energy sector. However, it indicates the extent to which the nuclear power option has become central to the SA government's strategy forthe coming decades, as exemplified in its just agreed nuclear programme. ----------------------------------- Sander C.?Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division? 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 ? +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) ? Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ ? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 4 *************************************** Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht und ihr eventuell angeh?ngte Dateien sind nur f?r den Adressaten bestimmt. Sie kann vertrauliche oder gesetzlich gesch?tzte Daten oder Informationen beinhalten. Falls Sie diese Nachricht irrt?mlich erreicht hat, bitten wir Sie h?flich, diese unter Ausschluss jeglicher Reproduktion zu l?schen und die absendende Person zu benachrichtigen. Danke f?r Ihre Hilfe. This message and any attached files are for the sole use of the recipient named above. It may contain confidential or legally protected data or information. If you have received this message in error, please delete it without making any copies whatsoever and notify the sender. Thank you for your assistance. From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Wed Jul 9 04:00:04 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:00:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant References: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E04@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> If the information in the press is correct, 30000 liters of a solution containing 360 kg (natural) Uranium, i.e. in total 288 PBq U (140 + 6.5 + 141 PBq U238, U235, U234 respectively) were released into two rivers. To appraise its health effects, the dilution factor must be guessed, which determines uptake by the 'end consumer'. Regards, Rainer ________________________________ Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von BRISSON Nicolas Gesendet: Mi 09.07.2008 08:41 An: radsafelist Betreff: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Hi all, Here are some more information about the uranium leak at SOCATRI yesterday. This in only in French but I'll try to make a short summary if I get some free time during the day. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 From nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr Wed Jul 9 04:31:22 2008 From: nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr (BRISSON Nicolas) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:31:22 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Message-ID: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F8@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> It seems that the document didn't made to the list, so here is a translation of an information note released by IRSN. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The plant of SOCATRI, located on the site of Tricastin deals with decontamination of nuclear installation cleaning up tools and recovery of uranium. The effluents generated by the various workshops dedicated to these operations are handled by the uranium effluent treatment plant before being discharged into the canal Donz?re - Mondragon. On 7 July 2008 at 23 h 00, the overflow of a tank of this plant has caused the spill of about 30 m3 of solution containing uranium (uranium content 12 g/l). This loss of integrity of the tank led to the spillage of part of the solution in the building and in the sewage. This network joins the river "Gaffi?re" and then "Lauzon" and finally the Rhone. The first actions taken by SOCATRI to limit the consequences have been to isolate this network on the site and to drill into the ground water where the spill occured to carry out measurements in the water and, where appropriate, pump the contaminated water to limit its spread into the environment. The IRSN was alerted of the incident by local authorities; The Institute sent an expert to join the crisis management team of the Prefecture of Vaucluse and a team of first responders near the facility to carry out sampling and measurements of surface and ground water. In addition, a team of experts gathered at the crisis management center of IRSN to asses the situation. It proposed a set of actions related to the restricting measures concerning use and consumption of water already adopted by the Prefect. The first measurements of surface waters carried out by the operator showed uranium concentration exceeding the guide value recommended by WHO for water intended for the human consumption by a factor of 1000 for a short period during the peak of pollution. Some pollution having seeped into the soil, IRSN defined a monitoring plan for ground water whose results will be published on its website www.irsn.org. This information will allow the local public authorities to adapt and then lift the restricting measures already set up. Analysis of the first measurements by the IRSN show that the radiological consequences for people should be negligible. From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jul 9 05:46:24 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:46:24 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: <10156248.1215600384573.JavaMail.root@viefep12> . Dan, thank you for this sentence. I have never understood why commonly the chemical formula of yellow cake is given as U3O8 - also on RADSAFE. I know U3O8 (pitchblende) to be deep black like "pitch" (Pechblende in German) - one of the possible origins of the name. Furthermore I have very nice samples of uranium ore with the characteristic black spots of pitchblende, collected by myself at a mining site in the Great Canyon area. I brought some pieces recently to my friends in Poland, crossing two borders (Austria - Czech Republic and CzR - Poland) without being arrested. Furthermore it would not make sense to convert leached uranium into an insoluble compound. Best regards, Franz ----------------------------------------- Yellowcake is commonly produced as: > > Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 > > Not U3O8. From mojoforever at hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 07:15:22 2008 From: mojoforever at hotmail.com (Dan Glick) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:15:22 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security Message-ID: All, I would like to speak with any HP types that may work for DHS about dose rates of airport X-ray machines. Would someone be willing to forward some contact information? _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 9 08:59:57 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 06:59:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Dan, There is much data posted on the internet, such as Kodak website about dose to film, etc., from both carry-on as well as checked luggage. Typically, there is negligible dose from a carry-on x-ray. Checked luggage, depending on where you are, domestic or international, can sometimes observe dose as high as 2.5 mSv., depending on what is packed in the bag, etc. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 9 09:00:35 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75> Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html It is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to the Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) temperature had more to do with the color than the uranium content. U3O8 is also called yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, was originally real yellowcake: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/MVC-004S.JPG They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) More pictures from Grants NM: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/ The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads located in Grand Junction Colorado. On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I have discovered made so. My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "NIXON, Grant" To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant From Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com Wed Jul 9 10:56:49 2008 From: Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com (NIXON, Grant) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:56:49 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65566E4@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> I do not think that it is greater than 1% U-235 by weight. Even when the U-235 content is deemed to be greater than 0.72% by weight, but not exceeding 1.0%, it is still classified as fissile, although it is regulated as non-fissile radioactive material (excepted from packaging requirements for fissile materials). I suspect that, in this case, the yellowcake's natural abundance of U-235 exceeds the nominal value of 0.72% by weight (but I suspect it to be less than 1%) and, as such, it is classified as "enriched/fissile." As per Dan's email, the container content is yellowcake but expressed as uranium hexafluoride equivalent for trade and transportation reasons. Note that the contents only amount to about 4.5 Ci (168.3 GBq) on one of the containers. Grant -----Original Message----- From: Livesey, Lee M [mailto:Lee_M_Livesey at RL.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:07 PM To: NIXON, Grant; Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 9 12:47:58 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:47:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3B7A@gdses.corp.gds.com> Good starting link: http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan Glick Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:15 AM To: rad safe; conlrk at exeoncorp.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security All, I would like to speak with any HP types that may work for DHS about dose rates of airport X-ray machines. Would someone be willing to forward some contact information? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Wed Jul 9 12:50:36 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:50:36 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation In-Reply-To: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> >From one of the articles Sandy posted (thank you, Sandy): "One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs." This is trotted out both by anti-nukes and by people who want to agitate against a particular country. I think the dangers are overstated in two ways: The first is that it is technically not easy to make weapons-grade material in the quantities needed for weapons. It is clearly within the technological abilities of a number of countries to make centrifuge systems that can concentrate U235, however there is a non-trivial increase in the challenge when moving from the several percent enriched needed for reactor fuel to the near isotopicly pure U235 needed for a weapon. And it takes a LOT of uranium to get the required amount of U235. If the reactor is not designed to optimize the production of Pu239 and limit production of other isotopes of plutonium, the recycled fuel from that reactor will not be very suitable for weapons. Personally, I suspect that a major part of North Korea's willingness to dismantle their nuclear weapons program in exchange for lots of wealth was that their test explosive device (it wasn't usable as a weapon; that is another level of complexity) proved that they couldn't make weapons-grade material with their system. I can't prove that, but it fits the evidence better than "they changed their position out of the goodness of their hearts." The second reason I think the proliferation risk is overstated is that EVEN IF a country is successful in making a, or even several, atomic weapons, they will find what the US and USSR found: they aren't very useful. They lack flexibility. If the other side has them, too, you can use them to kick over the game board, but you can't use them to win the game. The claim, "They are just crazy enough to do it!" is perhaps over used when the correct phrase is more like "I haven't bothered to try to figure out their reasoning." Both the US and USSR were guilty of that during the Cold War. The third reason is that, frankly, the world is safer with the "rogue nations" spending their resources on nuclear weapons research than it is with them pursuing other things, such as biological or chemical weapons. North Korea trying to make a nuclear weapon is scary; North Korea trying to resurrect small pox is terrifying. A country giving a terrorist organization a nuke is bad; a country giving a terrorist organization the same dollar-value of a top-grade nerve gas is worse. So why am I saying this? I believe that as new reactors are proposed around the world, the anti-nuke faction will take every opportunity to overstate dangers. I believe that responsible people, especially those in the rad community, should be prepared to point out the weaknesses in those arguments, especially if we are called upon by the media to comment. From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 00:09:18 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:09:18 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 0.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To James Salesman: None of the references you posted seems relevant for my request: References that show that radiation induced damage (change in the DNA code) to a germ cell line was transferred to the next generation in such a way that some disease, malformation or other phenotypic defect could be detected in a statistically solid way. I am still interested to know if there are such references. The references you give are about effects on somatic cells but I referred only to germ cells. Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com-------------------------------------------> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:50:05 -0700> From: BenjB4 at gmail.com> To: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafe at radlab.nl> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis> > Dear Dr. Cedervall,> > Thank you for your request:> > > Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s).> > I just posted them here:> http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010491.html> > In particular here:> > "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration,> sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel> workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al> (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in> friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the> study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a> statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as> compared with low-exposure groups.> > "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of> DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure.> > "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity> to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium> incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which> can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.)> > "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under> investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate> the twitch response of ... muscles.> > "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain> barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing> electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure.> Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid> peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks> of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial> changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found> that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased> rapidly after injection and remained elevated....> > "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that> the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at> exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects> is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well.> > "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk> until more studies become available."> > "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast> cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride....> The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth,> increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of> the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors> in nude mice.> > "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state> induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU> pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with> murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice> developed leukemia.> > -- the above is from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A> Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo> Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89.> > James Salsman _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 00:40:34 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:40:34 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: Radsafers, I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners. I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk? This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those). Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda). _________________________________________________________________ It?s a talkathon ? but it?s not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk From rad_sci_health at comcast.net Thu Jul 10 04:02:14 2008 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Jim Muckerheide) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:02:14 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake In-Reply-To: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: See, e.g.: http://flickr.com/photos/marusia/146050780/ And http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=yellowcake&btnG=Search+Images Regards, Jim ============== on 7/9/08 10:00 AM, Geo>K0FF at GEOelectronics at netscape.com wrote: > Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html > It is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to the > Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) temperature > had more to do with the color than the uranium content. U3O8 is also called > yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically > pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. > > > This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, was > originally real yellowcake: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/M > VC-004S.JPG > > They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell > visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore > displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville > Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) > > More pictures from Grants NM: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/ > > The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete > slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological > and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads > located in Grand Junction Colorado. > > On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium > mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical > presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose > with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ > The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some > radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I > had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in > aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is > shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I > have discovered made so. > > > > My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, > but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. > > George Dowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NIXON, Grant" > To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco > > > > I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched > isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium > concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). > No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually > black or brown in colour). > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 10 07:06:34 2008 From: Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk (Arvic Harms) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:06:34 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NPL Environmental Radioactivity Proficiency Test Exercise 2008 Message-ID: NPL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY PROFICIENCY TEST EXERCISE 2008 Although the deadline for ordering was 1 June 2008, it is still possible to participate in this exercise. Currently we have a few spare samples from each of the samples type still available. If you are interested in participating, please send your order form to NPL as soon as possible. Further details of this exercise, previous exercises and the order form can be found on the NPL Environmental Radioactivity Proficiency Test Exercise website. http://www.npl.co.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2664 Kind regards, Arvic Harms Dr Arvic Harms Radioactivity and Neutrons Group National Physical Laboratory Hampton Road Teddington Middlesex United Kingdom TW11 0LW ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From cjb01 at health.state.ny.us Thu Jul 10 08:13:35 2008 From: cjb01 at health.state.ny.us (Clayton J Bradt) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:13:35 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Message-ID: The doses, from what I have read, are in the microSv range- truly insignificant. It's the privacy invasion that is excessive. They say that passengers are given a choice. They can go through the body scanner or be subject to a pat-down. Or, in other words: "Either let us peek through your clothes or we'll feel you up!" In the USA freedom really has become just another word for nothing left to lose. Clayton J. Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Thu Jul 10 08:30:12 2008 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:30:12 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can I get both? Don Koloff Clayton J Bradt To Sent by: radsafe at radlab.nl radsafe-bounces at r cc adlab.nl Subject [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body 07/10/2008 09:19 scanners AM Or, in other words: "Either let us peek through your clothes or we'll feel you up!" In the USA freedom really has become just another word for nothing left to lose. Clayton J. Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu Jul 10 08:57:49 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:57:49 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E04@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Bjorn, in a radsafe thread "RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow" , sent Do 11.05.2006 19:59, dealing with "new airport body scanners", Kim McMAHAN, ORNL External Dosimetry, (mcmahankl at ornl.gov), quoted a manufacturer with a dose to an individual of 30 nSv per scan which might be compared to the variability of the natural background dose rate between 70 and 100 nSv/h in our area. Notwithstanding your plea, I cannot refrain from noting that your argument depends on the premise that there is a risk associated with such an exposure. Otherwise it would be pointless. If you know reasons to assume this, please share them. Your condition "This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level" is surely met in any case. Kind 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 07:41 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Radsafers, I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners. I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk? This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those). Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda). _________________________________________________________________ It's a talkathon - but it's not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk_______________________________________________ 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/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jul 10 08:57:09 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:09 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake In-Reply-To: References: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <005901c8e294$d9ebb700$8dc32500$@oilfield.slb.com> Interesting set of photos! Lots of "yellow".... I trolled through them and liked this one: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/a-frightened-vil lager-brings-t?mode=send I wonder if incidents like this are casually being (mis)used to boost the problems caused by DU.... Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jim Muckerheide Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:02 AM To: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake See, e.g.: http://flickr.com/photos/marusia/146050780/ And http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=yellowcake&btnG=Search+Images Regards, Jim ============== on 7/9/08 10:00 AM, Geo>K0FF at GEOelectronics at netscape.com wrote: > Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html > It is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to the > Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) temperature > had more to do with the color than the uranium content. U3O8 is also called > yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically > pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. > > > This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, was > originally real yellowcake: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum /M > VC-004S.JPG > > They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell > visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore > displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville > Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) > > More pictures from Grants NM: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum / > > The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete > slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological > and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads > located in Grand Junction Colorado. > > On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium > mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical > presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose > with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ > The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some > radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I > had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in > aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is > shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I > have discovered made so. > > > > My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, > but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. > > George Dowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NIXON, Grant" > To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco > > > > I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched > isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium > concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). > No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually > black or brown in colour). > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 10 09:13:57 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:13:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3BF6@gdses.corp.gds.com> There are several factors that should be addressed. 1. Dose to the individual As far as dose, we all recognize that this is insignificant, no matter what age of the individual exposed. More dose from natural background, smoke from others containing radioactive material and any medical procedure that the individual undertakes. This is a non-issue. 2. Privacy While I personally don't have any issues with this being a privacy issue, since many have voiced privacy and modesty issues as a reason against this new technology, the methodology has been well explained. The individual viewing the screen does not see the individual, there is no identification, the viewer is in a different room, and, the images are not saved, they are deleted as soon as the scan is done and the individual is cleared. This seems workable to me. 3. Overall objective Protect the flying public. Sounds good to me. As a frequent flyer, I want as many logical and realistic security checks performed that are effective as well as being time reduced. I am tired of waiting in long lines at airports, where they don't have priority screening, to see some of the ridiculous checks that are performed, and most are ineffective, performed by over-worked staff and many not having a clue and no consistency from one airport check-point to another. I want the most technologically advanced systems in place that will protect me and my family, and oh yes, the rest of you as well. If this technology and those that are being developed will do that, then I say bring them on. There is a point where public safety and the saving of lives and/or reducing catastrophic injury must be implemented. I'm tired of those who cry that their rights are being trodden on. Answer, don't get on a plane, don't go in a building where security checks are performed. If you want to risk your life, then stick your head in the sand and maybe this will all just go away. In the meantime, I and my family are not going to suffer because of your beliefs that government should do nothing, that we continue to perform the current meaningless checks that simply waste time and don't give me any relief when I am in the air for 11 hours over some large body of water. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu Jul 10 09:31:25 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:25 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E1B@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Bjorn, assuming that the quoted 30 nSv is an equivalent organ dose to the skin and given the reported range of X-rays less than one cm its contribution to effective dose and hence total effective dose would be 300 pSv. Regards, Rainer -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Facius, Rainer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 15:58 An: 'Bjorn Cedervall'; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Bjorn, in a radsafe thread "RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow" , sent Do 11.05.2006 19:59, dealing with "new airport body scanners", Kim McMAHAN, ORNL External Dosimetry, (mcmahankl at ornl.gov), quoted a manufacturer with a dose to an individual of 30 nSv per scan which might be compared to the variability of the natural background dose rate between 70 and 100 nSv/h in our area. Notwithstanding your plea, I cannot refrain from noting that your argument depends on the premise that there is a risk associated with such an exposure. Otherwise it would be pointless. If you know reasons to assume this, please share them. Your condition "This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level" is surely met in any case. Kind 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 07:41 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Radsafers, I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners. I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk? This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those). Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda). _________________________________________________________________ It's a talkathon - but it's not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk_______________________________________________ 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/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 10 11:13:39 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake In-Reply-To: <005901c8e294$d9ebb700$8dc32500$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75>, , <005901c8e294$d9ebb700$8dc32500$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <4875EEE3.9651.1BDA60F@garyi.trinityphysics.com> My kids went to camp this summer and came back with a touch of rash, as well as some peeling skin on their toes. Obviously, that camp is contaminated with DU, or yellowcake, but perhaps both. They must have walked on it, and absorbed the deadly radiation right thru their shoes. While I wait to hear back from my lawyer, I'll work on the title of my BSNBC exposee. "Are Your Kids Mutating?" "Camp Big Glow" "A Father's Agony" "The Atomic Family" Let me know if you think of something better. Thanks, -Gary On 10 Jul 2008 at 8:57, Doug Aitken wrote: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Interesting set of photos! Lots of "yellow".... I trolled through them and liked this one: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/a-frighten ed-vil lager-brings-t?mode=send I wonder if incidents like this are casually being (mis)used to boost the problems caused by DU.... Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jim Muckerheide Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:02 AM To: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake See, e.g.: http://flickr.com/photos/marusia/146050780/ And http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=yellowcake&btnG=Search+Images Regards, Jim ============== on 7/9/08 10:00 AM, Geo>K0FF at GEOelectronics at netscape.com wrote: > Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html It > is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to > the Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) > temperature had more to do with the color than the uranium content. > U3O8 is also called > yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically > pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. > > > This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, > was originally real yellowcake: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20 Museum /M > VC-004S.JPG > > They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell > visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore > displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville > Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) > > More pictures from Grants NM: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20 Museum / > > The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete > slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological > and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads > located in Grand Junction Colorado. > > On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium > mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical > presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose > with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ > The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some > radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I > had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in > aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is > shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I > have discovered made so. > > > > My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, > but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. > > George Dowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NIXON, Grant" > To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco > > > > I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched > isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium > concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). > No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually > black or brown in colour). > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 10 11:59:39 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation In-Reply-To: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: , <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com>, <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Mike, You make some excellent points, but I must say that any culture that embraces suicide bombing, using their own children as carriers, definitely falls into the category of "They are just crazy enough to do it!" Remember, I am not talking about having their children taken from them by force. No, I am talking about parents who have a celebration prior to the bombing. Just think about that for a second. What would they do if they had a nuclear weapon? North Korea is one thing, but Islamic terrorism is entirely different. But I do agree with you that biological or chemical agents are the more serious threat. If there were a button that would make every non-muslim head in the world suddenly explode, I promise you that we would find quite a few people who would fight each other to be able to push it first. And that is your happy thought for the day. :) -Gary Isenhower On 9 Jul 2008 at 10:50, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote: ------snip-------------- The second reason I think the proliferation risk is overstated is that EVEN IF a country is successful in making a, or even several, atomic weapons, they will find what the US and USSR found: they aren't very useful. They lack flexibility. If the other side has them, too, you can use them to kick over the game board, but you can't use them to win the game. The claim, "They are just crazy enough to do it!" is perhaps over used when the correct phrase is more like "I haven't bothered to try to figure out their reasoning." Both the US and USSR were guilty of that during the Cold War. The third reason is that, frankly, the world is safer with the "rogue nations" spending their resources on nuclear weapons research than it is with them pursuing other things, such as biological or chemical weapons. North Korea trying to make a nuclear weapon is scary; North Korea trying to resurrect small pox is terrifying. A country giving a terrorist organization a nuke is bad; a country giving a terrorist organization the same dollar-value of a top-grade nerve gas is worse. So why am I saying this? I believe that as new reactors are proposed around the world, the anti-nuke faction will take every opportunity to overstate dangers. I believe that responsible people, especially those in the rad community, should be prepared to point out the weaknesses in those arguments, especially if we are called upon by the media to comment. From MARIO.D.MUDEK at saic.com Thu Jul 10 12:47:43 2008 From: MARIO.D.MUDEK at saic.com (Mudek, Mario D.) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:47:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Position for SAIC in Baghdad Iraq In-Reply-To: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301@garyi.trinityphysics.com> References: , <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com>, <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Message-ID: <666945B294F3BB4D8D12C1F106E60CFE039E62A0@0004-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> Please apply online and feel free to send your resume and any questions you may have directly to me or give me a call. https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/0AJ9J50 A9S082AM2OCCI4H6WEH8397XYZTD3XOH7JGXOYYYMRADRV1FNYA0PYG7GHOFY4SVSXM3FANS D61RMZB5P4DHW7KHPXYRTYFOIM6W3ZB75NWR10MTAUCY928BI7399UA9SOIQGYS18Y87UPSR 19278R1927WESXH7WR10SBLSOTPA2GZL0EZT94HA4VEHNB1G5JI3YUMK6ELXUMGOW The Security and Transport Technology Business Unit currently has an opening for a RADIATION SAFETY OFFICER in Iraq. Job Description: This position requires the individual to perform all necessary radiation safety duties as assigned by the RSO (or customer's RSO) in support of specific goals and objectives relative to the applicable radiation safety program and license. Perform routine duties without supervision, including, but not limited to: performing/documenting/tracking/maintaining surveys, issuing/retrieving dosimetry, issuing/tracking instrument calibration/repair, receiving/tracking radioactive material, tracking supplies/equipment, obtaining/tracking radiation machine registration, maintaining license records, preparing audit files, performing training and preparing training packages and recording results etc. Education: Bachelor of Science Degree and 7 years experience, or equivalent training and experience Required Skills: Able to apply basic radiation safety and math fundamental concepts, practices and procedures. Familiar with Regulatory requirements for radioactive material possession, use, storage, receipt and transport. Familiar with standard survey methods and instruments. Familiar with data base entry and searches. Familiar with word, adobe acrobat, excel, etc. Good oral and written communication skills. Able to audit and document audit results for a variety of program areas. Able to provide training in radiation safety areas to individuals not technically advanced in the subject. Desired Skills: Basic project and record management experience/skills. Mario D. Mudek, RRPT ARSO, Health Physicist Specialist SAIC Radiation Safety Office 2985 Scott Street Vista, CA 92081 Office Direct - 858-826-9284 BlackBerry - 858-205-8135 Fax - 858-826-9540 Notice: The information in this email may be confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This email is intended only for the individual or organization named above, and not necessarily the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or disseminate this email, its attachments, or the information contained herein. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 10 16:02:07 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:02:07 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3C85@gdses.corp.gds.com> Index: Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants Hundreds meet on second Mo. county nuclear reactor The nuclear cycle and the hostility cycle EU still reliant on nuclear power Nuclear power still an option - Australian Libs Medical supply firm sues Canada's nuclear agency Nuclear deal to fuel BHEL expansion Nuclear power is the key to resolving three global crises - food, global warming, and resource distribution Uranium levels fall after nuclear leak in France CT scanner might cut costs and radiation exposure ----------------------------------- Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants BERLIN: With Germany committed to reducing global warming gases while struggling to deal with soaring fuel costs, one of the giant energy companies in the country said Thursday that Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition could only deal with both issues by extending the working life of the country's nuclear plants. Wulf Bernotat, chairman of the European energy powerhouse E.ON, said during an interview here that it was "questionable" whether Merkel's government of conservatives and Social Democrats could realize its environmental ambitions without reversing its policy on nuclear energy, which provides power with only minimal atmospheric contributions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. The government has vowed to increase the amount of power generated by renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, to 30 percent by 2020 from 14 percent. At the same time, it has promised to reduce Germany's carbon dioxide emission levels in 2020 by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels. That timetable coincides with the planned shutdown of all but one of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants, a policy that was part of an agreement negotiated between the energy companies and a coalition led by the Social Democrats and Greens in 2000. Related Articles EDF battles to keep its nuclear secrets Today in Business with Reuters Washington struggles to avoid a federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie MacOPEC warns against military conflict with IranDow Chemical buying a rival, Rohm & Haas, for $15.3 billion Merkel, sworn in as conservative Chancellor in November 2005 and a supporter of nuclear power, nonetheless agreed to continue that policy as the price for establishing a coalition with the Social Democrats. But Bernotat, who represents a part of the German energy sector that strongly defends the continuation of nuclear energy, said Merkel's government, particularly her Social Democratic partners could not have it both ways by wanting to reduce CO2 gases while ending the use of nuclear plants. Nuclear energy makes up 12 percent of Germany's primary supply and over a quarter of electricity generation. The International Energy Agency in Paris, in a recent report on Germany, also questioned the cost to Germany's energy security, energy efficiency and environmental sustainability if the nuclear plants are closed. Bernotat said the Social Democrats "will have to decide what they really want," as the attitudes of governments in Asia and Europe were shifting in favor of using more nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is free of CO2 gases, it is independent of resources, it would lead to dramatic fall in prices and subsidies, and it is protected from price volatility," Bernotat told a group of foreign correspondents based in Berlin. Merkel has publicly adhered to the coalition accord, fearing any backtracking would be exploited by the Social Democrats and the opposition Greens and Left Party, which are all vehemently against continuing nuclear power. When she attended the Group of 8 summit meeting of the leading industrialized countries this week in Japan, Merkel refrained from supporting calls to increase the use of nuclear energy as a means of curbing energy prices and tackling climate change. She echoed the position of several energy experts, including Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, arguing that nuclear power amounted to a short-term fix that did little to prepare for the long-term need to rely increasingly on renewable energy. That is a position she has publicly championed since taking office. Still, it does not entirely reflect her own views. Merkel told top party officials last month that the decision originally made by her Social Democrat predecessor, Gerhard Schr?der, "was absolutely wrong." Had she spoken out in favor of nuclear energy, she would have been criticized at home for reneging on the coalition accord. As a result, Merkel found herself "isolated" at the summit meeting because of her stance on nuclear power, the German media reported. Annette Schavan, the conservative technology minister, has taken the lead in the government in defending the continued use of nuclear power. "We need to exit the exit solution," Schavan told Bild am Sonntag last week. "We urgently need the life-span expansion as a contribution to global climate protection and for a more lasting energy policy." She countered accusations from the Greens that Merkel's conservatives want to build new power stations. "In Germany today, the issue is not about building new nuclear power plants but who can say whether that will still apply in 10 years," she added. ---------- Hundreds meet on second Mo. county nuclear reactor FULTON, Mo. (AP) -- Hundreds of supporters and opponents packed a Westminster College auditorium for the first public glimpse of a proposed second nuclear reactor at AmerenUE's Callaway plant. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission hosted the Wednesday night session, which the agency called a public outreach forum, not a formal hearing. The St. Louis-based utility has yet to submit its application for a new reactor. It says it plans to seek a construction and operating license so it can decide by 2010 whether to move forward in time to have a new reactor on line by 2018. After a brief overview by NRC officials of the licensing process, a succession of speakers largely praised the pending project, calling Ameren a good corporate neighbor with a proven safety record in the 23 years since the 1,190-megawatt power plant opened. "It's unreal what this is going to do for this community," said April Bergeron, a union mechanic who lives near the Callaway plant and has worked at the facility. "They're the safest place there is. You can eat off the floor." Reactor opponents offered a drastically different assessment. In a news conference held before the public event, they called on Ameren Corp., the utility's corporate parent, to more aggressively pursue alternative and renewable energy options. "Nuclear power is a phenomenally expensive, dead-end technology," said Mark Haim of Missourians for Safe Energy, an anti-nuclear group. "It has failed the test of the marketplace. Its much touted revival is only conceivable with enormous subsidies right now from all taxpayers, and huge bills not far down the pike for Missouri ratepayers." The company then known as Union Electric initially planned a second nuclear reactor at the Callaway County site. That plan was scrapped after a grass-roots effort opposing the Callaway project led Missouri voters in 1976 to decisively approve a law prohibiting state utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built. Persuading state lawmakers to overturn that restriction is a top priority for Ameren in the next legislative session. Should that fail, the company likely won't build a second reactor -- which would require two cooling towers beside the current one -- but instead pursue more costly natural gas generators. Ameren expects the new reactor to cost at least $6 billion, or $9 billion with financing -- roughly the entire value of the parent corporation. Opponents suggest that a new reactor will cost even more, with the utility passing on those costs to consumers. Ameren has enlisted UniStar Nuclear of Baltimore to assist with its construction and licensing application. The company is a joint venture between Constellation Energy Group Inc. and the state-owned Areva Group of France. Approval of the Ameren application, once submitted, is contingent upon the federal agency also approving a new Areva reactor now in use in parts of Europe. ----------- The nuclear cycle and the hostility cycle WASHINGTON, July 10 (UPI) -- The recommendation of a State Department advisory panel that the United States band together with other existing nuclear powers to build safeguards into the growing market for reactor capacity risks fanning nationalistic hostility in the Third World to global anti-proliferation regimes, say some critics. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The report says the United States must embrace a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation -- despite the proliferation risks it poses -- to ensure that nuclear supplier nations work together to build tough new safeguards into the growing market. But critics charge this kind of thinking only exacerbates suspicion about the role of the United States and its First World allies among less developed aspirant nuclear powers. The suggestion that existing nuclear powers should monopolize production to stop the proliferation of fuel processing technologies that also can be used to make weapons material "causes nostrils to flair in the Third World," said Brian Finlay of the Stimson Center. Finlay, a proliferation expert who has worked with Third World governments on proliferation issues, said there was "a longstanding sensitivity (among aspirant nuclear nations) to any policy that appears to be trying to restrict technology transfer." Finlay's main criticism of the advisory panel's report is that it "fails to create a pathway we can move down towards ending this adversarial relationship with the Third World." He called for "out-of-the-box and innovative thinking about the regulation of nuclear technology" to break what he called "the cycle of hostility" of non-nuclear but aspirant nations toward their perceived "big brothers" who already have the technology to process and reprocess nuclear fuel. The tough restrictions to which the report recommends aspirant nuclear nations must sign up as the quid pro quo for getting guaranteed fuel and technology could "provoke something of a backlash" among them, Finlay added. But the former U.S. nuclear negotiator and government scientist who led the task force that wrote the report told United Press International the real cycle was one of fear -- bred by the prospect of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. "Iran is saying, 'You can't infringe on our sovereign rights as a nation'" to develop nuclear power and fuel production, said C. Paul Robinson. But its neighbors have rights, too. "They are worried. They're saying, 'If they have the right (to a nuclear program), we have the right to defend ourselves'" and develop their own nuclear programs. "Somebody has to do something, or they (the neighbors) are going to take matters into their own hands," Robinson concluded. "The world seems headed in a very bad set of directions," acknowledged Robinson. He added a lot of work is still required to implement the kind of safeguards regimen the report recommends. For starters, most of the supplier nations have no equivalent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Robinson said, which reviews and must approve all exports of nuclear technology by U.S. firms. Supplier nations need "some mechanism that would bind their (commercial) nuclear suppliers to their national policies. ... There's got to be national enforcement" of any deals among supplier nations. "There are no easy solutions," said Robinson, but he added he is still "sanguine about the prospects" for success. Henry Sokolski, an expert who heads the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, disputes that view and the recommendations of the task force: "If you cannot trust a country not to break its pledges not to make bombs, you ultimately have no way of ensuring that they won't." -------- EU still reliant on nuclear power BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Europe draws nearly a third of its energy from nuclear power and just 15 percent from renewable sources such as hydroelectric dams and windmills, according to European Union figures released Thursday. Seeking to cut its reliance on imported oil and natural gas, the European Union is trying to reduce energy consumption and develop more homegrown sources of power -- such as renewables -- that would also limit its output of greenhouse gases. But the most recent EU statistics on energy use, from 2006, show that Europeans have been using more power and buying in more imports over the past decade. Energy use rose 7 percent from 1997 to 2006. As oil and gas from the North Sea run out, Europe is also importing far more energy, up 29 percent over the same period. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels such as crude oil and natural gas, which are usually imported. Russia has emerged as a major supplier. In 2006, it provided a third of Europe's oil imports and 40 percent of the natural gas Europe bought. A fifth of Europe's energy came from natural gas -- which is often burned to produce electricity -- and 14 percent from oil used as transport fuel. Another 22 percent comes from coal and wood. Nuclear energy is the biggest source of power for the 27-nation bloc at 29 percent although the technology is highly controversial. France, a major advocate, champions it as a low-carbon emission fuel source that produces most of the nation's electricity. But Germany and many eastern European countries plan to shut down older atomic power stations over safety concerns. This wave of plant closures has already seen one country, Lithuania, cut its power production by just over a tenth as a Soviet-era plant was closed four years ago because it was unsafe. --------- Nuclear power still an option - Australian Libs THE Federal Opposition has not given up hope of nuclear power coming to Australia as part of the quest for low-emission electricity. Liberal senator Helen Coonan said if efforts to clean up coal failed, nuclear power could become an option. "What you need to do is to keep an open mind about alternatives to coal, and if you can't clean up coal ... you've got to look at other options, you can't just go down one track," she told ABC Television's Q and A program tonight. "We believe that (nuclear power) should be one of the options but it has to be bipartisan, and it has to be economically viable." Senator Coonan said nuclear power was increasingly becoming an option in other countries. For Australia, cleaning up coal was the best option and renewables were also important, she said, but nuclear power was still an option. The federal government's Small Business Minister Craig Emerson said Labor did not support nuclear power for Australia. Greens senator Christine Milne said renewable energy held the key to cleaning up Australia's electricity. ----------- Medical supply firm sues Canada's nuclear agency OTTAWA (AFP) - A Canadian company that supplies radioactive materials for medical tests worldwide on Wednesday sued the government and its nuclear agency for shelving two reactors crucial for its supply of isotopes. In a statement, MDS Inc. said the two cancelled Maple reactors would have produced 40 years of medical isotopes for patients worldwide. By nixing the project, the company claims the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) breached its contractual obligations, and it is now seeking 1.6 billion dollars in damages from the agency and the government of Canada. "We have had to resort to taking these steps to protect the interests of patients, the nuclear medicine community, our shareholders and our customers," said Stephen DeFalco, president and CEO of MDS. "We are disappointed that AECL and the government decided to abandon the Maple project without establishing a clear plan for the long-term supply of critical medical isotopes," he added. In a statement, AECL said it had met its obligations to MDS and planned to "vigorously defend" itself in court. A spokeswoman for Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn echoed AECL and told AFP the project had been mismanaged by a previous administration, "leaving it crippled with technical and economic problems for years." In 1996, MDS had entered into an agreement with AECL for the design, development and construction of the two new nuclear reactors and a processing facility. The so-called Maple project was intended to replace AECL's aging National Research Universal (NRU) reactor, which produces about half of the world's medical isotopes, and was to be completed by the year 2000 at a planned cost to MDS of 145 million dollars. But by 2005, the project was not yet completed and costs had more than doubled, with MDS's investment exceeding 350 million dollars. In May, the government pulled the plug on the project, citing soaring costs and delays. To meet the demand for medical isotopes, AECL said it would keep its 50-year-old NRU reactor operational, however its license is up in October 2011. A temporary maintenance shutdown of the aging NRU reactor last year sparked a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes, and led to the firing of Canada's nuclear safety chief. According to reports, thousands of medical tests were postponed in Canada, the United States and other countries because of the isotopes shortage. Medical isotopes are radioactive materials which are injected into patients to allow molecular imaging equipment to produce detailed scans for diagnosing cancer and other diseases. MDS has an exclusive contract to supply AECL medical isotopes to hospitals and clinics around the world for molecular imaging, radiotherapeutics, and analytical instruments. ------------- Nuclear deal to fuel BHEL expansion State-run Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) is eyeing a goldmine of contracts, courtesy the much-delayed nuclear deal that now appears close to execution. The company is hoping to get high-value orders from the world's leading atomic energy equipment makers that are looking to sell reactors and projects here once the nuclear deal comes into force, enabling India to access the global market for nuclear fuel and technology. "We have the capability of making critical components required in a nuclear power reactor and we are looking at countries that produce nuclear power," a senior BHEL official said on the condition of anonymity. "We expect our orders to come from developed countries like US, France and Canada." He declined to put any estimate on the value of the contracts. Once the nuclear deal comes into force, it "would boost sentiments for power and allied capital goods sector," said Puneet Bambha, analyst, Angel Broking. "Though difficult to quantify the materiality and the timeline of the benefits at this juncture, few companies including BHEL, L&T, and NTPC, would tend to be the key beneficiaries." More than 400 nuclear power plants are operating across 30 countries and about 16 per cent of the world energy is generated from nuclear sources. BHEL is tapping both the replacement as well as the planned new nuclear plants worldwide. The company operates a plant in Tiruchy that can manufacture reactor components comprising four steam generators and reactor heads each for a 500-mw nuclear power plant. It can also make nuclear turbines at its plant in Bhopal. "We are looking for a technology collaborator to step up the manufacturing facility of steam generators and reactor heads to cater to over 1,200 mw nuclear power plants," the official said. BHEL already supplies atomic power components to Bhaba Atomic Research Centre and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited - the sole agency to design, construct, commission and operate nuclear power plants in the country. ------------ Nuclear power is the key to resolving three global crises - food, global warming, and resource distribution Sergei Kirienko guardian.co.uk, - All the major issues that were on the G8 agenda - the food crisis, global warming and uneven distribution of development resources among countries - are closely interlinked, first and foremost, to a shortage of energy and resulting price hikes. Previous forecasts regarding the growth of energy consumption and the development of new energy technologies have not come true. Consumption is growing at a much faster pace, while new energy sources will not become commercially viable before 2030. Oil prices have risen, but even the $130-$140 per barrel will not fund new fields capable of satisfying the world economy. Alternative energy sources are currently unable to provide the necessary scale. And their costs confirm the maxim that energy is never cheap: witness the price of ethanol. Nuclear power is not the only means of overcoming the crises, but it is undoubtedly a major instrument in resolving the three problems on the G8 agenda. Nuclear power plants in Europe help prevent the annual emission of 700m tonnes of CO2, and in Japan the figure is 270m tonnes. In Russia the share of nuclear power is set to grow from 16% to 20-25% by 2030, which means that new nuclear power plants in our country will reduce greenhouse gas emission by between 10-15%. That is not a mere declaration, but a decision based on concrete sources of financing. Until now, the development of nuclear power focused on increased single-unit reactor capacity and thus unfortunately denied the benefits of atomic power to countries with under-developed energy networks, mainly on the African continent. However, today the nuclear power industry is ready to offer to the market small and medium-yield reactors, which may open-up prospects for a larger number of countries. Another major benefit of nuclear power is its capability to simultaneously desalinate water. This will help alleviate the food crisis in two ways. African countries lack fresh water to develop agriculture, and fresh water may become a major casualty of the food crisis. Access to reliable and cheap sources of energy is a major condition for sustainable economic development of any country. A growing number of industrialised countries and emerging economies realise the necessity to begin developing on their territories' peaceful atomic power technologies. Up to 600 new nuclear reactors are planned worldwide by 2030. This increases the importance of enhanced restrictions on the use of atomic power. It is the right of any country to enjoy the benefits of peaceful atomic energy. But it is the right of the world community to demand unconditional compliance with security norms and non-proliferation guarantees. Russia is both initiating the creation of a new security system for the development of nuclear power and working to launch enhanced mechanisms to guarantee nuclear non-proliferation. We have already initiated the creation of an infrastructure of international centres to provide nuclear fuel services, granting equal access to atomic energy to all the interested parties while ensuring strict compliance with non-proliferation requirements under International Atomic Energy Agency control. As an example, an international uranium enrichment centre has been created and is operating in the Russian city of Angarsk. Angarsk will have a guaranteed reserve of low-enriched uranium, managed by the IAEA board of governors, guaranteeing fuel supplies to any country of the world regardless of any political reasons. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has said, opposition to nuclear power was a mistake and it is now a major means to counter global warming. The disappearance of old stereotypes on the political level will accelerate the development of nuclear power. That will help quickly lift non-market barriers in Europe and America, imposed to protect domestic producers, but which is a hindrance when the market faces shortages. A clear political signal will also guide the banking community, which is currently reluctant to get involved in nuclear power plant investment projects, due to a few radical pressure groups. We need broad international cooperation to solve the crises the world faces. We will continue to propose such an approach to our colleagues in the other G8 countries, especially when it comes to the peaceful use of atomic power. --------- Uranium levels fall after nuclear leak in France PARIS - Tests show that uranium levels are diminishing but have not vanished from rivers in southern France after a leak from a nuclear site, regional authorities said Wednesday. Anti-nuclear groups, meanwhile, questioned the handling of the incident at the Tricastin nuclear site near Avignon, noting inconsistent official statements about when it occurred and about how much unenriched uranium was leaked. France's nuclear safety agency said liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a factory at the site, and that uranium concentrations in the Gaffiere river were initially about 1,000 times the normal levels. The agency said the uranium is only slightly radioactive although toxic. Initially the agency said the accident occurred Tuesday morning, but later said it occurred Monday night. On Wednesday, Tricastin authorities revised downward the amount of liquid that leaked. Authorities in the Vaucluse region maintained a ban Wednesday on the consumption of well water in three nearby towns and the watering of crops from the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. Swimming, water sports and fishing also remain banned. A series of tests Tuesday showed that "uranium levels (in surface water) remained well above normal but strongly diminished through dilution throughout the day," the regional administration said in a statement. The tests found no uranium in groundwater. Tricastin authorities changed the amount that had leaked from 7,900 gallons (30,000 liters) to 4,760 gallons (18,000 liters), according to another statement from the Vaucluse regional administration. It said the liquid contained 493 pounds (224 kilograms) of natural unenriched uranium, instead of 794 pounds (360 kilograms) announced earlier. The factory handles materials and liquids contaminated by uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants. The liquid spilled from a reservoir that overflowed during the washing of a tank. The Commission for Independent Radioactivity Research and Information said the leak led to the release of radioactive material 100 times that which the site is allowed to release in a year. Greenpeace said the leaked waste was more than 130 times the permitted level. ------------ Japanese nuclear fuel plant worker exposed to radiation Tokyo - A Japanese nuclear fuel company said Thursday that one of its workers was exposed to minor levels of radiation. Global Nuclear Fuel-Japan Co said a worker at a nuclear fuel producing plant in the central Japanese city of Yokosuka had inhaled a small amount of uranium on Wednesday. Some 8 grams of uranium scattered from a machine that produces uranium dioxide pellets, and the worker, who was in the same room, was exposed to 1.12 millisieverts of radiation. There had been no harm to his health, the agency said. The incident occurred because an inspection point in a pipe that supplies powder to the pressing unit was left open when the machine was activated, it said. No radioactive material leaked outside the plant, the company said. The Japanese trade ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency issued a warning against the company because reports were filed with the agency six hours after the incident. The company is jointly owned by General Electric Co, Toshiba Corp and Hitachi Ltd. -------- CT scanner might cut costs and radiation exposure Orange County Register July 10 - Toshiba's experts in high-tech medicine have created a powerful new CT scanning machine that they believe will save the lives of thousands of heart patients and stroke victims, if it survives the steely-eyed scrutiny of health insurers. The new Aquilion One scanner will cut costs while it saves lives, its advocates say, but they can't prove it. At least not yet. That's a crucial omission, because the machine costs $2.5 million. Even previous-generation models such as the GE Light Speed scanner that Hoag Hospital is installing in Newport Beach cost $1.3 million to $2 million. The question of CT costs is a sensitive subject right now, because Medicare is fretting about escalating expenses for CT scans - and worrying about the radiation that CT scanners expose patients to. Medicare's decisions about CT scans are doubly important, because private health insurers typically follow the lead of the government agency. CT scans, or Computed Tomography scans, let doctors look quickly inside a patient's body for signs of blocked arteries, stroke, cancer and other diseases. In the process, patients can be exposed to as much radiation as hundreds of X-ray exams. Each year, Americans have more than about 62 million CT scans costing an estimated $500 to $1,000 each. In December, Medicare threatened to stop paying for many such CT scans, saying it wasn't convinced that using a CT machine to diagnose heart disease was "reasonable and necessary" except in cases such as patients experiencing chest pains. After loud protests from doctors, medical societies and manufacturers, Medicare relaxed that position. In March, the agency agreed to keep paying for CT scans while medical researchers evaluate the diagnostic power of CT equipment. The research will test whether CT scans are good enough to replace other costly procedures, such as inserting a catheter into a patient's arteries so a doctor can see blockages. "We need to prove it," says Doug Ryan, senior director of the CT business unit at Toshiba American Medical Systems in Irvine. "But we wouldn't put the Aquilion One on the market if we didn't believe it would help patients." RADIATION A CT scanner takes a series of X-rays of the patient's body, then uses its computing power to piece them together into a composite picture of the patient's insides. In an Aquilion One, the computer compiles data from 320 rows of X-ray sensors, so it's termed a 320-slice CT scanner. That array is wide enough to capture the image of the entire heart between two heart beats. In the process, a patient can receive about 15 millisieverts of radiation exposure - 100 to 500 times the amount of a chest X-ray. Medicare estimates that the radiation from a single CT scan may increase a patient's risk of cancer by 0.05 percent, or 1 chance in 2,000. That's a slight addition to Americans' lifetime average 20 percent risk, which is equivalent to one person in five diagnosed with fatal cancer. "This small increase in radiation-associated cancer risk for an individual can become a public health concern if large numbers of the population undergo increased numbers of CT screening procedures of uncertain benefit," the agency said. CT scans with "uncertain benefit" number about 20 million each year in the United States out of 62 million total, says biophysicist David Brenner of Columbia University. In an article last fall in the New England Journal of Medicine, Brenner estimated that radiation from CT scans might be the cause of 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of all cancers in the United States. That estimate is disputed by Dr. Michael Brant-Zawadzki, former medical director for radiology at Hoag Hospital. The basic reason for the disagreement: Scientists have not been able to determine whether very low doses of radiation are harmful, says Brant-Zawadzki, who is now Hoag's executive director of neurosciences. Everyone is subjected to background radiation, and it's possible that below a certain threshold low-level exposures might cause no damage, he says. Low-dose radiation might even help protect against cancer, because the body responds to it by continually repairing its genes. Estimates such as Brenner's and Medicare's are based on the plausible, but unproven, hypothesis that there is no threshold below which radiation doesn't cause cancer-causing mutations, Brant-Zawadzki says. "We should be cautious, but not alarmist, about radiation and CT scans," he says. After all, people aren't fearful of background radiation, even at high altitudes where residents have less atmosphere above them to absorb cosmic radiation. "Living for two years in Denver is like getting a basic routine diagnostic CT scan," Brant-Zawadzki says. COSTS Toshiba has a prescription for cutting radiation exposure, following the same prescription it suggests for cutting costs by spending $2.5 million for its new CT scanner. In each case, a hospital would install an Aquilion One and use it for gathering the information that's currently collected through a series of common radiology tests. For heart patients, Ryan says, the CT scanner would eliminate the need for a nuclear-medicine examination, which includes a radioactive tracer that's injected into the blood stream. He says the new scanner would also let doctors omit a cardiac catheter examination, which often involves injection of a radioactive liquid. A typical battery of coronary tests costs $3,500 to $4,500, exposing the patient to about 42 millisieverts of radiation, Ryan says. With an Aquilion One, the cost of the evaluation would be under $1,000 and the radiation exposure would be 15 millisieverts or less, he says. That estimated saving of $2,500 to $3,500 per patient allows Toshiba to predict that a 300- to 400-bed hospital could recoup the price of buying an Aquilion One within five years by saving $3 million on diagnosing and treating cardiac and stroke patients. Those savings - and the proposed changes in clinical procedures that they're based on - are what Toshiba knows it needs to test and prove in the real world, not just on paper, if it is to realize its hopes for the Aquilion One. The machine is already in use, or about to be installed, at six medical research centers ranging from Boston and Baltimore to Nevada, Ryan says. They will study its diagnostic prowess. A similar study for earlier 64-slice CT scanners such as those at Hoag Hospital has already been completed and is awaiting publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In an advance look at its findings, a Johns Hopkins University press release stated that, because of CT scanners, "as much as 25 percent of the 1.3 million cardiac catheterizations performed each year in the United States may be unnecessary." The issue of cost savings will be tackled in studies that Toshiba will underwrite at mainstream hospitals that install the Aquilion One after it goes into full commercial release in September, Ryan says. The greatest dispute over CT scanners is whether it's a good idea routinely to use them to screen symptom-free patients. That's an increasingly common use of CT machines, but many doctors argue that the risk of repeated radiation exposure outweighs the potential benefit of finding an undiscovered ailment. For a patient suffering from chest pains, the risk calculation is much different. Medicare agrees that a CT scan in that situation is "reasonable and necessary." In that case, as Ryan puts it, "The risk of cancer is small compared to the risk of a wrong diagnosis." ----------------------------------- Sander C.?Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division? 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 ? +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) ? Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ ? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From hpsolutions at comcast.net Thu Jul 10 18:32:31 2008 From: hpsolutions at comcast.net (hpsolutions at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:32:31 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments Message-ID: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> I didn't get any responses last time, so I thought I might try again. I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH for use in the US in a uranium facility. Instruments include the Portable Contamination Monitor CoMo-170, the hand-foot-clothing contamination monitor with large-area, thin-layer plastic scintillation detectors, the hand-foot-clothing monitor- standard version, the W I M P 60 x 10 PC-based smear test measuring system with 10 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 8 PC-based smear test measuring system with 8 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 6 PC-based smear test measuring system with 6 x detector geometry and PD 32 and 42 internal pipe detectors. I am not familiar with the S.E.A. products and was trying to see if anyone had experience with them. I would appreciate your opinions, good and bad, so that we can make a decision on using the S.E.A. products or products that are commercially available in the US. Thanks for your help. Paul Jones, CHP From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Thu Jul 10 21:09:01 2008 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:09:01 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments In-Reply-To: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> References: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <44CAA86B-39A6-4835-ACC2-84FE46B06ADD@comcast.net> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, hpsolutions at comcast.net wrote: > I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH Are you saying that you have been asked to evaluate instruments for which the manufacturer is unable to provide sufficient technical information for a technical evaluation? From BLHamrick at aol.com Thu Jul 10 22:38:27 2008 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:38:27 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Message-ID: Oh, Clayton, you just gave up your age with that reference, but I'm right there with you on the assessment, and the reference also belongs to my-my-my generation. Barbara In a message dated 7/10/2008 6:18:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cjb01 at health.state.ny.us writes: In the USA freedom really has become just another word for nothing left to lose. Clayton J. Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 23:13:56 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Universe Is More Transparent To High-energy Radiation Than Previously Assumed Message-ID: <438405.33748.qm@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709212745.htm ? Universe Is More Transparent To High-energy Radiation Than Previously Assumed ScienceDaily (July 10, 2008) ? Measurements by the MAGIC Telescope (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescope) on La Palma have shown that the universe is more transparent to high-energy radiation than previously assumed. A new publication in Science with ETH Zurich participation describes how measurements of high-energy gamma radiation from 5.3 billion light years away are yielding new knowledge about the nature of the universe. Astronomers assume that our universe is approximately 14 billion years old. During this time it has changed greatly, for example through the formation of new galaxies that emit electromagnetic waves including light that can be perceived visually. A small fraction of the latter is absorbed, but the majority is retained in the universe. In this respect the universe can also be imagined as a background of invisible electromagnetic radiation. Since high-energy rays interact with low-energy ones, astronomers assumed for a long time that because of this enormous universal background radiation, only high-energy rays from very close active galaxies would be detectable on Earth ? the remainder would be absorbed. However, a publication that appeared recently in Science by scientists belonging to the MAGIC Collaboration reaches a different conclusion. The team was the first to succeed in detecting on Earth high-energy gamma radiation originating from the quasar 3C 279, which is more than 5 billion light-years distant. A quasar is an active galaxy in which an enormous black hole more than a billion times the mass of the sun radiates gigantic amounts of energy in various wavelength regions. According to Adrian Biland from the Institute for Particle Physics (IPP) of ETH Zurich: ?The results show that the radiation background in the universe is distinctly less dense than expected.? Together with seven other ETH Zurich physicists he is a member of the MAGIC Collaboration who are the authors of the publication. According to calculations by the scientists, the density of the background radiation in the universe corresponds approximately to the expected radiation intensity of all the heavenly bodies known from astrophysics. This finding could disprove the theory that the universe also contains light from objects that are still entirely unknown and which could have existed in the early universe. According to Biland: ?This means that if heavenly bodies of types at present unknown to us really did once exist, they must have been of a quite different nature to the stars we know today. Otherwise their light would still be detectable in today?s radiation background.? High-energy physics with potential Biland and the MAGIC Collaboration work in the relatively young field of astro-particle physics and study ?very high-energy? (VHE) gamma radiation. The original energy of this radiation lies in the range between 50 giga-electron volts and several tera-electron volts, i.e. radiation with a wavelength more than a billion times shorter than sunlight. (VHE) gamma radiation is measured by the MAGIC telescope on the island of La Palma in the Canaries. This telescope makes the measurements by using the Cherenkov effect, which put simply is the optical equivalent of a supersonic bang. However the velocity of the particles causes a flash of light instead of a bang. In other words charged particles can pass through the atmosphere faster than the associated electromagnetic radiation can propagate. As a result the polarisation of the atoms, which is normally symmetrical, can no longer balance out, and this leads to the emission of what is known as Cherenkov radiation. When a VHE photon penetrates into the atmosphere it generates a so-called Air Shower of thousands of electrons and positrons, all of which emit Cherenkov radiation. These mini-lightning flashes are collected by the 934 aluminium mirrors of the MAGIC telescope positioned in the cone of this ?shower? and are recorded by a high-performance camera taking two billion images per second, of which about 1000 are ultimately selected. The main problem is that in addition to the very rare VHE photons, similar air showers are also generated by cosmic ray particles, which are more than 10,000 times as frequent, and the actual measured signal needs to be found and interpreted against this background. VHE gamma radiation is not an exceptional phenomenon According to Biland, measurements in the VHE gamma radiation region provide astronomers with a unique opportunity to verify the laws of astronomy in new areas of energy. Thus the publication in Science was able to disprove the Blazar Sequence model, which says that the most energetic objects are also the brightest. Another opinion prevalent among astronomers until now was that VHE gamma rays are exceptional astronomical phenomena. As the data set grew steadily, it became possible within a few years to identify a whole series of different classes of active galaxies as well as various supernova remnants in the Milky Way as sources of VHE gamma rays. Biland says ?We even observed sources that had not been discovered by conventional measurements in any other wavelength region. This means that objects emitting radiation only in the VHE gamma region also seem to exist ? a phenomenon whose cause is still unknown at the present time.? The potential of astro-particle physics, especially in the (VHE) gamma region, is recognized by scientists and research institutions all over the world. A second MAGIC telescope that will enable stereoscopic observations and thus more exact measurements will be commissioned on La Palma in September this year. Other similar installations exist in Namibia (H.E.S.S.), Australia (CANGAROO) and the USA (VERITAS). In addition the planning procedure is currently underway for the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) project, in which more than 40 European research institutes are collaborating and which plans to bring into operation about 100 Cherenkov telescopes. Biland is convinced that ?An installation of this kind allows us an entirely new window into the universe.? Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov (MAGIC) MAGIC is the world?s biggest gamma radiation telescope and is operated by a major collaboration involving more than 150 researchers from the whole of Europe. The telescope was commissioned in 2003 on the Roque de los Muchachos (?Rock of the Boys?), the highest mountain on La Palmas (2500 metres). The telescope, which has a diameter of 17 metres and a mirror surface area of 236 square metres, makes measurements only at night but is looked after round the clock by a team of scientists on the spot. ________________________________ Journal reference: 1. The MAGIC Collaboration et al. Very-High-Energy Gamma-Rays from a Distant Quasar: How transparent ist the Universe? Science, 27 June 2008; 320: 1752-1754 DOI: 10.1126/science.1157087 Adapted from materials provided by ETH Zurich/Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA MLA ETH Zurich/Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (2008, July 10). Universe Is More Transparent To High-energy Radiation Than Previously Assumed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com?/releases/2008/07/080709212745.htm From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 02:08:51 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:08:51 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. Message-ID: Mike Brennan errs: > The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage > from the storage facilities?" ... So, your question was "What is the amount > of U238 per day...." I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time. Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero. Gary Isenhower gets it a third-right: > James is ... not launching his attacks from reality as we know it. Everyone who has been told as they have been time and time again, by the IAEA, 10 CFR 20, and the militaries of the world, that insoluble forms of uranium are more hazardous than soluble forms has been the victim of a lie. Those are the ones whose ability to make rational decisions have been attacked by the lies -- six orders of magnitude -- impeding their ability to make clear and correct safety and policy decisions. Time is not going to change this. > He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by negligence. Steven Dapra has an interesting view: > All weapons act off the battlefield. Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not convenient enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself. Bjorn Cedervall revises his question: > my request: References that show that radiation induced damage > to a germ cell line was transferred to the next generation.... Radiation induced? Because Miller's unchallenged evidence that the chemical mutagenicity and teratogenicity from one of the few ions used by microscopists to stain DNA is a million times worse would just make too much work for the health physics industry if they had to believe it? Sadly, Dr. Cedervall is as bad as all the rest when it comes to telling the truth: > I referred only to germ cells. -- http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010594.html See for yourself: > Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! -- http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html If health physicists want to make the world safe for nuclear power, they have to start with the veracity of the person in the mirror. James Salsman From laura.gonzales at ga.com Thu Jul 10 19:11:11 2008 From: laura.gonzales at ga.com (Laura Gonzales) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:11:11 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments In-Reply-To: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> References: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> Message-ID: unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of hpsolutions at comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:33 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments I didn't get any responses last time, so I thought I might try again. I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH for use in the US in a uranium facility. Instruments include the Portable Contamination Monitor CoMo-170, the hand-foot-clothing contamination monitor with large-area, thin-layer plastic scintillation detectors, the hand-foot-clothing monitor- standard version, the W I M P 60 x 10 PC-based smear test measuring system with 10 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 8 PC-based smear test measuring system with 8 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 6 PC-based smear test measuring system with 6 x detector geometry and PD 32 and 42 internal pipe detectors. I am not familiar with the S.E.A. products and was trying to see if anyone had experience with them. I would appreciate your opinions, good and bad, so that we can make a decision on using the S.E.A. products or products that are commercially available in the US. Thanks for your help. Paul Jones, CHP _______________________________________________ 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/ From mrrmw1 at aol.com Fri Jul 11 07:21:05 2008 From: mrrmw1 at aol.com (mrrmw1 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:21:05 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Licensing Fee Audits Message-ID: <8CAB167B9B479D6-474-2767@webmail-dd12.sysops.aol.com> I would still like to hear from anyone who has experienced the NRC review covering annual fees for the fiscal?years 2002-2007 of all small materials licenses. Interested to find out how many companies were affected by this review. You can respond to me directly mrrmw1 at aol.com.?? From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 11 09:58:42 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:58:42 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080711083907.009f35a0@mail.swcp.com> July 10 A few comments interspersed from Steven Dapra (SD). At 12:08 AM 7/11/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Mike Brennan errs: > > > The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage > from the storage facilities?" ... So, your question was "What is the amount > > of U238 per day...." SD: James, your initial question was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities?" The leak has to occur over some period of time. Why are you getting huffy about Mike answering at a per day rate? If you don't like the rate of seepage per day, specify a period of time that is more to your liking. Per second, per century, per gazillion years --- what do you want? You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate." You asked for the "current rate." Why don't you try reading your own requests? You appear to expect us to read them . . . . >I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time. >Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero. SD: Since you know so much about it, James, what is the "mean expected rate" if it is not zero and what makes you think you are correct? [edit] >Steven Dapra has an interesting view: > > > All weapons act off the battlefield. > >Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything >that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not >convenient enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself. SD: Although it is true that with God all things are possible, that has nothing to do with the *fact* that weapons act off the battlefield. I didn't make anything up. You probably made up this hokum about international banning weapons that act off the battlefield. The plain unvarnished truth is not convenient for the rhetorical bed you have made for yourself. If you have a citation to your alleged "international law" let's have it. Permit me to remind you, James, that you still have not posted your CV. Do you have one or don't you? I'm betting you don't -- at least not in any of the hard sciences. Steven Dapra From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Fri Jul 11 11:03:57 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:03:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ADC@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. I didn't put it in there; you did. Current, as I pointed out, means now. Not "expected". If the question you wanted to ask is "What is the mean expected rate of U238 seeping from the spent fuel storage pools at reactor facilities in undisclosed locations over some undisclosed time period?" I would have told you that the question is almost meaningless, but that if we are talking about commercial facilities in the United States and the last, say, 40 years, the rate is zero out to several decimal places. If you have evidence of U238 seeping from storage pools, present it. I do not thing that you do. You're repeated attempts to change the question because you don't like the answer does not make you appear to be right: it simply demonstrates you are wrong in greater detail. -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:09 AM To: radsafelist; bcradsafers at hotmail.com; Steven Dapra; garyi at trinityphysics.com; Brennan, Mike (DOH) Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. Mike Brennan errs: > The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage > from the storage facilities?" ... So, your question was "What is the > amount of U238 per day...." I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time. Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero. Gary Isenhower gets it a third-right: > James is ... not launching his attacks from reality as we know it. Everyone who has been told as they have been time and time again, by the IAEA, 10 CFR 20, and the militaries of the world, that insoluble forms of uranium are more hazardous than soluble forms has been the victim of a lie. Those are the ones whose ability to make rational decisions have been attacked by the lies -- six orders of magnitude -- impeding their ability to make clear and correct safety and policy decisions. Time is not going to change this. > He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by negligence. Steven Dapra has an interesting view: > All weapons act off the battlefield. Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not convenient enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself. Bjorn Cedervall revises his question: > my request: References that show that radiation induced damage to a > germ cell line was transferred to the next generation.... Radiation induced? Because Miller's unchallenged evidence that the chemical mutagenicity and teratogenicity from one of the few ions used by microscopists to stain DNA is a million times worse would just make too much work for the health physics industry if they had to believe it? Sadly, Dr. Cedervall is as bad as all the rest when it comes to telling the truth: > I referred only to germ cells. -- > http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010594.html See for yourself: > Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! -- > http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html If health physicists want to make the world safe for nuclear power, they have to start with the veracity of the person in the mirror. James Salsman From KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com Fri Jul 11 12:03:36 2008 From: KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com (Peterson, Ken) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:03:36 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F93@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Gary, Your posting shows the influence of media propaganda. While the US Government and the media would like you to think that all Muslims are sword waving terrorists, it's just not true. While I abhor the circumstances in which children are used by some of these groups, the Mullahs encouraging these types of acts are shunned by the majority of Muslims and do not have the resources or finances to develop or use a nuclear device. Iran talks a good game, but they aren't in a position to do anything, it's just posturing. Don't make the mistake of judging whole countries by the actions of a few fanatics - even in the USA we have prominent, powerful people who believe that the earth was created 5,000 years ago and others who state AIDS was developed by the US government to eradicate the black community. I would hope the rest of the world does not judge the US people on the actions or statements of Jerry Falwell and his ilk. And while the Koran is not exactly a text endorsing peace and tolerance, neither is the Old Testament. I share your horror in using women and children as suicide bombers, but I do realize it's an emotional response - I can confess to some old fashioned Neanderthal dismay when I hear of the US military using more and more women in combat related roles (even ones for which they are not suited) in pursuit of political correctness. I used to have the strong, maybe blind belief that my country could do no wrong and was the shining light of freedom and democracy for the world. I have become much more cynical over the past ten years. I remember being young and watching the Deer Hunter and being horrified at how helpless prisoners were treated - fast forward 30 years to Abu Graib and water boarding at Guantanamo. For every person lining up to push a button destroying all non-Muslims, rest assured there are 3 or 4 here who would fight to push a button killing all non-Christians... Ken Peterson Message: 8 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:39 -0500 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation To: "rad safe" , "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Message-ID: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301 at garyi.trinityphysics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Mike, You make some excellent points, but I must say that any culture that embraces suicide bombing, using their own children as carriers, definitely falls into the category of "They are just crazy enough to do it!" Remember, I am not talking about having their children taken from them by force. No, I am talking about parents who have a celebration prior to the bombing. Just think about that for a second. What would they do if they had a nuclear weapon? North Korea is one thing, but Islamic terrorism is entirely different. But I do agree with you that biological or chemical agents are the more serious threat. If there were a button that would make every non-muslim head in the world suddenly explode, I promise you that we would find quite a few people who would fight each other to be able to push it first. And that is your happy thought for the day. :) -Gary Isenhower ********************************************************************* Export Controls and Restrictions: Information including any attachments contained in this electronic submission may contain information or technology the export or re-export of which is restricted by U.S. export laws and regulations. By viewing this e-mail and any attachments, the recipient agrees to the following: (1) the recipient's use of this e-mail and any attachments shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including, without limitation, U.S. export laws and regulations, and (2) the recipient may not transfer or otherwise export or re-export any information or technology contained in this e-mail or any attachment except in full compliance with the export controls administered by the U.S. From garyi at trinityphysics.com Fri Jul 11 14:26:54 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:26:54 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F93@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> References: , <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F93@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Message-ID: <48776DAE.14836.4710EE@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Ken, You have said quite a lot in your message, but please focus for a minute on the main thrust of my post. I said, or tried to say, that there are some people who want nuclear weapons so they can kill non-muslims, and that these people can not be reasoned with. This was in response to a comment about the cold war relationship between the US and the USSR, in which MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented either side from using its nuclear weapons. That is, both sides had rational self-interest at work to prevent cataclysmic war. Islamic terrorism does not have rational self-interest at work, unless you are willing to concede that rewards in heaven are part of your self-interest inventory. In my post I pointed to suicide bombers and the culture that celebrates them as evidence of this. If islamic terrorists get a nuclear weapon, they will strive to use it in the most effectively destructive manner possible. Therefore, we (non-muslims and non-terrorist muslims) would be smart (as in, alive or surviving) to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me wrong. You could show that with any of the following: = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan Rather fabrication. = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from the gene pool. = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of international good will. = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like infidels (maybe as pets). = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than theirs. Or, best of all, why don't you hop on a plane and go reason with them? That would prove me wrong. Remember that guy who got his head cut off on TV? I bet you could have talked them into putting down the knives and changing their lives. Maybe going back to school, right? A new career would solve their problems - maybe flight school. -Gary Isenhower On 11 Jul 2008 at 12:03, Peterson, Ken wrote: Gary, Your posting shows the influence of media propaganda. While the US Government and the media would like you to think that all Muslims are sword waving terrorists, it's just not true. While I abhor the circumstances in which children are used by some of these groups, the Mullahs encouraging these types of acts are shunned by the majority of Muslims and do not have the resources or finances to develop or use a nuclear device. Iran talks a good game, but they aren't in a position to do anything, it's just posturing. Don't make the mistake of judging whole countries by the actions of a few fanatics - even in the USA we have prominent, powerful people who believe that the earth was created 5,000 years ago and others who state AIDS was developed by the US government to eradicate the black community. I would hope the rest of the world does not judge the US people on the actions or statements of Jerry Falwell and his ilk. And while the Koran is not exactly a text endorsing peace and tolerance, neither is the Old Testament. I share your horror in using women and children as suicide bombers, but I do realize it's an emotional response - I can confess to some old fashioned Neanderthal dismay when I hear of the US military using more and more women in combat related roles (even ones for which they are not suited) in pursuit of political correctness. I used to have the strong, maybe blind belief that my country could do no wrong and was the shining light of freedom and democracy for the world. I have become much more cynical over the past ten years. I remember being young and watching the Deer Hunter and being horrified at how helpless prisoners were treated - fast forward 30 years to Abu Graib and water boarding at Guantanamo. For every person lining up to push a button destroying all non-Muslims, rest assured there are 3 or 4 here who would fight to push a button killing all non-Christians... Ken Peterson Message: 8 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:39 -0500 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation To: "rad safe" , "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Message-ID: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301 at garyi.trinityphysics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Mike, You make some excellent points, but I must say that any culture that embraces suicide bombing, using their own children as carriers, definitely falls into the category of "They are just crazy enough to do it!" Remember, I am not talking about having their children taken from them by force. No, I am talking about parents who have a celebration prior to the bombing. Just think about that for a second. What would they do if they had a nuclear weapon? North Korea is one thing, but Islamic terrorism is entirely different. But I do agree with you that biological or chemical agents are the more serious threat. If there were a button that would make every non-muslim head in the world suddenly explode, I promise you that we would find quite a few people who would fight each other to be able to push it first. And that is your happy thought for the day. :) -Gary Isenhower From hpsolutions at comcast.net Fri Jul 11 15:42:25 2008 From: hpsolutions at comcast.net (hpsolutions at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:42:25 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments Message-ID: <071120082042.5893.4877C5B1000084040000170522155786749D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> No, I am saying that we have been asked to look at these instruments for purchase. I have the technical manuals. Unfortunately, technical manuals only tell you what the manufacturer wants you to know. They don't tell you that the instruments break down every two weeks, or that they can't be calibrated by anyone but the manufacturer. I believe that one of the original tenets of RADSAFE was for HPs to share ideas and information. I am merely asking if anyone has any experience with these instruments, and if they are willing to share that information. The type of information that I am trying to get is not found in technical manuals, but in the minds of our friends and colleagues who we rely on to help us with everyday issues that may not be everyday issues to us. If anyone has any information to share about these instruments, I would appreciate your input. -- Paul Jones, CHP -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "J. Marshall Reber" > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, hpsolutions at comcast.net wrote: > > > I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH > > Are you saying that you have been asked to evaluate instruments for > which the manufacturer is unable to provide sufficient technical > information for a technical evaluation? > From KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com Fri Jul 11 16:48:25 2008 From: KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com (Peterson, Ken) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:48:25 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Hi Gary, All I wanted to do was make the point that most Muslims do not consider killing infidels something to aspire to. Not to extend this off-topic thread too much further, but I can follow your rebuttal suggestion #1. (non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers): Suicide bombing and guerilla warfare have been the standard tools when battling a superior occupying force for a long time - from the LTTE to the Vietnamese to the IRA to the French Resistance. No religious ideology required. Ken Peterson Message: 11 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:26:54 -0500 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation To: Message-ID: <48776DAE.14836.4710EE at garyi.trinityphysics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Ken, You have said quite a lot in your message, but please focus for a minute on the main thrust of my post. I said, or tried to say, that there are some people who want nuclear weapons so they can kill non-muslims, and that these people can not be reasoned with. This was in response to a comment about the cold war relationship between the US and the USSR, in which MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented either side from using its nuclear weapons. That is, both sides had rational self-interest at work to prevent cataclysmic war. Islamic terrorism does not have rational self-interest at work, unless you are willing to concede that rewards in heaven are part of your self-interest inventory. In my post I pointed to suicide bombers and the culture that celebrates them as evidence of this. If islamic terrorists get a nuclear weapon, they will strive to use it in the most effectively destructive manner possible. Therefore, we (non-muslims and non-terrorist muslims) would be smart (as in, alive or surviving) to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me wrong. You could show that with any of the following: = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan Rather fabrication. = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from the gene pool. = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of international good will. = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like infidels (maybe as pets). = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than theirs. Or, best of all, why don't you hop on a plane and go reason with them? That would prove me wrong. Remember that guy who got his head cut off on TV? I bet you could have talked them into putting down the knives and changing their lives. Maybe going back to school, right? A new career would solve their problems - maybe flight school. -Gary Isenhower ********************************************************************* Export Controls and Restrictions: Information including any attachments contained in this electronic submission may contain information or technology the export or re-export of which is restricted by U.S. export laws and regulations. By viewing this e-mail and any attachments, the recipient agrees to the following: (1) the recipient's use of this e-mail and any attachments shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including, without limitation, U.S. export laws and regulations, and (2) the recipient may not transfer or otherwise export or re-export any information or technology contained in this e-mail or any attachment except in full compliance with the export controls administered by the U.S. From csingleton at ucsd.edu Fri Jul 11 17:28:29 2008 From: csingleton at ucsd.edu (Singleton, Corey) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:28:29 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HP Positions at UCSD In-Reply-To: <20080711205451.87BKspp00E8BP@mailbox2.ucsd.edu> References: <20080711205451.87BKspp00E8BP@mailbox2.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <86831BFCC966FF4CB1DA5B80E7DC9DBD02718923@ehsmib.AD.UCSD.EDU> The University of California, San Diego has a Sr. Health Physicist and a Health Physicist position available. Please check out this website for more information. Sr. HP http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?job_id=46397 HP http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?job_id=44580 Thanks, Corey Singleton, CHP Radiation Safety Officer Environment Health and Safety University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Dr. #0089 La Jolla, CA 92093-0089 c 858-583-3268 w 858-822-4045 f 858-822-7763 www-ehs.ucsd.edu From BLHamrick at aol.com Fri Jul 11 20:34:42 2008 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:34:42 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation Message-ID: Gary, I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I think that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so years to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded with similar fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever has an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the threat of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we have something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference). To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult. One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a health and safety impact. We are hurting ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the difference. That's insulting to the profession of health physics and insulting to the public, in my opinion. I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. Barbara L. Hamrick "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt In a message dated 7/11/2008 12:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me wrong. You could show that with any of the following: = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan Rather fabrication. = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from the gene pool. = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of international good will. = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like infidels (maybe as pets). = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than theirs. **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) From BLHamrick at aol.com Fri Jul 11 20:45:37 2008 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:45:37 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation Message-ID: Correcting the Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin In a message dated 7/11/2008 6:41:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, BLHamrick at aol.com writes: Gary, I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I think that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so years to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded with similar fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever has an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the threat of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we have something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference). To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult. One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a health and safety impact. We are hurting ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the difference. That's insulting to the profession of health physics and insulting to the public, in my opinion. I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. Barbara L. Hamrick "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) From garyi at trinityphysics.com Sat Jul 12 01:18:32 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (Gary Isenhower) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:18:32 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Barbara, Points taken. I went overboard when Ken made me out to be brainwashed by propaganda, bigoted against Muslims, and blindly patriotic. Ken, sorry for overreacting. Barbara, I agree with nearly everything you said, especially the Kamikaze stuff. That war ended with nuclear weapons (or atomic, whatever), largely because of the Bushido Code, which has some striking parallels with radical Islam. Basically, I'm only saying that the current conflict with terrorism ain't the cold war, not by a long shot. And I strongly agree with your comments about RDDs and political expediency. That's on the national level, but I am commenting more on the international situation. But I don't see anybody here cowering in fear, except maybe fear of rising oil prices. And, I could be wrong, but I think that Franklin at least was urging the nation to gird for war with England in the quotes you cite. Yes? Just to be extra clear: I thought Mike Brennan's post was good, but I wanted to point out that the current conflict with terrorism is categorically different from what the US and USSR endured. Much more like Kamikaze pilots, except that they are loyal to an ideology instead of an emperor or a nation. -Gary Isenhower On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM, wrote: > Gary, > > I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I think > that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so > years to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a > misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded > with similar fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of > these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. > > I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever has > an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the threat > of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a > predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or > the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long > as we have something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not > how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, > in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which > made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our > checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference). > > To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country > has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon > (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the > aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we > have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, > while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is > difficult. One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is > because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the > public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, > in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and > safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a > health and safety impact. We are hurting ourselves in the name of > protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the > difference. That's insulting to the profession of health physics and > insulting to the public, in my opinion. > > I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to > fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. > > Barbara L. Hamrick > > *"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin* > ** > *"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt* > ** > > > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 12:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: > > If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me > wrong. You could > show that with any of the following: > = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. > = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan > Rather fabrication. > = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from > the gene pool. > = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of > international good will. > = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like > infidels (maybe as pets). > = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than > theirs. > > > > > ------------------------------ > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in > your area - Check out TourTracker.com > ! > From radmail at cox.net Sat Jul 12 11:25:33 2008 From: radmail at cox.net (Roy Parker) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:25:33 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation References: Message-ID: <005a01c8e43b$e8ebccb0$0200a8c0@OFFICE> Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!! Roy A. Parker, Ph.D. Radiation Physicist ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation > Correcting the Franklin quote: > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, > deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin > > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 6:41:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > BLHamrick at aol.com writes: > > Gary, > > I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I > think > that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so > years > to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a > misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded > with similar > fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of these type > of > attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. > > I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever > has > an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the > threat > of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a > predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the > Communists, > or the Timothy > McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we > have > something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we > ensure > we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in the > face > of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made this > country > great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and > balances, > and our tolerance of difference). > > To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country > has > spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon > (i.e., > an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath > of a > > potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we have done > this, > because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding > an > actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult. One > of > the > reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is > politically > expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking the > low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, in the end, we > aren't > really > adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we are > diverting > resources from issues that do have a health and safety impact. We are > hurting > ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the > public never knows the difference. That's insulting to the profession > of > health > physics and insulting to the public, in my opinion. > > I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to > fear, > and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. > > Barbara L. Hamrick > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, > deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin > > "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt > > > > > **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live > music > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! > (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Sat Jul 12 12:07:43 2008 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:07:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation In-Reply-To: <005a01c8e43b$e8ebccb0$0200a8c0@OFFICE> References: <005a01c8e43b$e8ebccb0$0200a8c0@OFFICE> Message-ID: <274681EF-D342-4886-A75D-B6CB2308BFA1@comcast.net> Here! Here! On Jul 12, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Roy Parker wrote: > Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!! > > Roy A. Parker, Ph.D. > Radiation Physicist > > ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: ; ; > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:45 PM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation > J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From sperle at mirion.com Sat Jul 12 14:39:21 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:39:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation Message-ID: <001f01c8e457$1c1f3d9a$0901800a@corp.gds.com> On Franklin, depends on what is "temporary", and the times we live in today are just a "bit" diofferent than the 1700's. Sandy Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation > Correcting the Franklin quote: > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, > deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 19:24:26 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:24:26 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities) Message-ID: Steven, Thank you for your concern: > what do you want? Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble forms. > You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate." You asked for the "current rate." Correct. Mike Brennan wrote: > James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. The current rate has three components: (1) First, the past rate. It is an established fact from statics that there is nothing anyone can do to change the past. This includes values for which the certainty is not absolute. (2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero. The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the current rate. Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate decreases with proximity. (3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected rate. According to chaos theory and various interpretations of quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring. The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly measuring expected events. For example, if the extent of the likely hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either unnaturally raised or lowered. Another example is Yucca Mountain. The longer we leave old reactor cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to bomb one of them. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 12 21:49:48 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:49:48 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080712203235.009f03d0@mail.swcp.com> Some comments below (SD). At 05:24 PM 7/12/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Steven, > >Thank you for your concern: > > > what do you want? > >Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble >forms. SD: Why don't you file an emergency petition with the NRC? > > You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate." You asked for the > "current rate." > >Correct. SD: Then why didn't you accept the proffered current rate? Why did you start whining about the "mean expected rate"? >Mike Brennan wrote: > > > James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. > >The current rate has three components: > >(1) First, the past rate. It is an established fact from statics that >there is nothing anyone can do to change the past. This includes >values for which the certainty is not absolute. > >(2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero. >The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over >time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in >the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the >current rate. Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate >decreases with proximity. > >(3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected >rate. According to chaos theory and various interpretations of >quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on >expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the >noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of >which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling >from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring. > >The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly >measuring expected events. For example, if the extent of the likely >hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured >correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either >unnaturally raised or lowered. SD: The preceding two paragraphs are a bunch of pretentious nonsense. From what did you copy them, James? My "Minkowski metric causality cone" tells me the "chaos" is between your ears, James, and that's no theory either. >Another example is Yucca Mountain. The longer we leave old reactor >cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to >bomb one of them. > >James Salsman SD: What do you think the relation is between someone trying to bomb one of the old reactor cores, and the possibility of a magnitude ten earthquake shaking them up a little? From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 13:34:18 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:34:18 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Underground water in Varanasi Message-ID: <00ba01c8e517$10c53fb0$324fbf10$@com> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com Hi - Perhaps Parthasarathy can comment on this: Is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for uranium really only 1.5 ug/L in India? If so, this is certainly not in line with EU or US EPA values. Dan ii http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200807131554.htm The Hindu Sunday, July 13, 2008 : 1600 Hrs ????? 'Underground water in Varanasi contaminated with Uranium' Varanasi (PTI): In an alarming development, a group of scientists has revealed that underground water in Varanasi and adjoining areas is contaminated with Uranium but the Centre and the state government are unaware of the fact. The study conducted by G C Chowdhary, former Professor at the Geology Department of Banaras Hindu University and S K Agarwal, also a professor of Geology, has shown that the drinking water in the University premises some other places in the city contains radioactive Uranium more than the recommended limit. Samples for the study were collected from 11 tubewells tapping deep aquifers (more than 100 meters deep). The Uranium content varied from 2 to 11 ppb (parts per billion) while the permissible limit is only 1.5 ppb. Chowdhary said the underground water also contains heavy metals such as Chromium, Manganese, Nickel, Ferrous, Copper, Zinc and Lead. He said they had also published their first research paper in this regard in the Hydrology Journal of Indian Association of Hydrology in 1990s, clearly predicting health hazardous of water contaminated with these elements beyond the permissible limit. Member Secretary of the UP Pollution Control Board, CS Bhatt, told PTI on phone that he had not come across any report, which suggests that the underground water in Varanasi is contaminated with any sort of radioactive element. There is no facility with the board to investigate any such occurrences even if it comes to its knowledge, he said. From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Sun Jul 13 15:22:15 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:22:15 +0000 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E1B@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E1B@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: First, thank you all who provided numbers and perspective. I apologize for not responding earlier - I am in the French countryside (flew here by the way, driving and taking other risks...) and had almost no Internet access over the four days. Obviously the doses are trivial and of course Sandy's point no. 3 - the overall objective is sound. Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:25 +0200> From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de> To: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafe at radlab.nl> > Bjorn,> > assuming that the quoted 30 nSv is an equivalent organ dose to the skin and given the reported range of X-rays less than one cm its contribution to effective dose and hence total effective dose would be 300 pSv.> > Regards, Rainer > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: Facius, Rainer > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 15:58> An: 'Bjorn Cedervall'; radsafe at radlab.nl> Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners> > Bjorn,> > in a radsafe thread > > "RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow" , sent Do 11.05.2006 19:59,> > dealing with "new airport body scanners", Kim McMAHAN, ORNL External Dosimetry, (mcmahankl at ornl.gov), quoted a manufacturer with a dose to an individual of 30 nSv per scan which might be compared to the variability of the natural background dose rate between 70 and 100 nSv/h in our area.> > Notwithstanding your plea, I cannot refrain from noting that your argument depends on the premise that there is a risk associated with such an exposure. Otherwise it would be pointless. If you know reasons to assume this, please share them. > > Your condition "This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level" is surely met in any case.> > Kind 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> > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 07:41> An: radsafe at radlab.nl> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners> > > Radsafers,> > I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners.> > I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk?> > This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those).> > Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion.> > My personal reflection only,> > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com> > The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda).> > _________________________________________________________________> It's a talkathon - but it's not just talk.> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk_______________________________________________> 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace From BenjB4 at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 00:26:46 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:26:46 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC Message-ID: 9 July 2008 R. William Borchardt Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dear Mr. Borchardt, I request an emergency proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.202 to modify the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. I ask that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application filed June, 2008 be approved for construction on a tentative basis. If the Yucca Mountain application is still under review when the facility is ready, I ask that the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged be allowed to transport their spent fuel to the Yucca Mountain on a tentative basis in accordance with the Department of Energy's application for Yucca Mountain. The following facts form the basis of this request: 1. Uranium is a mutagen and a teratogen. Soluble uranium entering drinking water supplies causes birth defects, leukemia, and immune system disorders. (Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain, 2007 and earlier National Research Council reviews.) 2. Dry cask storage uses casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. Many have been rated at less than 10 hours submerged. (10 CFR 54.19 applications and other NRC publications) 3. Flood risk is increasing at a greater basis than when current cask storage and the procedure for approving national storage facilities were designed. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html 4. Recent events, such as the tunnel fires, have shown that the design specifications of the spent fuel storage cask may be typically overcome by real-world conditions. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the United States and the Commission to immediately approve construction of the Yucca Mountain national storage facility on a tentative basis. Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman From john at ird.gov.br Mon Jul 14 02:07:21 2008 From: john at ird.gov.br (John G. Hunt) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:07:21 -0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments In-Reply-To: <071120082042.5893.4877C5B1000084040000170522155786749D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> References: <071120082042.5893.4877C5B1000084040000170522155786749D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20080714065704.M81629@ird.gov.br> Hi Paul, As it happens, we have been evaluating portable scintillation-based-surface- contamination equipment, and the CoMo 170 was one of the equipment evaluated. http://www.sea-duelmen.de/Deutsch/INFO-Material/PDF/CoMo170.pdf It's light, the price reasonable, has a good response for alphas and betas - one of the best in Bq/cm^2 per cps, especially for the alphas. On the down side, it seems that CoMo 170 has sacrificed sturdiness for weight, and the shield for electro-magnetic fields and entrance of light is not very strong. If the equipment has to be opened, this shield can be damaged. We use this equipment, but we will also buy equipment from another supplier. Hope this is helpful, John Hunt. ---------- Original Message ----------- From: hpsolutions at comcast.net To: "J. Marshall Reber" Cc: Radsafe Sent: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:42:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Instruments > No, > > I am saying that we have been asked to look at these instruments for > purchase. I have the technical manuals. Unfortunately, technical > manuals only tell you what the manufacturer wants you to know. They > don't tell you that the instruments break down every two weeks, or > that they can't be calibrated by anyone but the manufacturer. I > believe that one of the original tenets of RADSAFE was for HPs to > share ideas and information. I am merely asking if anyone has any > experience with these instruments, and if they are willing to share > that information. The type of information that I am trying to get > is not found in technical manuals, but in the minds of our friends > and colleagues who we rely on to help us with everyday issues that > may not be everyday issues to us. > > If anyone has any information to share about these instruments, I > would appreciate your input. > > -- > Paul Jones, CHP > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "J. Marshall Reber" > > > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, hpsolutions at comcast.net wrote: > > > > > I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH > > > > Are you saying that you have been asked to evaluate instruments for > > which the manufacturer is unable to provide sufficient technical > > information for a technical evaluation? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ ------- End of Original Message ------- From garyi at trinityphysics.com Mon Jul 14 11:53:40 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:53:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> References: , <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Message-ID: <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Ken, You wrote: > All I wanted to do was make the point that most Muslims do not consider > killing infidels something to aspire to. That's a great point to make. I did not get into that because it wasn't relevant to the topic of proliferation that I was originally addressing. You wrote: > Suicide bombing and guerilla warfare have been the standard tools > when battling a superior occupying force for a long time - from the > LTTE to the Vietnamese to the IRA to the French Resistance. No > religious ideology required. Good job. You one-upped me there. I deserve that because I got annoyed and shot off ill- considered remarks. However, can you see that I was wrong to say that suggestion #1 would rebut my point? I ought to have phrased suggestion #1 more explicitly as "suicide attacks against civilians and/or countries not currently occupying the attackers homeland and directed by or under the authority of a large and well organized terrorist network." That's the kind of suicide bombing that I am talking about. You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. If that's true, it should be a short and simple trick to conclude that people like that should not have nuclear weapons. I hope you can see how indisputable that conclusion is. -Gary Isenhower On 11 Jul 2008 at 16:48, Peterson, Ken wrote: Hi Gary, All I wanted to do was make the point that most Muslims do not consider killing infidels something to aspire to. Not to extend this off-topic thread too much further, but I can follow your rebuttal suggestion #1. (non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers): Suicide bombing and guerilla warfare have been the standard tools when battling a superior occupying force for a long time - from the LTTE to the Vietnamese to the IRA to the French Resistance. No religious ideology required. Ken Peterson From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Mon Jul 14 12:30:18 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:30:18 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AE0@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James: You don't actually get to redefine words just to keep from having to admit to being wrong. The definition of "current", from American Heritage Dictionary is: adj. 1. a. Belonging to the present time: current events; current leaders. b. Being in progress now: current negotiations. 2. Passing from one to another; circulating: current bills and coins. 3. Prevalent, especially at the present time: current fashions. See Synonyms at prevailing. 4. Running; flowing. n. 1. A steady, smooth onward movement: a current of air from a fan; a current of spoken words. See Synonyms at flow. 2. The part of a body of liquid or gas that has a continuous onward movement: rowed out into the river's swift current. 3. A general tendency, movement, or course. See Synonyms at tendency. 4. Symbol i, I Electricity a. A flow of electric charge. b. The amount of electric charge flowing past a specified circuit point per unit time. If you want to cite an equally authorative source for definitions, feel free. But, if you look, I think you will find that no where in those definitions is there anything that implies that current includes the past and the future. The closest one might come is defining a period, such as the current year, where upon phrases like, "so far in this current year" or "before the current year is over" would clearly mean pieces of the past and future that, at some point, you intend to treat as part of a whole that includes the now. James, if you think you are going to intimidate, or even impress, me by throwing "chaos theory", "quantum mechanics" and "general relativity" around, think again. I've had 400 level classes on the subjects. I have read extensively on them. There was a period (several, actually) in which I did relativity calculations recreationally, to try to work it into a war game I was designing. I am confident I know more about it than you do, and it doesn't apply. >The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly measuring expected events. No. The risk of hazardous event can be based on expected events, but the rate of events is how many are happening per unit time. I have not a clue as how one goes about "properly measuring expected events". The closest I can come up with is predicting a rate based on a model, then comparing the prediction to what actually occurs after a given amount of time has passed. And, BE THAT AS IT MAY, the current rate at which U238 is leaking out of storage pools at US commercial reactor facilities is zero, the expected rate is zero, and you have yet to demonstrate that the past rate is not zero. And, if there was a situation in which it was leaking out, there would be other isotopes of much greater concern. Life is easier, James, once you admit that you can be wrong. As you are in this case. Mike Brennan wrote: > James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. The current rate has three components: (1) First, the past rate. It is an established fact from statics that there is nothing anyone can do to change the past. This includes values for which the certainty is not absolute. (2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero. The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the current rate. Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate decreases with proximity. (3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected rate. According to chaos theory and various interpretations of quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring. The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly measuring expected events. For example, if the extent of the likely hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either unnaturally raised or lowered. Another example is Yucca Mountain. The longer we leave old reactor cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to bomb one of them. James Salsman From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jul 14 12:47:34 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:47:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> References: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Message-ID: <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> This (political?) discussion is way of the brief of RADSAFE, but I just want to make a slight correction to the statement below> Is it not true that one of the principal causes for the formation of Al-Qaeda the existence of American forces in Saudi Arabia? And an interesting article/interview on the general topic is at: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Now, let's get back to radiation issues! Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: . garyi at trinityphysics.com ...... You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. From garyi at trinityphysics.com Mon Jul 14 14:51:19 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:51:19 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> References: , <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com>, <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <487B67E7.32643.16E992E@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Doug, As it happens, the article you cite is written by Robert Pape. Listen to his critics before you decide to believe him. Turn it around, Doug. Do you want to bomb any Mid-east countries because there are Muslims in the US? Lots of them, in fact. Anybody whose mere existence and proximity can drive you to murder men, women, and children, by the thousands? US troops in Saudi Arabia were there with the consent of the legitimate government. Nothing can justify the 911 attacks, certainly not that. So please keep your correction. My conclusion stands: Islamic terrorists should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. -Gary Isenhower On 14 Jul 2008 at 12:47, Doug Aitken wrote: Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:47:34 -0500 From: Doug Aitken Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation To: garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl, "'Peterson, Ken'" This (political?) discussion is way of the brief of RADSAFE, but I just want to make a slight correction to the statement below> Is it not true that one of the principal causes for the formation of Al-Qaeda the existence of American forces in Saudi Arabia? And an interesting article/interview on the general topic is at: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Now, let's get back to radiation issues! Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: . garyi at trinityphysics.com ...... You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. From sjd at swcp.com Mon Jul 14 18:18:46 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:18:46 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080714171642.009f0380@mail.swcp.com> July 14 This is a big of a crock as the casks are (especially No. 1). (I am referring to the volume of the casks.) Steven Dapra At 10:26 PM 7/13/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >9 July 2008 > >R. William Borchardt >Executive Director for Operations >U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission > >Dear Mr. Borchardt, > >I request an emergency proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.202 to >modify the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with >dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. > >I ask that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application filed >June, 2008 be approved for construction on a tentative basis. If the >Yucca Mountain application is still under review when the facility is >ready, I ask that the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage >facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged be >allowed to transport their spent fuel to the Yucca Mountain on a >tentative basis in accordance with the Department of Energy's >application for Yucca Mountain. The following facts form the basis of >this request: > >1. Uranium is a mutagen and a teratogen. Soluble uranium entering >drinking water supplies causes birth defects, leukemia, and immune >system disorders. (Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain, 2007 and >earlier National Research Council reviews.) > >2. Dry cask storage uses casks rated for less than 72 hours >submerged. Many have been rated at less than 10 hours submerged. (10 >CFR 54.19 applications and other NRC publications) > >3. Flood risk is increasing at a greater basis than when current cask >storage and the procedure for approving national storage facilities >were designed. >http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html > >4. Recent events, such as the tunnel fires, have shown that the design >specifications of the spent fuel storage cask may be typically >overcome by real-world conditions. >http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ > >Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the United >States and the Commission to immediately approve construction of the >Yucca Mountain national storage facility on a tentative basis. > >Thank you. > >Sincerely, > >James Salsman From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Mon Jul 14 18:59:22 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:59:22 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AE5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Um, James; you DO know what is in the dry cask storage at commercial reactor facilities, don't you? And what the casks are like? How, exactly, do you think that uranium is going to be released if a cask is submerged? As for your letter getting Yucca Mountain opened; good luck with that. Personally, I think Yucca Mountain would be a great central location to hold spent fuel at until we get around to reprocessing it. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 10:27 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC 9 July 2008 R. William Borchardt Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dear Mr. Borchardt, I request an emergency proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.202 to modify the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. I ask that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application filed June, 2008 be approved for construction on a tentative basis. If the Yucca Mountain application is still under review when the facility is ready, I ask that the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged be allowed to transport their spent fuel to the Yucca Mountain on a tentative basis in accordance with the Department of Energy's application for Yucca Mountain. The following facts form the basis of this request: 1. Uranium is a mutagen and a teratogen. Soluble uranium entering drinking water supplies causes birth defects, leukemia, and immune system disorders. (Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain, 2007 and earlier National Research Council reviews.) 2. Dry cask storage uses casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. Many have been rated at less than 10 hours submerged. (10 CFR 54.19 applications and other NRC publications) 3. Flood risk is increasing at a greater basis than when current cask storage and the procedure for approving national storage facilities were designed. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html 4. Recent events, such as the tunnel fires, have shown that the design specifications of the spent fuel storage cask may be typically overcome by real-world conditions. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the United States and the Commission to immediately approve construction of the Yucca Mountain national storage facility on a tentative basis. Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 15 01:26:53 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Party laser 'blinds' Russian ravers Message-ID: <789527.48803.qm@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Party laser 'blinds' Russian ravers * 15:03 14 July 2008 * NewScientist.com news service * Reuters and New Scientist staff ? Dozens of partygoers at an outdoor rave near Moscow have been partially blinded after a laser light show burned their retinas, say Russian health officials. Moscow city health department officials say that 12 cases of laser blindness were recorded at the Central Ophthalmological Clinic in the city. The daily newspaper Kommersant reports that another 17 victims have registered at another hospital in the centre of the capital. Ravers at the Aquamarine Open Air Festival in Kirzhach, 80 kilometres northeast of Moscow, began seeking medical help days after the show, complaining of eye and vision problems. "They all have retinal burns, scarring is visible on them. Loss of vision in individual cases is as high as 80%, and regaining it is already impossible," Kommersant quoted a treating ophthalmologist as saying. Forced indoors Partygoers say heavy rains forced organisers to erect massive tents for the all-night dance party. The damage seems to have been caused when laser beams that were intended for outdoor use to illuminate the sky, were somehow turned or reflected onto the crowd. "I immediately had a spot like when you stare into the sun," attendee Dmitry told Kommersant. "After three days I decided to go to the hospital. They examined me, asked if I had been at Open Air, and then put me straight in the hospital. I didn't even get to go home and get my stuff," he said. Cosmic Connection, promoters of the Aquamarine rave, were unreachable for comment and did not list contact numbers on their website. 'Illiterate technicians' Powerful lasers can cause eye damage instantly by burning the delicate light sensitive cells in the retina or by heating the fluid in the eye, causing a small steam explosion. Laser weapons that are intended to blind their victims were banned in 1998 by the United Nations but weapons that dazzle have so far escaped censure. The owner of a Moscow laser rental company, Valentin Vasiliev, says the accidental blindings were due to "illiteracy on the part of technicians". "It was partly the rain, but also partly the size of the laser. Somebody set up an extremely powerful laser for such a small space," he says, adding that his company did not provide the lasers at the Aquamarine event. From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Tue Jul 15 02:40:53 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:40:53 +0200 Subject: THREAD CLOSED: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com><487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6720@SRV502.tudelft.net> Dear RadSafers, The following thread is closed: Proliferation With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: maandag 14 juli 2008 19:48 To: garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Peterson, Ken' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation This (political?) discussion is way of the brief of RADSAFE, but I just want to make a slight correction to the statement below> Is it not true that one of the principal causes for the formation of Al-Qaeda the existence of American forces in Saudi Arabia? And an interesting article/interview on the general topic is at: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Now, let's get back to radiation issues! Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: . garyi at trinityphysics.com ...... You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. _______________________________________________ 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/ From mmiller at sandia.gov Tue Jul 15 15:29:50 2008 From: mmiller at sandia.gov (Miller, Mark L) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:29:50 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Tue Jul 15 16:07:15 2008 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:07:15 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website In-Reply-To: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> References: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> Message-ID: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Miller, Mark L Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. _______________________________________________ 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/ From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Tue Jul 15 18:57:58 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:57:58 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <071520082357.10210.487D39860007FB67000027E22215575474B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> (Sent to that excellent rad info site) To persuade the public, as with sunshine (ultraviolet wave-length radiation) needed for vitamin D, we must inform about ionizing radiation BENEFIT (hormesis), to motivate - not only absence of harm. Put anti-nucs on the defensive for withholding benefit from the public, harming the public by depriving of an "essential trace energy" (Cameron), like depriving of sunshine and vitamin D. . Thousands of studies support greater longevity (RR 0.76 in NSWS ? Cameron) and much less cancer (RR < 0.20 Taiwan apt. study, Chen, Luan et al). See www.ddponline.org, www.oism.org etc. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Michael, Joey L" > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > From lanka at umdnj.edu Tue Jul 15 19:08:51 2008 From: lanka at umdnj.edu (Venkata Lanka) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:08:51 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 155, Issue 1 (Offsite at Meeting - Out of Office) Message-ID: I will be out of the office from July 14 - July 18, 2008. I am away at the Health Physics Society Meeting in Pittsburgh, PA. I am expected to return to the office on Monday, July 21. Any questions pertaining to technical/radioactive materials, please contact the office at 973.972.5305. If you have questions pertaining to my calendar schedule, please contact Corisa Mobley, Administrative Assistant at 973.972.5305. Thank you. From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 16 00:41:03 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <816819.8100.qm@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Web address: ?????http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715093737.htm Possible Link Found Between X-rays And Prostate Cancer ScienceDaily (July 15, 2008) ? Researchers at The University of Nottingham have shown an association between certain past diagnostic radiation procedures and an increased risk of young-onset prostate cancer ? a rare form of prostate cancer which affects about 10 per cent of all men diagnosed with the disease. The study, the first of its kind to report the relationship between low dose ionising radiation from diagnostic procedures and the risk of prostate cancer, was funded by the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation (PCRF) and is part of the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS).The study showed that men who had a hip or pelvic X-ray or barium enema 10 years previously were two and a half times more likely to develop prostate cancer than the general population. And the link appeared to be stronger in men who had a family history of the disease. The research was led by Professor Kenneth Muir, from the Division of Epidemiology and Public Health at The University of Nottingham, in association with Dr Rosalind Eeles at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Professor Muir said: ?Although these results show some increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who had previously had certain radiological medical tests we want to reassure men that the absolute risks are small and there is no proof that the radiological tests actually caused any of the cancers.? Four hundred and thirty one men, diagnosed with young onset prostate cancer ? men diagnosed with the disease before the age of 60 ? took part in the study.? The exposure to radiation was part of normal medical procedures which were performed 5, 10 or 20 years before diagnosis. Procedures included hip and leg X-rays, for example taken after an accident, and barium meals and enemas which are used to diagnose problems with the digestive system. At this stage the evidence linking diagnostic radiation procedures and prostate cancer is still weak. This research suggests that further investigation into this link should be undertaken. X-ray procedures used for diagnostic purposes deliver very small amounts of radiation per procedure. Their use is minimised in current medical practice. For most people X-rays do not increase the risk of developing cancer. The results of the study have been published online in the British Journal of Cancer. ________________________________ Adapted from materials provided by University of Nottingham. Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA MLA University of Nottingham (2008, July 15). Possible Link Found Between X-rays And Prostate Cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com?/releases/2008/07/080715093737.htm ?----- Original Message ---- From: "HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net" To: "Michael, Joey L" ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:57:58 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website (Sent to that excellent rad info site) To persuade the public, as with sunshine (ultraviolet wave-length radiation) needed for vitamin D, we must inform about ionizing radiation BENEFIT (hormesis), to motivate - not only absence of harm. Put anti-nucs on the defensive for withholding benefit from the public, harming the public by depriving of an "essential trace energy" (Cameron), like depriving of sunshine and vitamin D. . Thousands of studies support? greater longevity (RR 0.76 in NSWS ? Cameron) and much less cancer (RR < 0.20 Taiwan apt. study, Chen, Luan et al). See www.ddponline.org, www.oism.org etc. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Michael, Joey L" > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > _______________________________________________ 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/ From peter.bossew at jrc.it Wed Jul 16 02:45:37 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:45:37 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website In-Reply-To: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> References: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <487DA721.9030200@jrc.it> Nicely made, but not usable outside U.S. -- everything in rem and Ci... :-( (who should trust information given in obsolete units) pb Michael, Joey L wrote: > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 16 07:43:45 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <52570.3860.qm@web80805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> US regulations still use rad, rem, and Ci. However, I've always said that 0.0283 kg of prevention is worth 0.454 kg of cure. Bill Lipton It's not about dose, it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter Bossew To: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:45:37 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Nicely made, but not usable outside U.S. -- everything in rem and Ci... ? :-( (who should trust information given in obsolete units) pb Michael, Joey L wrote: > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe.? The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites".? It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > >? -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY ? Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ ? "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." _______________________________________________ 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/ From lists at richardhess.com Wed Jul 16 11:06:30 2008 From: lists at richardhess.com (Richard L. Hess) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:06:30 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website In-Reply-To: <487DA721.9030200@jrc.it> References: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> <487DA721.9030200@jrc.it> Message-ID: At the top right of at least some of the pages is a switch between U.S. and SI units, labelled "rem" and "sv". There is a formatting problem for the "sv" setting on at least the Myths page which I've drawn their attention to. They note on the website that they are required by U.S. law to use the "obsolete" units rather than the SI units, just like the U.S. and Burma and perhaps one other are the only countries not to have officially adopted the SI system. Having spent most of my life in the U.S., but now living in Canada, I don't see the big deal about switching to metric, and I wished the U.S. had in the 1970s. I was gung-ho for the change, and even my employer at the time, a major U.S. television network, handed out metric conversion cardboard slide rules to help us all with the change, which then fizzled. But here in Canada, you can generally find measurements in both systems, just like you can find text in both official languages. Cheers, Richard At 03:45 AM 2008-07-16, Peter Bossew wrote: >Nicely made, but not usable outside U.S. -- everything in rem and Ci... :-( >(who should trust information given in obsolete units) > >pb > >>http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper Richard L. Hess richard at richardhess.com Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.richardhess.com/ Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm From willis.219 at osu.edu Wed Jul 16 12:31:58 2008 From: willis.219 at osu.edu (Carl Willis) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:31:58 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please do not feed the trolls... Message-ID: <573B986EAF3245538C381EDC0022F5B2@Linac.local> RADSAFE is a great technical resource, and on the occasions that I have participated here I have been rewarded with well-informed, helpful responses. However, the list has a real problem with focus--evidenced most clearly by an inability to deal with trolls. These tend to be "policy trolls" who want to bicker about the political issues relating in some way to radiation. Actually, the problem is not so much the trolls themselves but the few loudmouths who feel they are duty-bound to engage the provocations. I appreciate Marcel's attempts to shut down low-information / off-topic threads. Nonetheless, our signal-to-noise ratio has been abysmal! The rules say the list is "open to all points of view on radiation protection issues." That's as it should be, of course. Nonetheless, I think we ought to have a statement right on top declaring the focus of RADSAFE to be the objective and technical aspects of radiation protection and discouraging the political repartee. On this forum, the political stuff tends to be low-information and flagrantly trollish. No doubt policy is important, but I think there are other venues more appropriate. If the policy trolls think they've got cogent, well-informed arguments, I'd suggest they write diaries on one of the major political blogs, where this stuff is in its element and can be better judged on its merits. -Carl Willis ___________________ Carl Willis Nuclear Engineering Program The Ohio State University (505) 412-3277 willis.219 at osu.edu From DNorth at Lifespan.org Wed Jul 16 12:31:26 2008 From: DNorth at Lifespan.org (North, David) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:31:26 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please do not feed the trolls... In-Reply-To: <573B986EAF3245538C381EDC0022F5B2@Linac.local> Message-ID: <4AFD287104F71D48A958EFCB1DCC118402FFED20@LSRIEXCH1.lsmaster.lifespan.org> I think that limiting posts from any one contributor to a few per day (2 > 4?) would be a good idea. David L. North, Sc.M., DABR Associate Physicist Medical Physics Main Bldg. Rm 317 Rhode Island Hospital 593 Eddy St. Providence, RI 02903 (401)444-5961 fax: (401)444-4446 dnorth at lifespan.org > ---------- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Carl Willis > Reply To: Carl Willis > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 13:31 > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please do not feed the trolls... > > RADSAFE is a great technical resource, and on the occasions that I have participated here I have been rewarded with well-informed, helpful responses. > > However, the list has a real problem with focus--evidenced most clearly by an inability to deal with trolls. These tend to be "policy trolls" who want to bicker about the political issues relating in some way to radiation. Actually, the problem is not so much the trolls themselves but the few loudmouths who feel they are duty-bound to engage the provocations. I appreciate Marcel's attempts to shut down low-information / off-topic threads. Nonetheless, our signal-to-noise ratio has been abysmal! > > The rules say the list is "open to all points of view on radiation protection issues." That's as it should be, of course. Nonetheless, I think we ought to have a statement right on top declaring the focus of RADSAFE to be the objective and technical aspects of radiation protection and discouraging the political repartee. On this forum, the political stuff tends to be low-information and flagrantly trollish. No doubt policy is important, but I think there are other venues more appropriate. If the policy trolls think they've got cogent, well-informed arguments, I'd suggest they write diaries on one of the major political blogs, where this stuff is in its element and can be better judged on its merits. > > -Carl Willis > > ___________________ > > Carl Willis > Nuclear Engineering Program > The Ohio State University > (505) 412-3277 > willis.219 at osu.edu > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Wed Jul 16 12:38:12 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:38:12 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dx X ray and Early Prostate Cancer (veg lack) Message-ID: <071620081738.24096.487E3204000B92FC00005E202216554886B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Thanks, Roy. Next to the Nottingham article is this: Broccoli and Other Vegetables Linked with Decreased Risk of Aggressive Prostate Cancer Indeed, my injury-prone biker, hang glider and other risk sport friends and patients are those least likely to eat their cabbage family veggies - a common cause (vs cause-effect) for the "injury and digestive problem X-rays" associated with early prostate cancer. My palmRad readings are: Pleasanton CA office 0.014 mR/hr My chair (thoriated welding rods) 0.0.45 Phoenix Hilton room 0.020 " granite sink 0.025 Palo Verde site fence (in bus) 0.014 " " lecture hall 0.012 '' " passing spent fuel casks 0.011 " " " reactor #3 (in bus) 0.012 "Denver (read somewhere) 0.065" I'd like my prostate to get more radiation, like Denver with low cancer rate. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: ROY HERREN > Web address: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715093737.htm > Possible Link Found Between X-rays And Prostate Cancer > ScienceDaily (July 15, 2008) ? Researchers at The University of Nottingham have > shown an association between certain past diagnostic radiation procedures and an > increased risk of young-onset prostate cancer ? a rare form of prostate cancer > which affects about 10 per cent of all men diagnosed with the disease. > The study, the first of its kind to report the relationship between low dose > ionising radiation from diagnostic procedures and the risk of prostate cancer, > was funded by the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation (PCRF) and is part of the > UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS).The study showed that men who had a > hip or pelvic X-ray or barium enema 10 years previously were two and a half > times more likely to develop prostate cancer than the general population. And > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net" > To: "Michael, Joey L" ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:57:58 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > (Sent to that excellent rad info site) > > To persuade the public, as with sunshine (ultraviolet wave-length radiation) > needed for vitamin D, we must inform about ionizing radiation BENEFIT > (hormesis), to motivate (not only absence of harm). > Put anti-nucs on the defensive for withholding benefit from the public,harming > the public by depriving of an "essential trace energy" (Cameron), like depriving of > sunshine and vitamin D. . > > Thousands of studies support greater longevity (RR 0.76 in NSWS ? Cameron) and > much less cancer (RR < 0.20 Taiwan apt. study, Chen, Luan et al). > > See www.ddponline.org, www.oism.org etc. > > Howard Long > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "Michael, Joey L" > > > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jul 17 04:14:34 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:14:34 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium Message-ID: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium. Roger Helbig --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: From: upsilquitch Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo Hawaii, too To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis For the attention of: David Bigelow 8 July 2008 I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. Conclusion in lay terms The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. Technical aspects of the analysis For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in Hawaii. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the publications entitled : Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. 127-138. Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory `B' of the following website: http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm Sincerely, Professor Randall Parrish NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory British Geological Survey rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Thu Jul 17 13:16:26 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:16:26 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6728@SRV502.tudelft.net> Dear RadSafers, Since about 21.00 h (Amsterdam time) last Wednesday (July 16) there was a technical problem with the RadSafe mailinglist software. The RadSafe list page on the server was because of this not reachable and no messages were processed or forwarded to subscribers. The problem has been caused by an attack through the internet in which mallformed messages were used to bombard the server causing the mailinglist software to crash. Around 17.00 (Amsterdam time) today the problem was fixed and RadSafe works normal again. However, all messages that were send to the list during the malfunction are unfortunately lost and could not be recovered. The sending of digest messages was also interrupted and the numbering of the digests will have been reset. Hope this message gave enough information to RadSafe subscribers about the recent and hopefully temporary problems. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl From ddpalmer at duf6.com Thu Jul 17 13:27:11 2008 From: ddpalmer at duf6.com (Dan D. Palmer) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:27:11 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium Message-ID: U236 can indicate the presence of DU rather than or in addition to natural uranium. U236 is formed by U235 absorbing a neutron, which occurs mainly in a reactor. Since some enrichment plants at some times were feed uranium recovered from spent fuel, the plants were contaminated with U236 (along with many other isotopes) which would end up in the resulting DU. But the presence of U236 and the ratio of U236:U238 would depend on what enrichment plant and at what time the DU was withdrawn from the system. Therefore the presence of U236 is an indicator of the presence of DU, but the absence of U236 does not mean an absence of DU. And the amount of U236 can't be used to quantify the amount of Depleted U versus Natural U. "It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium. " __________________________________________________ This message and any attachments are solely for the use of the intended recipients. Unofficial or personal messages do not reflect the views or position of UDS, LLC; the Department of Energy or the federal government. This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, attorney work product or other information protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachments from your systems. Thank you for your cooperation. From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Thu Jul 17 14:06:00 2008 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:06:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist In-Reply-To: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6728@SRV502.tudelft.net> References: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6728@SRV502.tudelft.net> Message-ID: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDA@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Marcel, Thanks for your hard work and effort in keeping radsafe going. I am wondering though, if radsafe should move to a web-discussion type of technology? I think the idea has been brought up in the past. I'm not technically savy enough to set it up, but I have subscribed to some (sports related) discussion sites. I did a google search on discussion group software and noticed there is some free code out there for this. Is there someone out there on radsafe that could do this? The other discussion groups that I have subscribed to have had the ability for multiple moderators. Could this be done as a student project? Or by a student HPS group? --Joey -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Marcel Schouwenburg Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:16 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist Dear RadSafers, Since about 21.00 h (Amsterdam time) last Wednesday (July 16) there was a technical problem with the RadSafe mailinglist software. The RadSafe list page on the server was because of this not reachable and no messages were processed or forwarded to subscribers. The problem has been caused by an attack through the internet in which mallformed messages were used to bombard the server causing the mailinglist software to crash. Around 17.00 (Amsterdam time) today the problem was fixed and RadSafe works normal again. However, all messages that were send to the list during the malfunction are unfortunately lost and could not be recovered. The sending of digest messages was also interrupted and the numbering of the digests will have been reset. Hope this message gave enough information to RadSafe subscribers about the recent and hopefully temporary problems. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl _______________________________________________ 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/ From Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Thu Jul 17 14:12:31 2008 From: Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:12:31 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation Message-ID: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F2F85@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation Reuters Health Information 2008. ? 2008 Reuters Ltd. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. By Scott Anderson TORONTO (Reuters) Jul 09 - MDS Inc said on Wednesday it has filed a C$1.6 billion ($1.58 billion) claim against Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and the Canadian government for scrapping a reactor project that would have supplied the company with medical isotopes. MDS, a medical services company, said its claim follows a May decision by the government and AECL to scuttle the Maple nuclear reactor project without giving the company prior notice or offering consultation. MDS sells medical radioisotopes, used in cancer treatment, to hospitals and other health-care providers. Mississauga, Ontario-based MDS, which also specializes in analytical instruments, molecular imaging and contract research, said it is seeking an order to compel AECL, a government agency with responsibility for nuclear products, to fulfill its 2006 contract to provide a 40-year supply of the isotopes. If not, MDS said it would seek the damages. "It was our last resort after trying as best we could with conversations to get a resolution here that made some sense," Stephen DeFalco, MDS president and chief executive, said in an interview. "But we need them to honor their commitment to finish these reactors and to provide 40 years worth of supply. It's very important for our patients and it's very important for our business." Maher Yaghi, an analyst at Desjardins Securities in Montreal, said the company had to take legal action now to address long-term supply of the isotopes. "They have to do what they have to do. This is something that you can't wait a long time before you start because you know how the court system works, especially if you are suing the government," Yaghi said. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said the government would defend itself and AECL against the claim. "Neither the government nor AECL accept the allegations made in the statement of claim, accordingly we will be taking steps to defend AECL and the (government)," Lunn said in a statement. In a surprise move in mid-May, AECL said it was halting work on the Maple reactor in Eastern Ontario because of huge cost overruns and other problems. Maple had been designed to replace an aging reactor at Chalk River in Ontario that now supplies isotopes. The Maple project was to be completed by the year 2000 at a planned cost to MDS of C$145 million. By 2006, the project was still not finished and costs had more than doubled, with MDS's investment exceeding C$350 million. The two sides reached a new agreement in 2006 stipulating that AECL would bring the reactors into service by October 2008 and supply 40 years of the isotopes. "AECL is a commercial entity. AECL signed a commercial contract and that contract has certain rights and obligations as part of that and this is something for the courts to sort out," DeFalco said. Worldwide, there are only four commercial producers of the isotopes, with MDS's Nordion division supplying the most. DeFalco said the company could obtain quantities of the product through backup agreements with these producers. Yaghi said it's possible the company may be able to write down the costs it incurred on the Maple project, but it would probably wait until the outcome of the legal battle is clear before it does so. ($1=$1.01 Canadian) (Additional reporting by Louise Egan in Ottawa; Editing by Peter Galloway) --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. From bollingje at Ports.USEC.com Thu Jul 17 15:05:27 2008 From: bollingje at Ports.USEC.com (Bolling, Jason E) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:27 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU In-Reply-To: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> References: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> Message-ID: <46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> Given that the process of uranium enrichment is the separation of lighter isotopes of uranium from the heavier isotopes of uranium, I would expect there to be less U-236 in DU because U-236 is preferentially concentrated in the U-235 product stream and separated from the U-238 which is, of course, what the DU is. While it is true that there are some stores of uranium hexafluoride available from when the US still practiced fuel reprocessing where the concentration of U-236 is higher than natural, these stores are at approximately natural enrichement and, as far as I can tell, wouldn't be associated with DU. So, based on my experience in the uranium enrichment industry, U-236 and DU have nothing to do with each other. If anything, the DU should have less U-236 than natural U. -Jason Bolling -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 AM To: Radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium. Roger Helbig --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: From: upsilquitch Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo Hawaii, too To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis For the attention of: David Bigelow 8 July 2008 I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. Conclusion in lay terms The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. Technical aspects of the analysis For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in Hawaii. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the publications entitled : Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. 127-138. Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory `B' of the following website: http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm Sincerely, Professor Randall Parrish NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory British Geological Survey rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 17 17:02:30 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:02:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list In-Reply-To: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDA@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C05607DFD@gdses.corp.gds.com> Joey, Prior to Marcel graciously accepting the transition of Radsafe from Vanderbilt University (Mike Stabin), there was discussion regarding establishing an internet based Radsafe. Having been a member on various groups, it is my recommendation as long as there is a host system, such as Delft University, that we should not make any changes to the current set-up. Marcel runs a great system, moderates when appropriate, and lets the system run. As often stated, if it's not broken, don't try to fix it! Regards, Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael, Joey L Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:06 PM To: Marcel Schouwenburg; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist Marcel, Thanks for your hard work and effort in keeping radsafe going. I am wondering though, if radsafe should move to a web-discussion type of technology? I think the idea has been brought up in the past. I'm not technically savy enough to set it up, but I have subscribed to some (sports related) discussion sites. I did a google search on discussion group software and noticed there is some free code out there for this. Is there someone out there on radsafe that could do this? The other discussion groups that I have subscribed to have had the ability for multiple moderators. Could this be done as a student project? Or by a student HPS group? --Joey PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jul 17 18:12:37 2008 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:12:37 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation In-Reply-To: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F2F85@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> References: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F2F85@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Message-ID: <6DF4BBE5C3BC4219B2D865E7CB4CC8D3@JohnPC> Colette This ex AECL'er thanks you for this update. When I was at AECL/CRL, CRL was called CRNL and the Maple reactors were "in the future". John *************** John R Johnson, PhD CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 4535 West 9th Ave 604-676-3556 Vancouver, B. C. V6R 2E2, Canada idias at interchange.ubc.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colette Tremblay" To: Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:12 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation Reuters Health Information 2008. ? 2008 Reuters Ltd. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. By Scott Anderson TORONTO (Reuters) Jul 09 - MDS Inc said on Wednesday it has filed a C$1.6 billion ($1.58 billion) claim against Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and the Canadian government for scrapping a reactor project that would have supplied the company with medical isotopes. MDS, a medical services company, said its claim follows a May decision by the government and AECL to scuttle the Maple nuclear reactor project without giving the company prior notice or offering consultation. MDS sells medical radioisotopes, used in cancer treatment, to hospitals and other health-care providers. Mississauga, Ontario-based MDS, which also specializes in analytical instruments, molecular imaging and contract research, said it is seeking an order to compel AECL, a government agency with responsibility for nuclear products, to fulfill its 2006 contract to provide a 40-year supply of the isotopes. If not, MDS said it would seek the damages. "It was our last resort after trying as best we could with conversations to get a resolution here that made some sense," Stephen DeFalco, MDS president and chief executive, said in an interview. "But we need them to honor their commitment to finish these reactors and to provide 40 years worth of supply. It's very important for our patients and it's very important for our business." Maher Yaghi, an analyst at Desjardins Securities in Montreal, said the company had to take legal action now to address long-term supply of the isotopes. "They have to do what they have to do. This is something that you can't wait a long time before you start because you know how the court system works, especially if you are suing the government," Yaghi said. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said the government would defend itself and AECL against the claim. "Neither the government nor AECL accept the allegations made in the statement of claim, accordingly we will be taking steps to defend AECL and the (government)," Lunn said in a statement. In a surprise move in mid-May, AECL said it was halting work on the Maple reactor in Eastern Ontario because of huge cost overruns and other problems. Maple had been designed to replace an aging reactor at Chalk River in Ontario that now supplies isotopes. The Maple project was to be completed by the year 2000 at a planned cost to MDS of C$145 million. By 2006, the project was still not finished and costs had more than doubled, with MDS's investment exceeding C$350 million. The two sides reached a new agreement in 2006 stipulating that AECL would bring the reactors into service by October 2008 and supply 40 years of the isotopes. "AECL is a commercial entity. AECL signed a commercial contract and that contract has certain rights and obligations as part of that and this is something for the courts to sort out," DeFalco said. Worldwide, there are only four commercial producers of the isotopes, with MDS's Nordion division supplying the most. DeFalco said the company could obtain quantities of the product through backup agreements with these producers. Yaghi said it's possible the company may be able to write down the costs it incurred on the Maple project, but it would probably wait until the outcome of the legal battle is clear before it does so. ($1=$1.01 Canadian) (Additional reporting by Louise Egan in Ottawa; Editing by Peter Galloway) --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. _______________________________________________ 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/ From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 18 01:25:45 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:25:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Underground water in Varanasi the U guideline followed in India is 60 microgramme per litre Message-ID: <182394.73713.qm@web23106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Dan, I am sorry I missed your message. I get too many messages as I am a freelance science writer contributing regularly to the science & technology columns of a few newspapers and news agencies. Generally I do not miss RADSAFE messages; responding to them is my first priority. In India, we follow a guideline of 60microgramme per liter for uranium in drinking water. There is a possibility that we may also accept the USEPA guideline of 30 microgramme per litre. I understand that up to 2006, some EU countries have not prescribed a limit for uranium in drinking water . They may use the WHO guideline of 15 microgramme per litre The news story you referred to has a bit of a drama and comedy about it! It is a typical case of a report getting top billing as the reporter has "spiced" it with radioactivity. It was based on some work carried out by two professors of the Banaras Hindu University over 18 years ago. A reporter interviewed one of the authors who retired from the University.Among the work hecarried out was also measurements of uranium and heavy elements in tubewell water samples carried out in 1990 with one of his colleagues (who died a few years ago). They have published it in the Indian Journal of Hydrology. The reporter asked the member secretary of the State PollutionControl Board. He said he was not aware of the report. It was not surprising as the report appeared in an obscure journal. The reporter got excited! rest is history. Since I do not know the origin of 2ppb as the limit, I spoke to the professor; he claimed that he got the value from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). You may recall that in the absence of enough scientific evidence ,WHO gave a value of 2 microgramme per litre as the guideline in 1998. In fact the shifting stance of WHO over the years was creating some problems. I understand that uranium content in water is a live issue in USA and countries such as Finland. Any useful inputs from RADSAFE members from various countries may be useful to me. I was a member of an expert group set up by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board in 2004. We recommended 60 microgramme per litre. This limit is likely to be revised. I have issued a press release in response to the news story on uranium in well water samples in Varnasi ( Banaras in English). I did it because the item appeared in some leading news papers. I have assured the readers that the levels are neither alarming nor abnormal. I gave the typical values from a number of publications. Data are available from 1976! I shall send the text of the press release, if any "RADSAFER" is interested. "Uranium" is now an important component of news in India for various reasons. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan W McCarn To: radsafelist Cc: parthasarathy k s Sent: Monday, 14 July, 2008 12:04:18 AM Subject: Underground water in Varanasi Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com Hi - Perhaps Parthasarathy can comment on this: Is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for uranium really only 1.5 ug/L in India? If so, this is certainly not in line with EU or US EPA values. Dan ii http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200807131554.htm The Hindu Sunday, July 13, 2008 : 1600 Hrs 'Underground water in Varanasi contaminated with Uranium' Varanasi (PTI): In an alarming development, a group of scientists has revealed that underground water in Varanasi and adjoining areas is contaminated with Uranium but the Centre and the state government are unaware of the fact. The study conducted by G C Chowdhary, former Professor at the Geology Department of Banaras Hindu University and S K Agarwal, also a professor of Geology, has shown that the drinking water in the University premises some other places in the city contains radioactive Uranium more than the recommended limit. Samples for the study were collected from 11 tubewells tapping deep aquifers (more than 100 meters deep). The Uranium content varied from 2 to 11 ppb (parts per billion) while the permissible limit is only 1.5 ppb. Chowdhary said the underground water also contains heavy metals such as Chromium, Manganese, Nickel, Ferrous, Copper, Zinc and Lead. He said they had also published their first research paper in this regard in the Hydrology Journal of Indian Association of Hydrology in 1990s, clearly predicting health hazardous of water contaminated with these elements beyond the permissible limit. Member Secretary of the UP Pollution Control Board, CS Bhatt, told PTI on phone that he had not come across any report, which suggests that the underground water in Varanasi is contaminated with any sort of radioactive element. There is no facility with the board to investigate any such occurrences even if it comes to its knowledge, he said. __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Fri Jul 18 02:58:09 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 9:58:09 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Message-ID: <30305669.1216367889503.JavaMail.root@viefep12> Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz ---- "Perle schrieb: > Joey, > > Prior to Marcel graciously accepting the transition of Radsafe from > Vanderbilt University (Mike Stabin), there was discussion regarding > establishing an internet based Radsafe. Having been a member on various > groups, it is my recommendation as long as there is a host system, such > as Delft University, that we should not make any changes to the current > set-up. Marcel runs a great system, moderates when appropriate, and lets > the system run. As often stated, if it's not broken, don't try to fix > it! > > Regards, > > Sander C. Perle > President > Mirion Technologies > Dosimetry Services Division > 2652 McGaw Avenue > Irvine, CA 92614 > +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) > +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) > > Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Michael, Joey L > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:06 PM > To: Marcel Schouwenburg; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe > mailinglist > > Marcel, > > Thanks for your hard work and effort in keeping radsafe going. I am > wondering though, if radsafe should move to a web-discussion type of > technology? I think the idea has been brought up in the past. I'm not > technically savy enough to set it up, but I have subscribed to some > (sports related) discussion sites. I did a google search on discussion > group software and noticed there is some free code out there for this. > > Is there someone out there on radsafe that could do this? > > The other discussion groups that I have subscribed to have had the > ability for multiple moderators. > > Could this be done as a student project? Or by a student HPS group? > > --Joey > > > > PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From peter.bossew at jrc.it Fri Jul 18 06:19:57 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:19:57 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU In-Reply-To: <46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> References: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> <46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> Message-ID: <48807C5D.1050209@jrc.it> Some data: 1) In the UNEP BiH report of 2003 some figures on 236U, 239+240Pu and 237Np in DU ammunition samples are given. For 236U, typically 0.003 % m/m were found, some 10^1 Bq/kg 239/240Pu and some Bq/kg 237Np. (pages 16, 33 and 215ff (Annex H)) UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Post-conflict environmental Assessment. Report 2003. Similar: UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro. Post-conflict environmental Assessment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Report 2002. Annex K, pp.152 ff UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Kosovo. Post-conflict environmental Assessment . Report 2001. Annex VII, pp. 157 ff These UNEP reports used to be available for free on the UNEP website, but not any more. I have them as pdf (~20 MB, unfortunately). 2) WISE Uranium fact sheet, P. Diehl: http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/durepe.pdf Acc. this document, 236U and transuranics almost do not contribute to dose. 3) Trueman E. R., Black S. and Read D. (2004): Characterisation of depleted uranium (DU) from an unfired CHARM-3 penetrator. Sci. Tot Env. 327, 337 - 340. Has data also on 238Pu, 241, 243Am and 99Tc. 4) Salbu B. et al. (2005): Oxidation state of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait. JER 78, 125 - 135. In the analysed DU samples, 236/238U ratios 3-4 o.m. higher than in nat. U ore (Table 2) 5) McLaughlin J. P. et al. (2003): Actinide analysis of a depleted uranium penetrator from a 1999 target site in southern Serbia. JER 64, 155 -156. 236U, 239+240, 238Pu found. 6) Jia et al. (2004): Concentration, distribution and characteristics of depleted uranium (DU) in the Kosovo ecosystem: A comparison with the uranium behaviour in the environment uncontaminated by DU. J. Radioanalyt. Nucl. Chem. 260 (3), 481 - 494. typically 0.003 % m/m 236U Similar in Jia et al. (2006): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in biological and water samples collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina. JER 89, 172 - 187. Jia et al. (2005): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in water, air and biological samples collected in Serbia and Montenegro. ARI 63, 381 - 399 pb. Bolling, Jason E wrote: > Given that the process of uranium enrichment is the separation of > lighter isotopes of uranium from the heavier isotopes of uranium, I > would expect there to be less U-236 in DU because U-236 is > preferentially concentrated in the U-235 product stream and separated > from the U-238 which is, of course, what the DU is. > > While it is true that there are some stores of uranium hexafluoride > available from when the US still practiced fuel reprocessing where the > concentration of U-236 is higher than natural, these stores are at > approximately natural enrichement and, as far as I can tell, wouldn't be > associated with DU. > > So, based on my experience in the uranium enrichment industry, U-236 and > DU have nothing to do with each other. If anything, the DU should have > less U-236 than natural U. > > -Jason Bolling > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Roger Helbig > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 AM > To: Radsafe > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted > Uranium > > > It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the > so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or > experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from > Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted > uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample > the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do > you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted > uranium. > > > > Roger Helbig > > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: > > From: upsilquitch > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo > Hawaii, too > To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM > > Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis > For the attention of: > David Bigelow > 8 July 2008 > I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a > uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. > Conclusion in lay terms > The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium > as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the > dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks > that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is > overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. > Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural > uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more > radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. > As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by > natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if > present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal > variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger > than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. > Technical aspects of the analysis > For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate > portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was > 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value > is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to > be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it > contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the > isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is > also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest > being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also > contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in > a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured > in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in > other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both > measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they > are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which > is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration > of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, > which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in > Hawaii. > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact > me. > 1 > The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the > publications entitled : > Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., > Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation > exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health > assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total > Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and > Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., > Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, > 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- > ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. > 127-138. > Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory > `B' of the following website: > http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm > Sincerely, > Professor Randall Parrish > NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory > British Geological Survey > rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From jkrueger at kruegerassociates.com Fri Jul 18 07:11:05 2008 From: jkrueger at kruegerassociates.com (JKrueger) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:41:05 +0430 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU In-Reply-To: <48807C5D.1050209@jrc.it> References: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com><46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> <48807C5D.1050209@jrc.it> Message-ID: Actually, the reports are still available in English pdf for free at this link: http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications.php?prog=du John L. Krueger -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Peter Bossew Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 3:50 PM To: Radsafe Cc: Bolling, Jason E Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU Some data: 1) In the UNEP BiH report of 2003 some figures on 236U, 239+240Pu and 237Np in DU ammunition samples are given. For 236U, typically 0.003 % m/m were found, some 10^1 Bq/kg 239/240Pu and some Bq/kg 237Np. (pages 16, 33 and 215ff (Annex H)) UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Post-conflict environmental Assessment. Report 2003. Similar: UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro. Post-conflict environmental Assessment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Report 2002. Annex K, pp.152 ff UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Kosovo. Post-conflict environmental Assessment . Report 2001. Annex VII, pp. 157 ff These UNEP reports used to be available for free on the UNEP website, but not any more. I have them as pdf (~20 MB, unfortunately). 2) WISE Uranium fact sheet, P. Diehl: http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/durepe.pdf Acc. this document, 236U and transuranics almost do not contribute to dose. 3) Trueman E. R., Black S. and Read D. (2004): Characterisation of depleted uranium (DU) from an unfired CHARM-3 penetrator. Sci. Tot Env. 327, 337 - 340. Has data also on 238Pu, 241, 243Am and 99Tc. 4) Salbu B. et al. (2005): Oxidation state of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait. JER 78, 125 - 135. In the analysed DU samples, 236/238U ratios 3-4 o.m. higher than in nat. U ore (Table 2) 5) McLaughlin J. P. et al. (2003): Actinide analysis of a depleted uranium penetrator from a 1999 target site in southern Serbia. JER 64, 155 -156. 236U, 239+240, 238Pu found. 6) Jia et al. (2004): Concentration, distribution and characteristics of depleted uranium (DU) in the Kosovo ecosystem: A comparison with the uranium behaviour in the environment uncontaminated by DU. J. Radioanalyt. Nucl. Chem. 260 (3), 481 - 494. typically 0.003 % m/m 236U Similar in Jia et al. (2006): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in biological and water samples collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina. JER 89, 172 - 187. Jia et al. (2005): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in water, air and biological samples collected in Serbia and Montenegro. ARI 63, 381 - 399 pb. Bolling, Jason E wrote: > Given that the process of uranium enrichment is the separation of > lighter isotopes of uranium from the heavier isotopes of uranium, I > would expect there to be less U-236 in DU because U-236 is > preferentially concentrated in the U-235 product stream and separated > from the U-238 which is, of course, what the DU is. > > While it is true that there are some stores of uranium hexafluoride > available from when the US still practiced fuel reprocessing where the > concentration of U-236 is higher than natural, these stores are at > approximately natural enrichement and, as far as I can tell, wouldn't be > associated with DU. > > So, based on my experience in the uranium enrichment industry, U-236 and > DU have nothing to do with each other. If anything, the DU should have > less U-236 than natural U. > > -Jason Bolling > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Roger Helbig > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 AM > To: Radsafe > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted > Uranium > > > It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the > so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or > experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from > Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted > uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample > the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do > you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted > uranium. > > > > Roger Helbig > > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: > > From: upsilquitch > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo > Hawaii, too > To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM > > Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis > For the attention of: > David Bigelow > 8 July 2008 > I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a > uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. > Conclusion in lay terms > The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium > as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the > dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks > that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is > overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. > Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural > uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more > radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. > As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by > natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if > present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal > variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger > than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. > Technical aspects of the analysis > For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate > portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was > 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value > is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to > be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it > contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the > isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is > also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest > being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also > contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in > a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured > in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in > other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both > measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they > are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which > is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration > of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, > which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in > Hawaii. > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact > me. > 1 > The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the > publications entitled : > Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., > Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation > exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health > assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total > Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and > Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., > Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, > 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- > ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. > 127-138. > Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory > `B' of the following website: > http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm > Sincerely, > Professor Randall Parrish > NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory > British Geological Survey > rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Fri Jul 18 08:01:52 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:01:52 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Message-ID: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Thanks Franz. Another very good reason for maintaining the Status Quo. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 AM To: Michael, Joey L ; Perle, Sandy ; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Fri Jul 18 08:32:46 2008 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list In-Reply-To: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com> References: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDB@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> On second thought Franz and Sandy have it right. The internet is just another passing fad. ?He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.? ~Harold Wilson From: Perle, Sandy [mailto:sperle at mirion.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:02 AM To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; Michael, Joey L; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Thanks Franz. Another very good reason for maintaining the Status Quo. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 AM To: Michael, Joey L ; Perle, Sandy ; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Fri Jul 18 08:49:16 2008 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:49:16 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Fri Jul 18 09:29:02 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> References: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672C@SRV502.tudelft.net> Jerry, What is actually calculated using this method is not the number of atoms that is removed from the organ (source organ) but the number of atoms that decayed in this organ. Hence, this is the number that we're interested in since this is contributing to the dose. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM Sent: vrijdag 18 juli 2008 15:49 To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jul 18 09:58:04 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:58:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> References: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02BB2E96@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Jerry, from what you describe and I understand, I think you un-necessarily complicate the issue. >From a dosimetric point of view all I am interested in is the energy deposited in a system in a given time interval. For that purpose I multiply the total number of decays in that time interval with the energy per decay. If you plot activity (ordinate: decays-in-a-given-system per unit time) against time (abscissa) then the integral of this function gives you the total number of decays in the system between two moments in time, i.e., that what you need. The number of decays per unit time is proportional to the number of radioactive atoms present at this moment. The number of radioactive atoms present decreases by (a) the decay itself with a decay constant C-phys and (b) biological metabolism. In a more or less crude approximation biological removal is modelled as an exponential process with a decay constant C-biol. This approximation leads to an exponential decay with the decay constant: C-total = C-phys + C-biol. To summarize: The total number of decays is what I need to know. I get them by integration of the activity curve over time. You may call this total number of decays "cumulated activity" though I would dissuade from doing so. HTH, 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Juli 2008 15:49 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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/ From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Fri Jul 18 10:01:32 2008 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:01:32 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672C@SRV502.tudelft.net> References: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672C@SRV502.tudelft.net> Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D608E@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Marcel and All, Thanks for the information. I've discovered that my confusion arose from working in activity instead of atoms. This is something I learned way back when (kudos to Clay French, Ken Skrable, and George Chabot back at Lowell) and had neglected when reading Mike's book. When considering atoms and how they are removed, everything becomes clear to me. Thanks again, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Marcel Schouwenburg [mailto:M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:29 AM To: Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Jerry, What is actually calculated using this method is not the number of atoms that is removed from the organ (source organ) but the number of atoms that decayed in this organ. Hence, this is the number that we're interested in since this is contributing to the dose. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM Sent: vrijdag 18 juli 2008 15:49 To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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/ Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From garyi at trinityphysics.com Fri Jul 18 10:11:57 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:11:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list In-Reply-To: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDB@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> References: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com>, <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDB@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <48806C6D.9776.4378E74@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Joey, Change can be bad or good, like aging or faster computers. Progress is that subset of change which results in improvement rather than decay. Since you haven't made a case for your desired change actually being progress, you should not be annoyed at the cool response you got. The ongoing prescence of posts that might annoy you does not mean that Marcel can not keep up with the job of moderating the list. It means that he has made the executive decision not to censor the list except in extreme cases. Therefore, unless you disagree with his decisions, I don't understand why you think changing the list format would be progress. The internet is indeed here to stay, and it is a powerful tool. It took me only about 12 seconds to find your quote. On the same page, 4 quotes down, I found the one below. Have a great weekend, Gary Isenhower When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. ~Victor Frankl On 18 Jul 2008 at 8:32, Michael, Joey L wrote: Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Date sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:46 -0500 From: "Michael, Joey L" To: On second thought Franz and Sandy have it right. The internet is just another passing fad. "He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery." ~Harold Wilson From: Perle, Sandy [mailto:sperle at mirion.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:02 AM To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; Michael, Joey L; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Thanks Franz. Another very good reason for maintaining the Status Quo. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 AM To: Michael, Joey L ; Perle, Sandy ; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz From legend396 at COX.NET Sat Jul 19 16:05:10 2008 From: legend396 at COX.NET (DAVID LOSS) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:05:10 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs Message-ID: <000201c8e9e3$21605af0$d5dfcc48@david758051adf> According to the article that you wrote some of the information is wrong. Lowell Ryman was a child from 1950 to 1953 so he did not work at the lab he was 9 years old and lived down the street from me and my family on Walnut Street . He was a friend of my brothers and they played in the canyons. See news paper article from Santa Fe New Mexican titled "Deadly exposures plague Children of the Manhattan Project. Lynne Loss From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jul 20 16:27:17 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:27:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs In-Reply-To: <000201c8e9e3$21605af0$d5dfcc48@david758051adf> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080720151012.009f3c10@mail.swcp.com> July 20 What is "wrong" with the "information" in the article I wrote? (It is below, dated June 22.) In reference to your message (farther below), a person is a child from birth until age 18, not for a mere three years. Ryman did not work at Los Alamos Labs and no one has said that he did. The correct title of the article in the Santa Fe New Mexican is "Deadly exposure: Plutonium-related cancers plague children of the Manhattan Project." The link is , (May 4, 2008). Steven Dapra June 22, 2008 A lawsuit has been filed against the University of California, operator of Los Alamos National Laboratories, and against the Zia Company, a company that was a LANL contractor until 1986. The suit claims that one Lowell Ryman was exposed to radioactive waste as a child and at age 63 died of cancer as a result of the exposure. According to the opening portion of an article at Findlaw.com, "Plutonium released from Los Alamos National Laboratory killed a New Mexico man who was exposed to the radioactive metal as a child, according to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by his daughter in Albuquerque federal court. "The suit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, says the University of California, which operates the lab, and Zia Co., a maintenance and construction contractor, are liable for Lowell Ryman's death from cancer at age 63. "According to the complaint, Ryman's father worked at Los Alamos from 1950 to 1953. During that time Ryman allegedly played extensively in the nearby canyons, where he was exposed to radioactive waste, including plutonium. "Los Alamos released the plutonium from 1943 to 1964 while developing and testing nuclear weapons, the complaint says. "Plutonium exposure causes cancer, especially multiple myeloma, which Ryman allegedly developed as an adult before his death in 2005." The article is at this link: . According to an article in the Las Cruces (NM) Sun-News, Ryman's daughter "said her father's doctors were mystified about the cause of his cancer until they talked to her about his past. "I told the doctor he grew up in Los Alamos, and he looked at me, put down his pen and said, 'Your dad has radiation exposure,' [the daughter] said." The link is . (How's that for a diagnosis? The doctor never so much as saw the patient.) For residents of Albuquerque, NM and vicinity, this was reported in the Albq. Journal on June 18, p. C-2. ----- END of my June 22 posting ----- At 02:05 PM 7/19/08 -0700, DAVID LOSS wrote: >According to the article that you wrote some of the information is wrong. >Lowell Ryman was a child from 1950 to 1953 so he did not work at the lab >he was 9 years old and lived down the street from me and my family on >Walnut Street . He was a friend of my brothers and they played in the >canyons. See news paper article from Santa Fe New Mexican titled >"Deadly exposures plague Children of the Manhattan Project. > >Lynne Loss From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 23:49:33 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to protein linked to bone marrow failure in humans Message-ID: <81855.77827.qm@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As you read the following article I would ask that you consider the following questions: Is it possible that radiation induced damage causes action of p53, and that high levels of radiation cause high levels of p53 activation which in kind leads to high levels of severe anemia or bone marrow failure?? In other words, is it possible that the anemia that accompanies high levels of radiation exposure isn't caused?directly by the radiation itself, but rather by the consequence of the activation of p53?? ? Roy Herren ? ? Public release date: 20-Jul-2008 Contact: Krista Conger kristac at stanford.edu 650-725-5371 Stanford University Medical Center Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to protein linked to bone marrow failure in humans STANFORD, Calif. - The study of dark-skinned mice has led to a surprising finding about a common protein involved in tumor suppression, report researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The results may lead to new treatments for bone marrow failure in humans. The protein, called p53, has been dubbed the "guardian of the genome" for its ability to recognize DNA damage and halt the division of potentially cancerous cells. However, in a new twist, it appears that p53 also responds to disruptions in the cell's protein factories, leading to changes in skin color and causing anemia in mice. "This may be just the tip of an iceberg," said Gregory Barsh, MD, PhD, professor of genetics and of pediatrics. "When we think of p53, we think in extremes: high levels cause cell death, low levels cause cancer. This research shows that even moderate changes can have very important consequences. It also suggests that the activation of p53 may be involved in more pathways than we previously anticipated." Barsh is the senior author of the study, which will be published online in Nature Genetics on July 20. Kelly McGowan, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and postdoctoral scholar in Barsh's laboratory, is the first author. The researchers studied mutations that darken the feet, tails and ears of normally light-skinned mice. Alterations in pigmentation are not only easy to identify, but also often involve a variety of biologically important pathways that control more than just hair or skin color. McGowan homed in on two skin-darkening mutations, which she found affected specific protein components of the cell's ribosomes. Ribosomes act as cellular protein factories, translating the instructions encoded by RNA molecules into new proteins to do the cell's work. The discovery was interesting because mutations affecting one of the same ribosomal proteins in humans are associated with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome, a condition that causes a type of anemia specific to red blood cells. When the scientists examined the dark-skinned mice more closely, they found that these mice exhibited similar abnormalities in red blood cell formation. "Diamond-Blackfan itself is fairly rare," said McGowan, "but the bone marrow failure that sometimes occurs in these individuals happens quite often in many other disorders, including acute myelogenous leukemia and multiple myeloma." People with bone marrow failure are unable to produce enough red blood cells, white blood cells and/or platelets. They are susceptible to uncontrolled bleeding, infection and fatigue. Understanding the disorder in mice may help scientists and physicians develop new treatment for other, similar conditions. Interestingly, people with mutations in the same ribosomal protein can exhibit a range of very different symptoms. Such variation suggests that, although the mutations occur in the all-important ribosomes, the problem isn't the result of ham-handedly interfering with all protein production in the cell. McGowan, Barsh, and their colleagues found that skin from the feet of the mutant mice exhibited elevated levels of p53. This elevation, or "activation," of p53 stimulated the production of a protein called Kit ligand that stimulates the growth of pigment cells, which turned the mice's skin darker than normal. In contrast, mutant mice unable to express p53 had normal levels of Kit ligand. They also had light-colored feet and unaffected numbers of red blood cells. "The involvement of p53 in this pathway suggests that the variability seen in human disease may be due to a varying extent to which p53 is activated, or expressed," said McGowan. "The mild anemia seen in these mice and in some humans with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome may be due to mild activation of p53. More severe anemia or bone marrow failure may be the result of very high levels of p53 activation." The researchers hypothesize that increased activation of p53 affects different types of cells in the body in different ways. In skin cells, it increases the amount of Kit ligand and causes darker skin, whereas in bone marrow cells it causes anemia by causing the death of red blood cell precursors. These results suggest that moderating the levels of p53 may be one way to treat a variety of bone marrow failures in humans. In the future, McGowan and Barsh will focus on using what they've learned to develop a better mouse model of bone marrow failure in which to try new drugs and therapies. They will also search for additional skin-darkening mutations that affect this and other previously unknown p53 pathways. "This illustrates the potential benefits that come from basic science research," said Barsh. "Although you don't always know where you're going to end up, many advances in human health would not have been discovered any other way." ### In addition to McGowan and Barsh, other Stanford researchers on the work include Jun Li, PhD, and Holly Tabor, PhD, both senior scientists at the Stanford Human Genome Center; hematopathologist Christopher Park, MD, PhD; graduate students Veronica Beaudry and Weibin Zhang; medical student Amit Sabnis; as well as Richard Myers, PhD, the Stanford W. Ascherman, M.D., F.A.C.S. Professor in Genetics; and Laura Attardi, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and of genetics. The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the German Human Genome Project and the National Genome Research Network. Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication & Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu. From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Mon Jul 21 04:49:02 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:49:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Background information on Depleted Uranium Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672E@SRV502.tudelft.net> Dear RadSafers, I'm forwarding this message to the list on behalf of George Stanford ( gstanford at aya.yale.edu ) since it was (for unknow reason to me at the moment) filtered out by the server. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- There is a rather comprehensive backgrounder on DU at http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/information/med_vaccs/engraph/DU_Backgrou nder_e.asp or http://peek.snipurl.com/2u9aq -- George Stanford Reactor physicist, retired ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg RadSafe Moderator & Listowner From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Mon Jul 21 06:10:02 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:10:02 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to proteinlinked to bone marrow failure in humans References: <81855.77827.qm@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E0E@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Roy, given that p53 is member of a multi-multi component network of regulatory molecules, any shape of a dose-response function is conceivable. Given that we know only a minor - if not negligible - fraction of all the players and their interactions, the reported observations are well within the realm of 'possibilities'. The only way to assess their validity is to scrutinize the experimental details leading to the reported results. However, there arises one reservation from studying the press release. It concerns the absence of any mentioning of apoptosis, one of the important regulatory pathways where p53 is a key player. Regards, Rainer Dr. Rainer Facius, DLR, German Aerospace Center, Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Division of Radiation Biology, 51147 Cologne, Germany ________________________________ Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von ROY HERREN Gesendet: Mo 21.07.2008 06:49 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to proteinlinked to bone marrow failure in humans As you read the following article I would ask that you consider the following questions: Is it possible that radiation induced damage causes action of p53, and that high levels of radiation cause high levels of p53 activation which in kind leads to high levels of severe anemia or bone marrow failure? In other words, is it possible that the anemia that accompanies high levels of radiation exposure isn't caused directly by the radiation itself, but rather by the consequence of the activation of p53? Roy Herren Public release date: 20-Jul-2008 Contact: Krista Conger kristac at stanford.edu 650-725-5371 Stanford University Medical Center Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to protein linked to bone marrow failure in humans STANFORD, Calif. - The study of dark-skinned mice has led to a surprising finding about a common protein involved in tumor suppression, report researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The results may lead to new treatments for bone marrow failure in humans. The protein, called p53, has been dubbed the "guardian of the genome" for its ability to recognize DNA damage and halt the division of potentially cancerous cells. However, in a new twist, it appears that p53 also responds to disruptions in the cell's protein factories, leading to changes in skin color and causing anemia in mice. "This may be just the tip of an iceberg," said Gregory Barsh, MD, PhD, professor of genetics and of pediatrics. "When we think of p53, we think in extremes: high levels cause cell death, low levels cause cancer. This research shows that even moderate changes can have very important consequences. It also suggests that the activation of p53 may be involved in more pathways than we previously anticipated." Barsh is the senior author of the study, which will be published online in Nature Genetics on July 20. Kelly McGowan, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and postdoctoral scholar in Barsh's laboratory, is the first author. The researchers studied mutations that darken the feet, tails and ears of normally light-skinned mice. Alterations in pigmentation are not only easy to identify, but also often involve a variety of biologically important pathways that control more than just hair or skin color. McGowan homed in on two skin-darkening mutations, which she found affected specific protein components of the cell's ribosomes. Ribosomes act as cellular protein factories, translating the instructions encoded by RNA molecules into new proteins to do the cell's work. The discovery was interesting because mutations affecting one of the same ribosomal proteins in humans are associated with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome, a condition that causes a type of anemia specific to red blood cells. When the scientists examined the dark-skinned mice more closely, they found that these mice exhibited similar abnormalities in red blood cell formation. "Diamond-Blackfan itself is fairly rare," said McGowan, "but the bone marrow failure that sometimes occurs in these individuals happens quite often in many other disorders, including acute myelogenous leukemia and multiple myeloma." People with bone marrow failure are unable to produce enough red blood cells, white blood cells and/or platelets. They are susceptible to uncontrolled bleeding, infection and fatigue. Understanding the disorder in mice may help scientists and physicians develop new treatment for other, similar conditions. Interestingly, people with mutations in the same ribosomal protein can exhibit a range of very different symptoms. Such variation suggests that, although the mutations occur in the all-important ribosomes, the problem isn't the result of ham-handedly interfering with all protein production in the cell. McGowan, Barsh, and their colleagues found that skin from the feet of the mutant mice exhibited elevated levels of p53. This elevation, or "activation," of p53 stimulated the production of a protein called Kit ligand that stimulates the growth of pigment cells, which turned the mice's skin darker than normal. In contrast, mutant mice unable to express p53 had normal levels of Kit ligand. They also had light-colored feet and unaffected numbers of red blood cells. "The involvement of p53 in this pathway suggests that the variability seen in human disease may be due to a varying extent to which p53 is activated, or expressed," said McGowan. "The mild anemia seen in these mice and in some humans with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome may be due to mild activation of p53. More severe anemia or bone marrow failure may be the result of very high levels of p53 activation." The researchers hypothesize that increased activation of p53 affects different types of cells in the body in different ways. In skin cells, it increases the amount of Kit ligand and causes darker skin, whereas in bone marrow cells it causes anemia by causing the death of red blood cell precursors. These results suggest that moderating the levels of p53 may be one way to treat a variety of bone marrow failures in humans. In the future, McGowan and Barsh will focus on using what they've learned to develop a better mouse model of bone marrow failure in which to try new drugs and therapies. They will also search for additional skin-darkening mutations that affect this and other previously unknown p53 pathways. "This illustrates the potential benefits that come from basic science research," said Barsh. "Although you don't always know where you're going to end up, many advances in human health would not have been discovered any other way." ### In addition to McGowan and Barsh, other Stanford researchers on the work include Jun Li, PhD, and Holly Tabor, PhD, both senior scientists at the Stanford Human Genome Center; hematopathologist Christopher Park, MD, PhD; graduate students Veronica Beaudry and Weibin Zhang; medical student Amit Sabnis; as well as Richard Myers, PhD, the Stanford W. Ascherman, M.D., F.A.C.S. Professor in Genetics; and Laura Attardi, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and of genetics. The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the German Human Genome Project and the National Genome Research Network. Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication & Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu . _______________________________________________ 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/ From Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Mon Jul 21 09:57:33 2008 From: Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:57:33 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Message-ID: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30A9@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Hi, Did anyone else pay his/her registration fees to IRPA12 by PayPal? How long after your payment has appeared on your credit card account did the organization send you an email to confirm? In my case, it has been one week, but I haven't received any confirmation that I am registered. Thanks, --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. From sperle at mirion.com Mon Jul 21 10:27:39 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:27:39 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Message-ID: <005b01c8eb46$6eab8352$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Colette, I have not registered individually. As long as you have your Paypal receipt, you should be OK. I'd give them more time to confirm. This is not unusual. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: Colette Tremblay Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 08:02 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Hi, Did anyone else pay his/her registration fees to IRPA12 by PayPal? How long after your payment has appeared on your credit card account did the organization send you an email to confirm? In my case, it has been one week, but I haven't received any confirmation that I am registered. Thanks, --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. _______________________________________________ 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/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Mon Jul 21 10:41:22 2008 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:41:22 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration In-Reply-To: <005b01c8eb46$6eab8352$0901800a@corp.gds.com> References: <005b01c8eb46$6eab8352$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <200807211543.m6LFhB2v028602@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> July 21, 2008 I registered for IRPA 12 in April. It took about two weeks before I got confirmation. 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 *********************************************** From Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Tue Jul 22 08:14:40 2008 From: Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:14:40 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration In-Reply-To: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30A9@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> References: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30A9@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Message-ID: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30F7@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Thank you all for your input. I'll wait until next week before contacting the IRPA12 organization. Colette -----Message d'origine----- De?: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] De la part de Colette Tremblay Envoy??: 21 juillet 2008 10:58 ??: radsafe at radlab.nl Objet?: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Hi, Did anyone else pay his/her registration fees to IRPA12 by PayPal? How long after your payment has appeared on your credit card account did the organization send you an email to confirm? In my case, it has been one week, but I haven't received any confirmation that I am registered. Thanks, --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 23 19:33:51 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:33:51 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cell phones and brain cancer Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080723182559.009ef8f0@mail.swcp.com> July 23, 2008 Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has sent a warning to about 3000 faculty and staff warning them to limit their cell phone use because the phones may cause cancer. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080723/ap_on_he_me/cell_phone_warning The article, from Associated Press, is reasonable and notes that a great deal of research and studies has shown no connection between cell phone usage and brain cancer. According to the article, Devra Lee Davis was a "driving force" behind Herberman's memo. In November 1994, a consortium of left-wingers held a seminar in Albuquerque wherein they attempted to blame most cancers (and especially breast cancer) on radiation and on chlorine. Davis was an invited speaker at this seminar. (I attended it, and heard her speak.) Steven Dapra From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Thu Jul 24 01:48:53 2008 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:48:53 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fresh nuclear incident in France Message-ID: <4LFUtEnXNPfpfGAWIs4VxtBu0dcs2l9fd5PPtJf8@qnRDLrz65s.696.S.eC2.f1> BBC reports Fresh nuclear incident in France http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm About 100 staff at a nuclear plant in southern France have been exposed to a low dose of radiation, power firm Electricite de France (EDF) says. They were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, an EDF spokeswoman said. The incident comes two weeks after a leak forced the temporary closure of a reactor at the Tricastin facility. Unenriched uranium had leaked into the water supply. The authorities lifted a ban on fishing and water sports in two local rivers on Tuesday. EDF says Wednesday's incident was not connected to the earlier uranium leak. The company says that sensors detected a rise in the radiation level while maintenance work was being carried out at a reactor that had been shut since 12 July. The rise in radiation prompted 97 EDF and maintenance subcontractors to be evacuated and sent for medical tests. "Seventy of them show low traces of radioelements, below one 40th of the authorised limit," EDF said, adding that the incident would not affect people's health or the environment. "What concerns us is less the level of the people contaminated than the number of people contaminated," EDF spokeswoman Caroline Muller told the Associated Press news agency. Correspondents says the incidents have raised questions about the state-run nuclear industry, at a time when some countries are considering nuclear energy because of the soaring price of oil. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm Fred Dawson CRadP MSRP Fwp_dawson at hotmail.com From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jul 24 06:13:24 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:13:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Anyone in Hawaii - Message-ID: <010201c8ed7e$4da7bd80$e8f73880$@com> Note how Rosalie Bertell is the expert in DU, even though she knows nothing about the subject. Does anyone in Hawaii recognize the poster Anson Chong - the name sounds familiar, but his supposed expertise escapes me. Press Release on DU in Hawaii (BIP) By Anson Chong(Anson Chong) Rosalie Bertell, PhD, reaches a contrary conclusion. She remarks that the lab report "actually says that there IS DU in the sample. There should be zero. It is irrelevant that it is 'not significant.'" Dr. Bertell -- who has been ... Malu Aina, Jim Albertini,... - http://maluaina888.blogspot.com/ From fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jul 23 16:33:23 2008 From: fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] explosion in the uranium enrichment factory of Urenco in Almelo, NL Message-ID: <003401c8ed0b$bbeb43c0$33c1cb40$@co.uk> [srp] explosion in the uranium enrichment factory of Urenco in Almelo, NL From: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jetty Middelkoop (Jmiddelkoop at zonnet.nl) Sent: 23 July 2008 21:30:13 Reply-to: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com According to the news an explosion has just taken place in the uranium enrichment factory of Urenco in Almelo. No one got injured. The explosion was not followed by fire. It is still unknown which materials were involved in the explosion, but according to the fire dept. it looks as if there is no danger for the surroundings. The explosion took place just before 22.30. At the moment fire fighters are carrying out measurements. Several fire depts in the region were called in. Jetty Middelkoop Hazmat officer Fire Dept. Amsterdam Amstelland The Netherlands --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Dawson New Malden England From edmond0033 at comcast.net Thu Jul 24 09:44:28 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:44:28 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fresh nuclear incident in France References: <4LFUtEnXNPfpfGAWIs4VxtBu0dcs2l9fd5PPtJf8@qnRDLrz65s.696.S.eC2.f1> Message-ID: <005301c8ed9b$c7f6e760$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Where did the unriched uranium come from??? Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:48 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fresh nuclear incident in France BBC reports Fresh nuclear incident in France http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm About 100 staff at a nuclear plant in southern France have been exposed to a low dose of radiation, power firm Electricite de France (EDF) says. They were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, an EDF spokeswoman said. The incident comes two weeks after a leak forced the temporary closure of a reactor at the Tricastin facility. Unenriched uranium had leaked into the water supply. The authorities lifted a ban on fishing and water sports in two local rivers on Tuesday. EDF says Wednesday's incident was not connected to the earlier uranium leak. The company says that sensors detected a rise in the radiation level while maintenance work was being carried out at a reactor that had been shut since 12 July. The rise in radiation prompted 97 EDF and maintenance subcontractors to be evacuated and sent for medical tests. "Seventy of them show low traces of radioelements, below one 40th of the authorised limit," EDF said, adding that the incident would not affect people's health or the environment. "What concerns us is less the level of the people contaminated than the number of people contaminated," EDF spokeswoman Caroline Muller told the Associated Press news agency. Correspondents says the incidents have raised questions about the state-run nuclear industry, at a time when some countries are considering nuclear energy because of the soaring price of oil. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm Fred Dawson CRadP MSRP Fwp_dawson at hotmail.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/ From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 24 13:30:14 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM To: Bob Cherry Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it than get cancer from its radioactivity. Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. -CC --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > From: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > To: "'Chris Cherry'" > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM > > Old news. We almost got a > consulting job on this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: Toxic Countertops > > The article mentions the guy at Rice. > > > > -CC From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 14:24:11 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:24:11 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> Message-ID: <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Gentlemen: It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured by a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the chain. At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon in significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure to the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. My opinion only! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Bob Cherry Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM To: 'Chris Cherry' Cc: 'radsafelist' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM To: Bob Cherry Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it than get cancer from its radioactivity. Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. -CC --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > From: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > To: "'Chris Cherry'" > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM > > Old news. We almost got a > consulting job on this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: Toxic Countertops > > The article mentions the guy at Rice. > > > > -CC _______________________________________________ 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/ From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Thu Jul 24 16:38:11 2008 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:38:11 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear-Chicago Alpha Detector Manual? Message-ID: <18131C0B-5453-4DF9-A4BF-C10E6357B37C@comcast.net> Does anyone have Manuals and/or Schematics for a Nuclear-Chicago Alpha Detector Model 2670 with an attached Alpha Probe Model 2641 that could be copied or scanned? Any expenses involved would be happily covered. J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Thu Jul 24 18:05:14 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com><00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Message-ID: <38a401c8ede1$be4226d0$7d9383ac@your4dacd0ea75> I agree. There are two factors at work, the release of gaseous radons/thoron and the intrinsic penetrating gamma radiation from the stone itself. The source of the radiation is natural abundance of Th-232, uranium 238 and 235, and their decay chains, as well as natural potassium-40 ( K-40). Ironically, radon daughters are attracted to the electrostatic charge on CRT screens, concentrating the lower daughters there. See: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Selectrostatic%20Collection%20of%20Radon%20Daughters,%20by%20George%20Dowell/ My spectrum analysis of granite: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Granite%20Countertop%20Study/Granite%20Counter%20Top.jpg This natural distribution of U and Th and K-40 reveals the same spectra as one would find in any natural rock, more or less, depending on the originating locale's geophysical properties. Go to any landscaping yard and select a pile of decorative gravel, analyze it, and a similar spectrum will be produced. This vein of inclusions: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Granite%20Countertop%20Study/Slab%20with%20vein.jpg is no different in countertop granite as it would be in any other natural stone. To the point, any natural stone or material made from stone that is brought into an airtight home will increase the level of gamma radiation as well as the level of radons/thoron gas. The extent of the increase depends on the nature of the stone and the release of gas depends on the available surface area of the isotope/atmosphere interface. Granite countertops are getting a close review at the moment, but other stone products should not be overlooked, such as tile, firebrick, brick, and yes, concrete itself. All of these products contain natural abundances of the normally occurring radioactive materials. Concrete is made from A) course aggregate C)cement < Portland cement is a complex mixture of minerals> D) water. All of these components may contain some amount of NORM. A new patent by Henry Liu will allow flyash byproducts from coal fired power plants to be made into construction bricks. I am getting samples of the bricks and the flyash itself to analyze the radium content of that material. These bricks will need to be observed and monitored as to their radiological consequences. My involvement is from a scientific measurement standpoint only and I have no opinions on human exposure issues. George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab GEOelectronics at netscape.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:24 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Gentlemen: > > It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active > granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained > within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why > granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters > because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured > by > a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the > chain. > At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop > significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon > in > significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure > to > the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. > > But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of > the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper > inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. > > My opinion only! > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- From edmond0033 at comcast.net Fri Jul 25 11:04:43 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:04:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com><00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Message-ID: <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Sounds good to me!!! I have one in my bathroom and have detected no increase in radon. Ed Baratta edmondoo33 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Gentlemen: > > It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active > granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained > within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why > granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters > because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured > by > a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the > chain. > At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop > significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon > in > significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure > to > the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. > > But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of > the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper > inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. > > My opinion only! > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf > Of Bob Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM > To: 'Chris Cherry' > Cc: 'radsafelist' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid > spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > > I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it > than get cancer from its radioactivity. > > Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both > granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. > > -CC > > > --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > >> From: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >> >> Old news. We almost got a >> consulting job on this. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: Toxic Countertops >> >> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >> >> > o_interstitial> >> >> -CC > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Fri Jul 25 11:14:17 2008 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:14:17 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Message-ID: <9F3F308EEE4E467AA045E83A30370E04@JohnPC> Ed The radon could be coming in through the shower. John *************** John R Johnson, PhD CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 4535 West 9th Ave 604-676-3556 Vancouver, B. C. V6R 2E2, Canada idias at interchange.ubc.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmond Baratta" To: "'radsafelist'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Sounds good to me!!! I have one in my bathroom and have detected no > increase in radon. > > Ed Baratta > > edmondoo33 at comcast.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan W McCarn" > To: "'radsafelist'" > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:24 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > >> Gentlemen: >> >> It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively >> active >> granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained >> within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why >> granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters >> because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured >> by >> a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the >> chain. >> At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop >> significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon >> in >> significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure >> to >> the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. >> >> But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of >> the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from >> deeper >> inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. >> >> My opinion only! >> >> Dan ii >> >> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; >> USA >> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >> Behalf >> Of Bob Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM >> To: 'Chris Cherry' >> Cc: 'radsafelist' >> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid >> spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it >> than get cancer from its radioactivity. >> >> Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both >> granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. >> >> -CC >> >> >> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: >> >>> From: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >>> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >>> >>> Old news. We almost got a >>> consulting job on this. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Cherry >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >>> To: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >>> >>> >> > o_interstitial> >>> >>> -CC >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ From edmond0033 at comcast.net Fri Jul 25 14:04:17 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:04:17 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> <9F3F308EEE4E467AA045E83A30370E04@JohnPC> Message-ID: <000c01c8ee89$3d833b80$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> John: I believe the water here comes from a large surface reservoir and consequently wouldn't contain much radon. Unlike some of the well water in this area which does Also having checked my basement, I didn't find any there. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net . ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R Johnson" To: "Edmond Baratta" ; "'radsafelist'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Ed > > The radon could be coming in through the shower. > > John > *************** > John R Johnson, PhD > CEO, IDIAS, Inc. > 4535 West 9th Ave > 604-676-3556 > Vancouver, B. C. > V6R 2E2, Canada > idias at interchange.ubc.ca > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edmond Baratta" > To: "'radsafelist'" ; "Dan W McCarn" > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > >> Sounds good to me!!! I have one in my bathroom and have detected no >> increase in radon. >> >> Ed Baratta >> >> edmondoo33 at comcast.net >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan W McCarn" >> To: "'radsafelist'" >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:24 PM >> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> >>> Gentlemen: >>> >>> It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively >>> active >>> granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained >>> within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why >>> granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters >>> because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity >>> measured by >>> a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the >>> chain. >>> At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop >>> significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that >>> radon in >>> significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure >>> to >>> the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. >>> >>> But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most >>> of >>> the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from >>> deeper >>> inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. >>> >>> My opinion only! >>> >>> Dan ii >>> >>> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; >>> USA >>> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >>> Behalf >>> Of Bob Cherry >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM >>> To: 'Chris Cherry' >>> Cc: 'radsafelist' >>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid >>> spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM >>> To: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it >>> than get cancer from its radioactivity. >>> >>> Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both >>> granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. >>> >>> -CC >>> >>> >>> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: >>> >>>> From: Bob Cherry >>>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>>> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >>>> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >>>> >>>> Old news. We almost got a >>>> consulting job on this. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chris Cherry >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >>>> To: Bob Cherry >>>> Subject: Toxic Countertops >>>> >>>> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >>>> >>>> >>> >> o_interstitial> >>>> >>>> -CC >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ > > From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Sat Jul 26 05:04:28 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:04:28 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Anyone in Hawaii - In-Reply-To: <010201c8ed7e$4da7bd80$e8f73880$@com> References: <010201c8ed7e$4da7bd80$e8f73880$@com> Message-ID: > Note how Rosalie Bertell is the expert in DU, even though she knows nothing> about the subject. Does anyone in Hawaii recognize the poster Anson Chong -> the name sounds familiar, but his supposed expertise escapes me.> Here is a posting I made some years ago...: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/0108/msg00388.html Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 From eic at shaw.ca Sat Jul 26 10:27:47 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:27:47 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Message-ID: <006501c8ef34$292927c0$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Hi Dan and all! There are 2 different processes: 1) The escape of radon from the mineral grain (emanation fraction). This is driven by the recoil of the Rn nucleus after the decay of radium. I usually use 0.05 (5%) as a reasonable and conservative value for the emanation fraction in U ore. (In theory, considering the typical size of mineral grains and the recoil energy, it should be much less than 1%.) 2) Once the radon has escaped the mineral grain (through recoil) it travels by diffusion through the pore spaces. If the rock is dry, the radon can travel quite some distance before it decays. In U mines, I use 60 cm as a reasonable and conservative value (which is more than the thickness of a countertop). This is how I understand the process as it relates to U ore. I don't have much experience with granite and would appreciate input on this. I was investigating elevated radon levels in a non-U mine last month and I used the same formulas for granite as I would use for U ore and got pretty good agreement with measured values. So, lets look at the countertop example: Assume 50 ppm (50e-4 %) U content (is that reasonable?) in a 100 kg countertop. Using 0.05 emanation fraction, we get a radon source term of 6.5 e-3 Bq/s (using http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/MassRadon.htm ). In a 12 m3 room with 1 air change per hour, this results in 2 Bq/m3 (0.05 pCi/L) Rn and 3e-4 WL (using http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/RoomRadon.htm ). Best Regards, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Gentlemen: > > It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active > granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained > within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why > granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters > because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured > by > a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the > chain. > At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop > significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon > in > significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure > to > the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. > > But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of > the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper > inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. > > My opinion only! > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf > Of Bob Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM > To: 'Chris Cherry' > Cc: 'radsafelist' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid > spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > > I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it > than get cancer from its radioactivity. > > Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both > granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. > > -CC > > > --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > >> From: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >> >> Old news. We almost got a >> consulting job on this. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: Toxic Countertops >> >> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >> >> > o_interstitial> >> >> -CC > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1570 - Release Date: 7/24/2008 > 6:59 AM > > > From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 26 20:47:46 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] A new cellular pathway linked to cancer is identified by NYU researchers Message-ID: <933044.62930.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 24-Jul-2008 Contact: Jennifer Berman jennifer.berman at nyumc.org NYU Langone Medical Center / New York University School of Medicine A new cellular pathway linked to cancer is identified by NYU researchers Finding may be used to sensitize cells to chemotherapy NEW YORK, July 24, 2008 ? In the life of a cell, the response to DNA damage determines whether the cell is fated to pause and repair itself, commit suicide, or grow uncontrollably, a route leading to cancer. In a new study, published in the July 25th issue of Cell, scientists at NYU Langone Medical Center have identified a way that cells respond to DNA damage through a process that targets proteins for disposal. The finding points to a new pathway for the development of cancer and suggests a new way of sensitizing cancer cells to treatment. "One of the major messages of this study is that we have a new pathway that responds to DNA damage," says Michele Pagano, M.D., the May Ellen and Gerald Jay Ritter Professor of Oncology and Professor of Pathology at NYU School of Medicine, who was recently appointed a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. "It is already known that the three major protein players in this pathway are deregulated in human cancers, so deregulation of this pathway is probably going to contribute to tumorigenesis (the development of cancer)." DNA damage can be caused by carcinogens in the environment, errors in DNA replication, or glitches in the cellular machinery caused by aging, among other factors. If a cell detects DNA damage when it is about to divide, it activates the so-called G2 checkpoint, a pause button that allows the cell time to correct the problem before cell division, the process whereby a cell makes two copies of itself. The cell maintains a paused state based on a series of proteins, a pathway, that work together like gears in a machine. Some are switched on and others are turned off (often by degradation) to maintain the checkpoint. In addition to the new pathway's association with cancer, it suggests a potentially new way to sensitize cells to chemotherapy, says Dr. Pagano. Tumor cells already have a less efficient checkpoint because of defects in other regulatory pathways. Up to 60% of cancers, for example, have mutations in p53, a tumor suppressor gene and G2 checkpoint regulator that operates in a separate pathway. Inhibiting this new pathway with a drug could make cancer cells especially vulnerable to DNA damage, causing cancerous cells to die rather than pausing to correct the problem, Dr. Pagano says. Unlike cancer cells, which already have a less efficient checkpoint, normal cells have a fully functioning G2 checkpoint and divide less frequently, sparing them from drug-induced cell death. The central player in this pathway is the protein complex called APC/C, which is involved in multiple aspects of cell regulation through a trash disposal system that shreds proteins. In response to DNA damage, the cell targets Cdc14B, an enzyme that rips phosphate groups off of other proteins, to APC/C, an action which turns on the shredder. Once APC/C is turned on, it tags its target, Plk1, for disposal. If Plk1 remains active, the cell will continue to divide. Unlike the G2 checkpoint pathways that have been previously described, the researchers believe this one is "ancient" because it is evolutionarily conserved in organisms from yeast to humans. According to the study, the deregulation of these three pathway components (Cdc14B, APC/C, and Plk1) in cancer cells correlates with lower survival rates in patients. Researchers will need to perform further studies to determine how these proteins are altered in cancer. Some of the effect might be due to changes in the levels of proteins expressed, but it is currently unknown whether mutations to these proteins might also play a role. ### The authors of this study are: Florian Bassermann; Michele Pagano, David Frescas; Daniele Guardavaccaro; Luca Busino and Angelo Peschiaroli. This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, an Emerald Foundation grant, and fellowships from the German Research Foundation and the America Italian Cancer Foundation. ________________________________ From webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org Sat Jul 26 16:30:08 2008 From: webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org (al gerhart) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Message-ID: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart From peter.bossew at jrc.it Mon Jul 28 02:51:43 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:51:43 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <006501c8ef34$292927c0$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> <006501c8ef34$292927c0$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <488D7A8F.6000808@jrc.it> Kai, Dan, and all interested: about Rn generation and transport: 1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5. In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled. - There is abundant literature about this. 2) Often diffusion accounts only for the minor part of Rn transport in soil. More efficient is convective transport, driven by pressure differences. In particular buildings can produce a stack effect which literally sucks Rn out of the soil, into the basement or ground floor of the building. Also changes in ground water level can give rise to "bursts" of indoor Rn conc. The main geologic factor is soil or rock permeability, even more important than U content. There are examples for very high soil gas and indoor air Rn concentrations, without any extravagant U activity in underlying soil or rock. Soil gas concentrations of a few 100 kBq/m^3, and indoor concentrations of up to a few kBq/m^3 can be produced without much U in the ground. (I know of one example of almost 20 kBq/m^3 indoor, without particularly high U). - Of course this requires particularly poor insulation of basements or ground floors, typically found in older buildings. regards, Peter Kai Kaletsch wrote: > Hi Dan and all! > > There are 2 different processes: > > 1) The escape of radon from the mineral grain (emanation fraction). > This is driven by the recoil of the Rn nucleus after the decay of > radium. I usually use 0.05 (5%) as a reasonable and conservative value > for the emanation fraction in U ore. (In theory, considering the > typical size of mineral grains and the recoil energy, it should be > much less than 1%.) > > 2) Once the radon has escaped the mineral grain (through recoil) it > travels by diffusion through the pore spaces. If the rock is dry, the > radon can travel quite some distance before it decays. In U mines, I > use 60 cm as a reasonable and conservative value (which is more than > the thickness of a countertop). > > This is how I understand the process as it relates to U ore. I don't > have much experience with granite and would appreciate input on this. > I was investigating elevated radon levels in a non-U mine last month > and I used the same formulas for granite as I would use for U ore and > got pretty good agreement with measured values. > > So, lets look at the countertop example: > > Assume 50 ppm (50e-4 %) U content (is that reasonable?) in a 100 kg > countertop. Using 0.05 emanation fraction, we get a radon source term > of 6.5 e-3 Bq/s (using http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/MassRadon.htm ). > > In a 12 m3 room with 1 air change per hour, this results in 2 Bq/m3 > (0.05 pCi/L) Rn and 3e-4 WL (using > http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/RoomRadon.htm ). > > Best Regards, > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" > > To: "'radsafelist'" > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > >> Gentlemen: >> >> It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively >> active >> granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained >> within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why >> granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters >> because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity >> measured by >> a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the >> chain. >> At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop >> significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that >> radon in >> significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric >> pressure to >> the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. >> >> But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. >> Most of >> the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from >> deeper >> inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. >> >> My opinion only! >> >> Dan ii >> >> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX >> 77479; USA >> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >> Behalf >> Of Bob Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM >> To: 'Chris Cherry' >> Cc: 'radsafelist' >> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid >> spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it >> than get cancer from its radioactivity. >> >> Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both >> granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. >> >> -CC >> >> >> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: >> >>> From: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >>> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >>> >>> Old news. We almost got a >>> consulting job on this. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Cherry >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >>> To: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >>> >>> >> > >> o_interstitial> >>> >>> -CC >> >> __ >> -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 03:08:10 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:08:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <030c01c8f089$14594680$3d0bd380$@com> Hi Al: I appreciate your remarks. I was using some numbers for hydrologic conductivity / permeability in unfractured granites that were quite low. I'll convert pCi/g to ppm tomorrow, that I can do easily. Typical Wyoming granites are 10 ppm which when weathered, provide enough U to make deposits. Anatectic granites such as in Namibia run up to 100 ppm, but are not found here in the States and are mineable as ore deposits for U. I would think that it would be quite unusual to find a granite body with an average of 50 ppm. That may be possible if there are intrabatholithic veins, but outside of veinlets or locally enriched granites, I would believe 10 ppm would be "normal". But then marine shales are also high, such as the Chattanooga shale with about 100 ppm U. It's not mineable because extraction from the organic matrix is almost impossible. I was looking for U238 in your report, and it was missing. Was that an oversight? Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 4:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 28 14:19:38 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:19:38 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Message-ID: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Jimbo must be on vacation. Otherwise, I am sure he would have told us about the following: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-17108.htm Bob C From EMERDF at nv.doe.gov Mon Jul 28 15:00:18 2008 From: EMERDF at nv.doe.gov (Emer, Dudley) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:00:18 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From EMERDF at nv.doe.gov Mon Jul 28 15:15:23 2008 From: EMERDF at nv.doe.gov (Emer, Dudley) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:15:23 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Message-ID: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E5@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Correct the conversion of 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq to read 1 pCi = 0.037 Bq. I had a finger - brain disconnect Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:00 PM To: al gerhart; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 17:02:46 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:02:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Message-ID: <03dc01c8f0fd$ac4982b0$04dc8810$@com> Elmer: On my calculation, I get 2.97 ug per pCi U-238 as you do. Assuming secular equilibrium between U-238 and U-234 (age of granite > 2 million years) ug : U-238 = 2.9752E+00, U-235 = 2.1316E-02, U-234 = 1.6072E-04 ug ; Summed = 2.9967 ug U-Natural pCi: U-238 = 1.0000 , U-235 = 0.0461 , U-234 = 1.0000 pCi; Summed = 2.0461 pCi U-Natural Total activity is 2.0461 pCi per 2.9967 ug U-Nat uranium in secular equilibrium or 0.6828 pCi / ug U-Nat total activity Your comments related to ingrowth are essential to understand in order to interpret the meaning of the analyses. The sample would need to be canned for 30 days or so if crushed. But, if I assume that the U-235 activity is 37.83 pCi / g given Al's lab report, Then: 1) the activity of U-238 should be 821.2363 pCi/g, which is in rough equilibrium with Ra-226 (986.95 pCi/g) in Al's report; 2) the total U-natural should be 2460.96 ug / g or about 0.25% U-Nat for the rock. That would be enough to mine if commercial quantities actually showed this endowment, which I strongly doubt for a "plain" granite. When granitic batholiths are intruded, the last remaining watery portions of the magma, having gone through differential precipitation (Bowen Reaction Series), is enriched in uranium and sometimes other metals e.g. gold. These quartz-rich remainders can form intra-batholithic intrusions or peri-batholithic intrusions enriched in uranium. I suspect that Al's rock may, in fact, be something of this nature. I'd say that the only way would be in a vein within a granite, or a pegmatite, but not a granite itself, and the samples were "high-graded" to show a hot-spot, not representative of the overall composition of the granite. Of course what I'd call a pegmatite, and someone else may call granite from the dimension stone business, may be something of an issue! For an "average" granite composed of 10 ppm U (e.g. Wyoming), the average activity would be 6.828 pCi/g. For the Rossing anatectic granite of 100 ppm U (0.01% U) in Namibia (active uranium mine): The average activity would be 68.28 pCi/g I hope my numbers are correct! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:00 PM To: al gerhart; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jul 28 21:30:51 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:30:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Zvezdochka offers to scrap UK [nuclear]submarines Message-ID: <488E80DB.3040907@peoplepc.com> Zvezdochka offers to scrap UK submarines 2008-06-26 British nuclear submarine British nuclear submarine Russia?s biggest shipyard for repairing and scrapping of nuclear powered submarines offers to scrap 11 of Her Majesty the Queens laid-up submarines. If so, the transport of radioactive material along the coast of Northern Norway and Russia will be a fact. RIA Novosti reports that representatives from the Royal Navy recently held preparatory talks with officials from the Severodvinsk based shipyard Zvezdochka. Since the early 90-ties, Zvezdochka has been the main Russian shipyard for decommissioning of nuclear powered submarines of the Northern Fleet. More than 100 of the Russian Northern fleets submarines have so far been scrapped, many of them with financial support from other countries like Norway and the United Kingdom. Earlier this week, the British ambassador to Norway and the British Consul General in St. Petersburg visited Murmansk and the shipyard Nerpa, located on the Barents Sea cost. Norway and United Kingdom are together financing the decommissioning of an old November-class attach submarine at the Nerpa shipyard. At home, the British Royal Navy has at least 11 retired nuclear powered submarines laid-up, floating on sea with their highly radioactive reactors. Accoring to nuclear.ru officials from the Zvezdochka yard say that they can do the scrapping of the British subs within the framework of the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC). This military cooperation, mainly focusing on nuclear safety projects in the Russian north, was initiated by Norway in the mid-90ties, as a three lateral agreement between Norway, Russia and the United States. Great Britain joined the programme in 2003, and Norway ended its active participation in AMEC last year. If the offer from Zvezdochka materializes the British subs will be put on a huge barge, or towed on sea, all the way up the coast of Norway around the Kola Peninsula to the shipyard located in Severodvinsk in the White Sea, not far from the city of Arkhangelsk. There the submarines (still radioactive) reactor compartment and two adjacent compartments will be sealed hermetically and remove them to a storage facility outside Russia, most likely back to Great Britain. French officials have also started exploring the possibility of having old French nuclear powered submarines scrapped at Zvezdochka too. Copyright ? 2003 BarentsObserver Norway Sweden Finland Murmansk Obl. Rep. of Karelia Arkhangelsk Obl. Nenets AO Rep. of Komi Russia general From rgb at rrbev.co.uk Mon Jul 28 22:41:30 2008 From: rgb at rrbev.co.uk (Ross Beveridge) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:41:30 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec Message-ID: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by the gamma spec? Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. Rgds Ross From jc.mora at ciemat.es Tue Jul 29 03:00:38 2008 From: jc.mora at ciemat.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mora_Ca=F1adas_Juan_Carlos?=) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:38 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <84A7FC01A35CFC429F64E62E3EABAA043F30BC@STR.ciemat.es> Please, it is necessary, in order to give an answer, to know at least the resolution of your instrument. What kind of detector are you using? If you are using Sodium Iodide, may be your resolution is too big and the 186 keV peak could interfere in lower energies. If you are using an HP-Ge the answer is no. When using electric coolers, instead of N2, the resolution is somehow degraded at low temperatures, but not so much as 100 keV. Anyway, you always should know which are the possible sources of contamination. Is it possible in your installation to find Am-241? Was there a previous contamination with any calibration standard in your sample? Also interferences in that energy could be produced by Ac-228 and Pa-234, that you surely observe in your samples. Juan Carlos Mora Ca?adas CIEMAT -----Mensaje original----- De: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl en nombre de Ross Beveridge Enviado el: mar 29/07/2008 5:41 Para: radsafe at radlab.nl Asunto: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by the gamma spec? Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. Rgds Ross _______________________________________________ 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/ From peter.bossew at jrc.it Tue Jul 29 03:13:02 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:13:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec In-Reply-To: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <488ED10E.1070102@jrc.it> 241Am can regularly be found in soil. It is part of global fallout from atmospheric bomb testing, decay product of 241Pu. Activity conc. is currently approx. equal to 238+240Pu. Maximum of 241Am conc. will be reached in about 2050. The ratio 241Am : 137Cs (global) is about 0.6% (by 2003, back-referenced 1 May 1986). Chernobyl contribution to total 241Am is mostly below 2% (value from a place in Central Europe strongly affected by Ch.) regards, Peter Ross Beveridge wrote: > A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. > > Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. > Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by the > gamma spec? > > Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. > > > Rgds > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org Mon Jul 28 22:23:41 2008 From: webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org (al gerhart) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Message-ID: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged Carpenter terms. "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out of the rock itself? "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of the report. I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure we got it. Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method and result? And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably mined? This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine granite? Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? From peter.bossew at jrc.it Tue Jul 29 08:31:19 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:31:19 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <488F1BA7.8080808@jrc.it> Rn transport, emanation power, etc.: I suggest consulting the standard textbook, Nazaroff, W. W., A. V. Nero (1988): Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor Air. John Wiley & Sons. 0.2 eman. power = 20% set free of a "piece" (depending on experimental setup, but not too much; once out of the grain, the Rn is practically free.) Interstitial water content: the model is, that water in the pore space (as long as it is not too much) slows down the ejected recoil nuclei to an extent that they are not captured by the neighbouring grain. The kinetic energy of the recoil 222Rn nucleus is 86 keV, their mean range in air is ca. 60 um. Experimentally, eman power in soil (!) increases up to ca. 10% water, then remains approx. const. up to ca. 20-30%. After that, experimentally difficult. U series assay by gamma spectrometry is not trivial. - 238U : Via 234Th (63.3, 93 keV), 231mPa (1001), consult literature about these lines first !! - 226Ra: Via progenies 214Pb,Bi (295, 352, 609, 1120, 1764,...). Container must be kept isolated ca. 3 weeks in order to establish sec eq of 226Ra - 222Rn - progenies. For accurate measurement, sum/coinc of some lines must be corrected for, if eff cal. done with standard composed of single line radionuclides (as commonly done)(otherwise up to a few % syst. error, depending on geom.). Validation with certified U samples is advised. - Avoid the 186 line, possible, but complicated. - 210Pb: 46.6 keV. Density correction is crucial. - 235U ff: not easy by g-spec., but possible. 144 keV line: sec. eq. within 235U series required, due to contribution of 223Ra. Also interference by 230Th must be accounted for. - 232Th series: 228Ac (338, 911), 224Ra ff (239, 583, 2615). Different caveats apply. As a summary, 226Ra ff, 228Ac and 224Ra ff are relatively easy and straight forward, but 238U, 235U, 210Pb require a bit of experience and good QA. regards, Peter al gerhart wrote: > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged Carpenter terms. > > "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." > So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out of the rock itself? > > "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." > Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? > > On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of the report. > I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure we got it. > Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? > I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method and result? > And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably mined? > This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. > This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. > But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine granite? > Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) > By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 29 09:30:30 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:30:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <011201c8f187$a91b5980$375184ac@your4dacd0ea75> DO you know the testing equipment/procedure? Normally the answer to your question would be "NO". George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Beveridge" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:41 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec >A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. > > Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. > Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by > the > gamma spec? > > Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. > > > Rgds > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From edmond0033 at comcast.net Tue Jul 29 09:34:58 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:34:58 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <00cd01c8f188$475554c0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Ross It is possible that Americium-241 from the 'older' type smoke detectors has made its way into the soil. It's 59.5 Kev (35.9% abundance) peak along with it's lower energy peak @ 17.8 Kev (19.3 % abundance), should be easier to identify. Since it is soil, it is very possible that Radium-226 is also present. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Beveridge" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec >A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. > > Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. > Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by > the > gamma spec? > > Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. > > > Rgds > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 29 09:58:43 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:58:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Radiation levls from granite known over 50 years ago. Message-ID: <735281.52288.qm@web23108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dan, I am happy to see that every one is keen to know more about natural radioactivity. I am somewhat late in responding to the "radioactive" granite story. Overall very informative thread! I remember it was in the mid fifties Prof Bill Spiers (Leeds University, UK) and his friends discovered increased levels of radiation from granitic areas. Some one living in a building in granitic areas gets more dose than another who lives in a wooden house.Then it was a novel idea. The present excitement is because people who are not familiar with natural radioactivity do not expect radiation over a granite countertop. Next story may be on radioactivity in Brazil nut! ( It was interesting news in the 50s; may be now as well for those who are radio-phobic!). It will be shocking to them if we calculate the dose to the tender cell lining in the mouth as we eat Brazil nuts. The tissue tract of a micrometer diameter and a few tens of micrometer length will receive mega rads! The story may get top billing! I am pleased to see the flurry of "activity" around the NYT story. Any professor who starts using a radiation detector for the first time may be thrilled to test every thing that comes in the way. I am not sure whether such routine measurements will be appealing to any peer reviewed journal. Another related matter. I recall that the staff of a British Museum which exhibited some geological samples(some of them can be pretty radioactive) was convicted for exposing people to undesirable levels of radiation! I do not remember the details. Our colleagues from UK may be able to tell us more about it. The best way to spice up a news story is to add some radioactivity in it! Regards Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan W McCarn To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: "Emer, Dudley" ; al gerhart Sent: Tuesday, 29 July, 2008 3:32:46 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Elmer: On my calculation, I get 2.97 ug per pCi U-238 as you do. Assuming secular equilibrium between U-238 and U-234 (age of granite > 2 million years) ug : U-238 = 2.9752E+00, U-235 = 2.1316E-02, U-234 = 1.6072E-04 ug ; Summed = 2.9967 ug U-Natural pCi: U-238 = 1.0000 , U-235 = 0.0461 , U-234 = 1.0000 pCi; Summed = 2.0461 pCi U-Natural Total activity is 2.0461 pCi per 2.9967 ug U-Nat uranium in secular equilibrium or 0.6828 pCi / ug U-Nat total activity Your comments related to ingrowth are essential to understand in order to interpret the meaning of the analyses. The sample would need to be canned for 30 days or so if crushed. But, if I assume that the U-235 activity is 37.83 pCi / g given Al's lab report, Then: 1) the activity of U-238 should be 821.2363 pCi/g, which is in rough equilibrium with Ra-226 (986.95 pCi/g) in Al's report; 2) the total U-natural should be 2460.96 ug / g or about 0.25% U-Nat for the rock. That would be enough to mine if commercial quantities actually showed this endowment, which I strongly doubt for a "plain" granite. When granitic batholiths are intruded, the last remaining watery portions of the magma, having gone through differential precipitation (Bowen Reaction Series), is enriched in uranium and sometimes other metals e.g. gold. These quartz-rich remainders can form intra-batholithic intrusions or peri-batholithic intrusions enriched in uranium.. I suspect that Al's rock may, in fact, be something of this nature. I'd say that the only way would be in a vein within a granite, or a pegmatite, but not a granite itself, and the samples were "high-graded" to show a hot-spot, not representative of the overall composition of the granite. Of course what I'd call a pegmatite, and someone else may call granite from the dimension stone business, may be something of an issue! For an "average" granite composed of 10 ppm U (e.g. Wyoming), the average activity would be 6.828 pCi/g. For the Rossing anatectic granite of 100 ppm U (0.01% U) in Namibia (active uranium mine): The average activity would be 68.28 pCi/g I hope my numbers are correct! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:00 PM To: al gerhart; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others.. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From eic at shaw.ca Tue Jul 29 10:33:39 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:33:39 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite and concrete References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <488F1BA7.8080808@jrc.it> Message-ID: <012401c8f190$79bbe200$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Peter's numbers for emanation from soil are much higher than my numbers for U ore. I have seen some higher emanation fractions on U ore , but the samples were either very weathered, unrepresentative of normal ore (airborne dust collected on a filter, emanation determined by alpha spectrum), the methodology was questionable or the grade was very low. So, the question becomes which emanation fraction one would expect from granite. The measured emanation fractions in both U ore and soil are much higher than what one would predict from a theoretical calculation, assuming the radium is evenly distributed in the ore grain. As Peter mentions, the range of the recoiling 222Rn nucleus is about 60 um in air. If we scale that by density to get an estimate of the range in the rock grain, we get about 0.02 um, which is a lot smaller than the size of the rock grain. So, it would be physically impossible for any significant fraction of 222Rn to escape. One explanation is that the host rock normally gets there first and the U (which is pretty mobile) gets there later and just coats the outside of the grain. So at low U concentrations, almost all of the U would be in range of the pore space. Once you get to a few percent U, the layer of Uranium (and other late coming materials) becomes thicker and less of the Rn has a chance of getting out. In granite, do we expect the U to by inside the rock grain or on the outside? While we are talking about radon movement, I have a few questions and hope someone on the list can help me out. What is a reasonable diffusion length to use for Rn in concrete? Does concrete have air-filled pore spaces like rock? (Peter is correct that the convective transport is probably more important for getting radon into your basement than diffusion. In my application, however, I do need to know the diffusion transport.) If anyone has experience with cemented tailings backfill in a U mine and is willing to share, please contact me off list. Thanks, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. points out that ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Bossew" To: "al gerhart" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:31 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Rn transport, emanation power, etc.: I suggest consulting the standard > textbook, > Nazaroff, W. W., A. V. Nero (1988): Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor > Air. John Wiley & Sons. > > 0.2 eman. power = 20% set free of a "piece" (depending on experimental > setup, but not too much; once out of the grain, the Rn is practically > free.) > Interstitial water content: the model is, that water in the pore space (as > long as it is not too much) slows down the ejected recoil nuclei to an > extent that they are not captured by the neighbouring grain. The kinetic > energy of the recoil 222Rn nucleus is 86 keV, their mean range in air is > ca. 60 um. Experimentally, eman power in soil (!) increases up to ca. 10% > water, then remains approx. const. up to ca. 20-30%. After that, > experimentally difficult. > > U series assay by gamma spectrometry is not trivial. > - 238U : Via 234Th (63.3, 93 keV), 231mPa (1001), consult literature about > these lines first !! > - 226Ra: Via progenies 214Pb,Bi (295, 352, 609, 1120, 1764,...). Container > must be kept isolated ca. 3 weeks in order to establish sec eq of 226Ra - > 222Rn - progenies. For accurate measurement, sum/coinc of some lines must > be corrected for, if eff cal. done with standard composed of single line > radionuclides (as commonly done)(otherwise up to a few % syst. error, > depending on geom.). Validation with certified U samples is advised. - > Avoid the 186 line, possible, but complicated. > - 210Pb: 46.6 keV. Density correction is crucial. > - 235U ff: not easy by g-spec., but possible. 144 keV line: sec. eq. > within 235U series required, due to contribution of 223Ra. Also > interference by 230Th must be accounted for. > - 232Th series: 228Ac (338, 911), 224Ra ff (239, 583, 2615). Different > caveats apply. > > As a summary, 226Ra ff, 228Ac and 224Ra ff are relatively easy and > straight forward, but 238U, 235U, 210Pb require a bit of experience and > good QA. > > regards, > Peter > > > al gerhart wrote: >> Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged >> Carpenter terms. >> "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if >> one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." >> So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out >> of the rock itself? >> "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." >> Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? On the lab >> samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is a phone >> number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, would be >> very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. Well, >> that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of the >> report. >> I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to >> learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be >> determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the >> handheld meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for >> making sure we got it. >> Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide >> gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters >> except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or >> even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? >> I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that >> should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one >> can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against >> what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method >> and result? >> And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the >> granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably >> mined? >> This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. >> This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the >> entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium >> high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. >> But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine >> granite? >> Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for >> being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a >> Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) >> By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> > > > -- > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Peter Bossew > European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for > Environment and Sustainability (IES) > TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 > 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it > http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ > "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any > circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European > Commission." > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: > 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 5:13 PM > > > From robbarish at verizon.net Tue Jul 29 14:28:56 2008 From: robbarish at verizon.net (Robert Barish) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:28:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 Message-ID: As a footnote to the thread on granite, Brazil nuts, etc. the test source that I use for demonstrating the use of a Geiger counter is an ordinary pill bottle containing the usual potassium chloride tablets prescribed as a supplement for patients on antihypertensive medications that include diuretics. A typical 3 cm x 6 cm pill bottle filled with these tablets makes quite an impressive display. Think of the millions of people who are ingesting these little radioactive sources very day! Scary, huh? Rob Barish, CHP, FAAPM From edmond0033 at comcast.net Tue Jul 29 15:23:52 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:23:52 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 References: Message-ID: <007101c8f1b9$048380f0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> My quote in the past has been: if someone does't have any Potassium-40 in their body, they have been dead for a long time. As we all know, thier is no life without radioactivity. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Barish" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:28 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 As a footnote to the thread on granite, Brazil nuts, etc. the test source that I use for demonstrating the use of a Geiger counter is an ordinary pill bottle containing the usual potassium chloride tablets prescribed as a supplement for patients on antihypertensive medications that include diuretics. A typical 3 cm x 6 cm pill bottle filled with these tablets makes quite an impressive display. Think of the millions of people who are ingesting these little radioactive sources very day! Scary, huh? Rob Barish, CHP, FAAPM _______________________________________________ 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/ From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jul 30 02:31:33 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:31:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pancreatic Cancer - Any Record of Uranium Having Caused Message-ID: <000001c8f216$5ccefb10$166cf130$@com> Is there a possibility that it was not DU, but other things that had burned/were apparently still burning, when this officer went to Camp Doha? Note that Elnagar, one of the most prolific anti-DU posters on the internet, former owner of the Yahoo Groups DeadlyDUST and AmericanDUST which replaced it (the DUST stands for DU Study Team, but no dissenting or "scientific" opinion is permitted in her rigorously moderated groups) has gotten this off the notoriously anti-American Italian based website that claims to be the "voice of the Iraqi resistance". Cathy Garger, a prolific anti-DU writer and now speaker as well despite having no knowledge of the subject beyond what she has been fed by Moret, Rokke or Nichols (a co-moderator), has taken over AmericanDUST, which has public archives so anyone can read what is posted there and gets a very lopsided opinion of the horrors of depleted uranium which posters maintain was used at Fallujah and nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan (I would sure like to get accurate figures for usage in Afghanistan; my guess is very close to zero since there were no tank-to-tank battles and I am not even sure that the A-10 Warthog was used against the Taliban's perhaps a half dozen tanks. Garger has also taken over DU-Watch as the sole moderator. The European group that created DU-Watch seems to have dissolved. Roger Helbig --- On Tue, 7/29/08, Romi Elnagar wrote: From: Romi Elnagar Subject: [DU-WATCH] Widow's VA claim gaining steam To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 2:17 PM Widow's VA claim gaining steam GEORGE WERNETH Monday, July 28, 2008 A Mobile woman says she was encouraged recently when a Department of Veterans Affairs appeals judge agreed to review a claim involving her late husband, who believed that his Army exposure to radiation triggered his deadly cancer. Theresa Orrell said she has been struggling with the VA over her husband's case for nine years, seeking acknowledgement of the dangers that he faced, as well as compensation for her family. About six weeks before dying in 1999, Lt. Col. William A. Orrell III, an Army Reserve officer, filed a claim with the VA, certain that his pancreatic cancer was connected with his encounter with depleted uranium in Kuwait. He was 56 when he died. Last month, an appeals judge, Lisa Barnard, took Orrell's depleted uranium death claim under advisement after a hearing in Montgomery. A ruling is expected in six to nine months. "I was encouraged because this judge was more down-to-earth than the previous judge and she wanted all the facts," Theresa Orrell said. She has pursued her husband's case while working and earning a degree from Spring Hill College to better support her three children. Lt. Col. Orrell had gone to Kuwait in June of 1991 as commander of the 1103rd Transportation Battalion with the job of rounding up American military vehicles used in Operation Desert Storm for return to the United States, according to his wife. There had been a huge explosion and fire involving U.S. military vehicles containing depleted uranium on July 11, 1991, in Doha, Kuwait, and he was sent two days later to inspect them, she said. That's when he believed he was exposed to high levels of radiation, Theresa Orrell said. She said the vehicles were still smoldering while he inspected them. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process and because of its high density is used as a shield to protect U.S. military vehicles. It is also used in the manufacturing of munitions, such as armor-piercing bullets and tank shells. There has been extensive controversy about depleted uranium and its possible toxic effects on U.S military personnel who have served in Kuwait and Iraq. A VA spokesman in Washington, D.C., said recently that he could not comment on the Orrell case until Theresa Orrell signs and returns to the agency a privacy waiver. The spokesman said a VA official was not immediately available to discuss the depleted uranium issue in general as pertains to the VA. Theresa Orrell is seeking compensation and dependents' assistance for herself and her three children since they owe about $86,000 in college loans, she said. Two of the children have completed college, while the youngest is a sophomore at the University of South Alabama. She noted that she has a video in which her husband reported that he went to Doha after the explosion to check on the vehicles. She said he told her that the Army did not provide him with protective gear. At the June 27 appeals hearing, she said, the judge agreed that her husband was at Doha at the time that he claimed. The appeals case rests on a decision by the VA concerning the radiation levels at the site of the fire, Theresa Orrell said. William Orrell enrolled at the University of South Alabama in 1964 - the first year of the school - and was the first editor of the school's Vanguard publication, Theresa Orrell said. He went on to graduate from the Army's Officer Candidate School and served for 35 years in the Army Reserve and the National Guard. Theresa Orrell said her husband was a patriot who volunteered for service in both Bosnia and Operation Desert Storm. "I want the Army to say my husband died because of his service to his country," she said. C 2008 Press-Register C 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved. http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46053&hd=&size=1&l=e ------------------------------------ [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]Yahoo! Groups Links From peter.bossew at jrc.it Wed Jul 30 02:57:17 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:57:17 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radon Travel in Granite and concrete In-Reply-To: <012401c8f190$79bbe200$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <488F1BA7.8080808@jrc.it> <012401c8f190$79bbe200$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <48901EDD.8050905@jrc.it> Kai Kaletsch wrote: > Peter's numbers for emanation from soil are much higher than my > numbers for U ore. I have seen some higher emanation fractions on U > ore , but the samples were either very weathered, unrepresentative of > normal ore (airborne dust collected on a filter, emanation determined > by alpha spectrum), the methodology was questionable or the grade was > very low. So, the question becomes which emanation fraction one would > expect from granite. > > The measured emanation fractions in both U ore and soil are much > higher than what one would predict from a theoretical calculation, > assuming the radium is evenly distributed in the ore grain. As Peter > mentions, the range of the recoiling 222Rn nucleus is about 60 um in > air. If we scale that by density to get an estimate of the range in > the rock grain, we get about 0.02 um, which is a lot smaller than the > size of the rock grain. That seems to be a reasonable estimate. I have heard of about 0.05 um within the grain. > So, it would be physically impossible for any significant fraction of > 222Rn to escape. One explanation is that the host rock normally gets > there first and the U (which is pretty mobile) gets there later and > just coats the outside of the grain. So at low U concentrations, > almost all of the U would be in range of the pore space. Once you get > to a few percent U, the layer of Uranium (and other late coming > materials) becomes thicker and less of the Rn has a chance of getting > out. I have also heard about this theory. A way to check is measuring U conc. in dep. of grain size. If it rises with decreasing size, it points to U sitting on the surface, because the surface / volume ratio increases with decreasing grain size. (This is btw. a common observation for 137Cs and other fallout r.n. in sediments, which are normally attached on or near the surface.) > > In granite, do we expect the U to by inside the rock grain or on the > outside? > > While we are talking about radon movement, I have a few questions and > hope someone on the list can help me out. > > What is a reasonable diffusion length to use for Rn in concrete? Does > concrete have air-filled pore spaces like rock? (Peter is correct that > the convective transport is probably more important for getting radon > into your basement than diffusion. In my application, however, I do > need to know the diffusion transport.) diffusion lengths, 222Rn: L = sqrt(D/lam) (lam= decay constant) soil typically 1.5 m (0.1-3), building material: 0.5 (0.005-1). (Porstend?rfer J. (1991): Properties and Behaviour of Radon and Thoron and Their Decay Products in the Air. 5th International Symposion on the Natural Radiation Environment (NRE V), Salzburg 22-28 Sept. 1991, Tutorial Session.) Folkerts et al.: 0.06 and 0.8 m for two kinds of concrete. (Gives also figures for other materials, and a list of useful material constants.) Folkerts K. H., G. Keller, H. Muth (1984): Experimental Investigations on Diffusion and Exhalation of 222Rn and 220Rn from Building Materials. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 7 (1-4), 41-44. UNSCEAR 1988: concrete 0.15 m (0.04-0.26) For relation of porosity with diffusion constant and hence diffusion length, and with water content: Nazaroff & Nero 1988, ch. 1. diffusion constants: Martinelli G. (1998): Gas Geochemistry and 222Rn Migration Processes. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 78 (1),77-82. air: 0.1 cm^2/s, water: 1.13e-5 at normal temperature. See also Folkerts et al. (1984) and Porstend?rfer (1991). solid bodies: 10^-20 cm^2/s, within crystal lattice: 10^-22 ... 10^-70 (!), Morawska L., C. R. Phillips (1993): Dependence of the radon emanation coefficient on radium distribution and internal structure of the material. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta 57, 1783-1797 (Therefore one thinks that the main mechanism for Rn to be set free is ejection by recoil, rather than diffusion out of the grain.) I think there is much more literature about the subject. As it isn't my field of work, I can quote only these. regards, Peter > > If anyone has experience with cemented tailings backfill in a U mine > and is willing to share, please contact me off list. > > Thanks, > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. > > > > points out that > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Bossew" > To: "al gerhart" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:31 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > > >> Rn transport, emanation power, etc.: I suggest consulting the >> standard textbook, >> Nazaroff, W. W., A. V. Nero (1988): Radon and its Decay Products in >> Indoor Air. John Wiley & Sons. >> >> 0.2 eman. power = 20% set free of a "piece" (depending on >> experimental setup, but not too much; once out of the grain, the Rn >> is practically free.) >> Interstitial water content: the model is, that water in the pore >> space (as long as it is not too much) slows down the ejected recoil >> nuclei to an extent that they are not captured by the neighbouring >> grain. The kinetic energy of the recoil 222Rn nucleus is 86 keV, >> their mean range in air is ca. 60 um. Experimentally, eman power in >> soil (!) increases up to ca. 10% water, then remains approx. const. >> up to ca. 20-30%. After that, experimentally difficult. >> >> U series assay by gamma spectrometry is not trivial. >> - 238U : Via 234Th (63.3, 93 keV), 231mPa (1001), consult literature >> about these lines first !! >> - 226Ra: Via progenies 214Pb,Bi (295, 352, 609, 1120, 1764,...). >> Container must be kept isolated ca. 3 weeks in order to establish sec >> eq of 226Ra - 222Rn - progenies. For accurate measurement, sum/coinc >> of some lines must be corrected for, if eff cal. done with standard >> composed of single line radionuclides (as commonly done)(otherwise up >> to a few % syst. error, depending on geom.). Validation with >> certified U samples is advised. - Avoid the 186 line, possible, but >> complicated. >> - 210Pb: 46.6 keV. Density correction is crucial. >> - 235U ff: not easy by g-spec., but possible. 144 keV line: sec. eq. >> within 235U series required, due to contribution of 223Ra. Also >> interference by 230Th must be accounted for. >> - 232Th series: 228Ac (338, 911), 224Ra ff (239, 583, 2615). >> Different caveats apply. >> >> As a summary, 226Ra ff, 228Ac and 224Ra ff are relatively easy and >> straight forward, but 238U, 235U, 210Pb require a bit of experience >> and good QA. >> >> regards, >> Peter >> >> >> al gerhart wrote: >>> Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged >>> Carpenter terms. >>> "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and >>> if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." >>> So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, >>> or out of the rock itself? >>> "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." >>> Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? On the >>> lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is >>> a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and >>> helpful, would be very interested in hearing any info on this >>> matter, good or bad. Well, that doesn't sound right, how about >>> supportive or non supportive of the report. >>> I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking >>> forward to learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so >>> much info can be determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the >>> shortcomings of the handheld meters, especially those that we are >>> using. Thanks though for making sure we got it. >>> Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a >>> wide gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see >>> daughters except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped >>> inside, or even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no >>> data for Radon? >>> I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium >>> that should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known >>> value, one can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is >>> checked against what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of >>> verifying the method and result? >>> And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in >>> the granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be >>> profitably mined? >>> This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. >>> This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent >>> the entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all >>> medium high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. >>> But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing >>> mine granite? >>> Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up >>> for being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced >>> math, and a Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) >>> By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Peter Bossew >> European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for >> Environment and Sustainability (IES) >> TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. >> +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it >> http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ >> "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any >> circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the >> European >> Commission." >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus >> Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 5:13 PM >> >> >> > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jul 30 04:39:01 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:39:01 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP Message-ID: <001e01c8f228$4d4573b0$e7d05b10$@com> If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 05:07:44 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:07:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP- About an encounter with Bertell Message-ID: <452796.24513.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Roger, This comment is on Rosalie Bertell. She managed to get invited to address an elitist gathering in Mumbai a few years ago. A few of my friends attended, as the talk was to be on low level radiation. They were disappointed listening to the rhetoric ! During question time, they asked some queries related to the subject. It was obvious that she was at the receiving end. The questioner, a Ph.D from a US University persisted with the questions. A retired judge (?) who was chairing intervened asserting that she was addressing a lay audience and not professionals. He told my colleague that if he has any doubts, he may ask them privately. The main speaker was found wanting! But the intervention from the Chair helped. It is surprising how some of these "Bertells" get such attention from people who are otherwise distinguished. The judge in question was a very eminent person and was well known for his compassion to the underdog. Regards Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Roger Helbig To: Radsafe Sent: Wednesday, 30 July, 2008 3:09:01 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From brian.riely at ngc.com Wed Jul 30 07:28:38 2008 From: brian.riely at ngc.com (Riely, Brian P.) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:28:38 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP- About an encounter with Bertell In-Reply-To: <452796.24513.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <452796.24513.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A5443034D9850@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> On the internet there is a video by Rosalie Bertell where she claims many things, one of which is: THE OFFICIAL 9-11 STORY IS NOT CREDIBLE Its very important that we take a look at the starting point of this war on terror. Something else happened to bring those buildings down and Building 7 came down without being hit [in 6.5 seconds]The Pentagon is even more problematictheres no plane; theyve never found parts of the plane. The official story is not credible. Its not credible. Rosalie Bertell Part 2 (5:47) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of parthasarathy k s Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:08 AM To: Roger Helbig; Radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation,Now into HAARP- About an encounter with Bertell Dear Roger, This comment is on Rosalie Bertell. She managed to get invited to address an elitist gathering in Mumbai a few years ago. A few of my friends attended, as the talk was to be on low level radiation. They were disappointed listening to the rhetoric ! During question time, they asked some queries related to the subject. It was obvious that she was at the receiving end. The questioner, a Ph.D from a US University persisted with the questions. A retired judge (?) who was chairing intervened asserting that she was addressing a lay audience and not professionals. He told my colleague that if he has any doubts, he may ask them privately. The main speaker was found wanting! But the intervention from the Chair helped. It is surprising how some of these "Bertells" get such attention from people who are otherwise distinguished. The judge in question was a very eminent person and was well known for his compassion to the underdog. Regards Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Roger Helbig To: Radsafe Sent: Wednesday, 30 July, 2008 3:09:01 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don't know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html _______________________________________________ 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/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Wed Jul 30 07:48:55 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:48:55 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP In-Reply-To: <001e01c8f228$4d4573b0$e7d05b10$@com> References: <001e01c8f228$4d4573b0$e7d05b10$@com> Message-ID: <003a01c8f242$b3d80060$1b880120$@oilfield.slb.com> Looks like the end of the world, Roger! The article claims that Rosalie Bertell is a high-level scientist who was designated by the Reagan administration to study the effects of the "Star Wars" project. She is now a consultant to the European Parliament on HAARP. Which, the article claims is the ultimate "doomsday technology", capable of deep-underground scanning to detect secret bases, interrupting all forms of electronic communication, influence human behavior, change the climate, "grill" flying aircraft like a microwave oven, cause earthquakes and explosions as strong as an atomic bomb...... It seems that most of the furor was triggered by the book "Angels don't play this Haarp". Google the title and you will get plenty of information! Regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken???? Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support?????????? Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919? Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:39 AM To: Radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic _______________________________________________ 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/ From maay100 at bgu.ac.il Wed Jul 30 08:02:53 2008 From: maay100 at bgu.ac.il (Mike Quastel) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:02:53 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 In-Reply-To: <007101c8f1b9$048380f0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> References: <007101c8f1b9$048380f0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Message-ID: Quite a long time indeed. The half life of K40 is 1.25 billion years. Mike Quastel On Jul 29, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Edmond Baratta wrote: > > My quote in the past has been: if someone does't have any > Potassium-40 in their body, they have been dead for a long time. > As we all know, thier is no life without radioactivity. > > Ed Baratta > > edmond0033 at comcast.net > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Barish" > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:28 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 > > > As a footnote to the thread on granite, Brazil nuts, etc. the test > source that I use for demonstrating the use of a Geiger counter is > an ordinary pill bottle containing the usual potassium chloride > tablets prescribed as a supplement for patients on antihypertensive > medications that include diuretics. A typical 3 cm x 6 cm pill > bottle filled with these tablets makes quite an impressive display. > Think of the millions of people who are ingesting these little > radioactive sources very day! Scary, huh? > > Rob Barish, CHP, FAAPM > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jul 30 09:06:17 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:06:17 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP Message-ID: <23992728.1217426778012.JavaMail.root@viefep12> Hi all, Knowing quite a bit about persons similar to Rosalie Bertell in Europe I have two questions: 1) Is it really true, that she was a consultant to the Reagan administration on the Star War Project? I know people who would claim having been a consultant for some important government project, after visiting some public meeting on that topic. I have no respect for politicians, but I find it hard to believe that such a person would be invited to consult. Or maybe she consulted on the Impact of Star Wars on Catholic Nunneries? 2) Is she a consultant to the European Parliament or is she financed by the few percents of Greens in the European Parliament? This is quite a difference!!! Moreover I know for sure, that other similar "high-level scientists" have claimed that they were requested by the "European Parliament" for an expertise - but it had been only these few persons of the Green Fraction who did. I am not a psychiatrist, but I know, that such a behaviour like Bertell, Rokke and the like show is a sign of serious mental disorder. (No kidding, no ridiculing, but my serious opinion.) I am sure that every psychiatrist could name this disease. Best regards, Franz ---- Doug Aitken schrieb: > Looks like the end of the world, Roger! > The article claims that Rosalie Bertell is a high-level scientist who was > designated by the Reagan administration to study the effects of the "Star > Wars" project. She is now a consultant to the European Parliament on HAARP. > > Which, the article claims is the ultimate "doomsday technology", capable of > deep-underground scanning to detect secret bases, interrupting all forms of > electronic communication, influence human behavior, change the climate, > "grill" flying aircraft like a microwave oven, cause earthquakes and > explosions as strong as an atomic bomb...... > > It seems that most of the furor was triggered by the book "Angels don't play > this Haarp". > Google the title and you will get plenty of information! > > Regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken???? Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support?????????? > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919? Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of Roger Helbig > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:39 AM > To: Radsafe > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into > HAARP > > If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the > link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as > a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t > know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the > University of Alaska. > > > > Roger Helbig > > Les > de-guerre-des-etats-unis.html> nouvelles technologies de guerre des > Etats-Unis > Le Post - Paris,France > Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, > nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour > ?tudier ... > > 27/1231669_les-nouvelles-technologies-de-guerre-des-etats-unis.html> See all > stories on this topic > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From syd.levine at mindspring.com Wed Jul 30 11:22:09 2008 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:22:09 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. Thanks. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.com From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 30 11:54:04 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:54:04 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: <02e601c8f264$e1ecc0e0$31e0a4ac@your4dacd0ea75> Sid, look on eBay "GEOelectronics" George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Syd H. Levine" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:22 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources > My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about > one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap > source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to > be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they > are apparently afraid of radiation these days. > > Thanks. > > Syd H. Levine > AnaLog Services, Inc. > Phone: (270) 276-5671 > Telefax: (270) 276-5588 > E-mail: analog at logwell.com > Web URL: www.logwell.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/ > From radmax at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 11:57:35 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Message-ID: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community ?doesn?t have a story? to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. ?They?ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,? Dr. Graham said. ?Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.? Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,? Graham said. ?Why would they do that?? Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests ?and without too much effort connected the dots,? ... ?The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,? he said. ?And that?s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.? The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation?s critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. ?The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be ?truly massive traffic jams,? Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. ?So you would be walking. You wouldn?t be driving at that point. And it wouldn?t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn?t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.? The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because ?we wouldn?t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,?... The United States ?would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.? except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. ?You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population? that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. ?I?d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,? he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people ? about the number that existed in the decades after America?s independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to ?an earlier economy based on barter,? the EMP commission?s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the >link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as >a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t >know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the >University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > From louie at tgainc.com Wed Jul 30 12:36:06 2008 From: louie at tgainc.com (Louie Cueva) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4890a569.05d6720a.14d5.ffff83b6@mx.google.com> United Nuclear Scientific Supplies has them relatively cheap. http://www.unitednuclear.com/ -Louie Cueva -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Syd H. Levine Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:22 AM To: 'radsafelist' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. Thanks. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.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/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jul 30 12:44:15 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:44:15 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: <4890A86F.1070607@peoplepc.com> Hi Syd, You might wish to see if Kim K had any success -- his email was here on radsafe in 2004 ... Best, Maury&Dog _______________ Cs-137 source sought * To: radsafe at list.vanderbilt.edu * Subject: Cs-137 source sought * From: Kim Kearfott * Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:22:22 -0400 * CC: Joe Miklos , Bill Martin * Reply-To: Kim Kearfott * Sender: owner-radsafe at list.vanderbilt.edu * User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.0.0.040405 The University of Michigan Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences is interested in obtaining a Cs-137 irradiator (8-20 Ci range) suitable for calibration of thermoluminescent detectors. An example of an appropriate system would be a Shepherd 28-8B, but others may also work.If you have such an irradiator and are contemplating getting rid of it, please contact me at (734) 763-9117 or kearfott at umich.edu Thanks Kim ************************************************************************ You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo at list.vanderbilt.edu Put the From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jul 30 12:49:02 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:49:02 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: <4890A98E.5020303@peoplepc.com> I have no information re current availability or suitability but they advertise Cs-137 ... http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm Best, Maury&Dog ====================== Syd H. Levine wrote: > My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably > about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a > relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated > world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science > supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. > > Thanks. > > Syd H. Levine > AnaLog Services, Inc. > Phone: (270) 276-5671 > Telefax: (270) 276-5588 > E-mail: analog at logwell.com > Web URL: www.logwell.com From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Wed Jul 30 13:19:54 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:19:54 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004401c8f270$f0956280$d1c02780$@oilfield.slb.com> Sorry, but this looks more like 2 + 2 = 22, rather than "connecting the dots".... Equating Iran conducting a (medium-range) missile test at sea to their ability (or desire) to revert the US to pre-industrial revolution conditions is just a little hard to swallow..... Sounds like someone with a political agenda (just like Rosalie, even if he is on the other side and has a few more credentials....) Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community ?doesn?t have a story? to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. ?They?ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,? Dr. Graham said. ?Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.? Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,? Graham said. ?Why would they do that?? Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests ?and without too much effort connected the dots,? ... ?The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,? he said. ?And that?s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.? The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation?s critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. ?The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be ?truly massive traffic jams,? Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. ?So you would be walking. You wouldn?t be driving at that point. And it wouldn?t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn?t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.? The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because ?we wouldn?t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,?... The United States ?would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.? except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. ?You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population? that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. ?I?d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,? he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people ? about the number that existed in the decades after America?s independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to ?an earlier economy based on barter,? the EMP commission?s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the >link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as >a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t >know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the >University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Wed Jul 30 13:21:53 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:21:53 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. "They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us." Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?" Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," ... "The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States." The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. "The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams," Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. "So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point. And it wouldn't do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even if you could get through to them." The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"... The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. "You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. "I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack," he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people - about the number that existed in the decades after America's independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is >the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be >exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject >at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research >program at the University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From danny.mcclung at louisville.edu Wed Jul 30 14:12:19 2008 From: danny.mcclung at louisville.edu (Danny K McClung) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:12:19 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: <489060AD.62D3.0005.0@gwise.louisville.edu> References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> <489060AD.62D3.0005.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Message-ID: <489084D3.62D3.0005.0@gwise.louisville.edu> http://www.spectrumtechniques.com/ Syd, Try these guys. I have recently used them. Dan Danny K. McClung, BS, RRPT Health Physicist, Asst. RSO ********************************* University of Louisville Radiation Safety Office 319 Abraham Flexner Way Room 102, Library Commons Louisville, KY 40202 502-852-5231 (phone) 502-852-8911 (fax) danny.mcclung at louisville.edu GO CARDS !! Think Green! Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >>> "Syd H. Levine" 7/30/2008 12:22 PM >>> My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. Thanks. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.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/ From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 30 14:40:47 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:40:47 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources Message-ID: <053801c8f27c$2c79b7a0$31e0a4ac@your4dacd0ea75> Syd, and all, a typical eBay 'auction' number for Cs-137 is 350072156906. Many other isotope sources also available from GEOelectronics , most but not all as listed in NRC CFR30.71 Schedule B. These are quite inexpensive, with the common buttons are Cs-137, Sr-90, Co-60, Co-57 etc running 57 USD each. The only unlicensed alpha sealed source is .1 uCi Po-210. There are GENERALLY LICENSED sources of Po-210 that are much larger, for example the STATICMASTER BRUSH REFILLS @ 500 uCI, but actually, it is illegal to use one for a radiation TEST SOURCE ( go figure, it comes under the general heading of "misuse"). U.S. NRC allows up to 10 "exempt quantities" to be shipped in one package, but a person may order as many individual sources as they desire, just that each package can only contain 10 exempt quantity sources. For example, Cs-137 is limited to 10 uCi as a single sealed exempt quantity source ( In USA), so 100 uCi's can go into one package. This would be 10 ea. 10 uCi buttons, or 20 ea. 5 uCi or 100 ea. 1 uCi. All the above presupposed that the dose rate at the surface of the package is within limits *( <.5 mR/H at surface). To achieve this, extra large boxes are sometime used. Much larger than would be required for the actual size of the contents. As stated Cs-137 in the USA is limited to 10 uCi per button, no limit on how many buttons *anyone* may ultimately own or possess. No one may TRANSFER a button source or any exempt quantity sealed source without a NRC distribution license. There is NO LICENSE required to own them, but once you do own them, you may not transfer them to another person or entity. All you can do is trash can them. Some countries outside the USA go by the IAEA rules, this limits a Cs-137 to .27 uCi. To comply with those rules, .25 sources are sent. Ultimately the responsibility of holding the correct activity sources falls on the end user, as there is no issue shipping them FROM the USA, as long as the NRC and transport entity rules are followed. lastly, there is a big price increase scheduled for this year, the first in 4 years, so if you are contemplating replacing or adding to you isotope inventory. now would be the time. \Hope that helps. George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo>K0FF" To: "Syd H. Levine" ; "'radsafelist'" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources > Sid, look on eBay "GEOelectronics" > > > > > George Dowell > New London Nucleonics Lab > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Syd H. Levine" > To: "'radsafelist'" > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:22 AM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources > > >> My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about >> one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap >> source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to >> be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they >> are apparently afraid of radiation these days. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Syd H. Levine >> AnaLog Services, Inc. >> Phone: (270) 276-5671 >> Telefax: (270) 276-5588 >> E-mail: analog at logwell.com >> Web URL: www.logwell.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/ >> > From rad_sci_health at comcast.net Wed Jul 30 18:24:16 2008 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Jim Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:24:16 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MiniCAT mini-dose Message-ID: Friends, Here?s another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It?s not just the big medical equipment makers ?waiting in the wings? any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA ?principles? and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of ?radiation safety.? Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT ? CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can?t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars ? allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut ? that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on?because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 ? 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It?s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don?t realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. ?Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child? says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. ?One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.? From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 20:01:49 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan McCarn) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:01:49 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Message-ID: <4ec2f9380807301801l7ab44048o3f8a4a3a291d153@mail.gmail.com> Hi Group: I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt of purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. Comments? -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 30 20:10:49 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:10:49 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pancreatic Cancer - Any Record of Uranium Having Caused In-Reply-To: <000001c8f216$5ccefb10$166cf130$@com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080730190334.009e7c50@mail.swcp.com> July 30 In a news article below, an Army Reserve officer claims that his pancreatic cancer was caused by exposure to depleted uranium while he was in Kuwait. Risk factors for pancreatic cancer are age, smoking, diabetes, being male, being Afro-American, family history, and having chronic pancreatitis. A family history of ovarian or colon cancer is also a risk factor for pancreatic cancer. "Other studies suggest that exposure to certain chemicals in the workplace or a diet high in fat may increase the chance of getting pancreatic cancer." The link is . This is the National Cancer Institute's web site. Steven Dapra At 12:31 AM 7/30/08 -0700, Roger Helbig wrote: [edit] >--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Romi Elnagar wrote: > >From: Romi Elnagar >Subject: [DU-WATCH] Widow's VA claim gaining steam >To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com >Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 2:17 PM > >Widow's VA claim gaining steam >GEORGE WERNETH > >Monday, July 28, 2008 > >A Mobile woman says she was encouraged recently when a Department of >Veterans Affairs appeals judge agreed to review a claim involving her >late husband, who believed that his Army exposure to radiation >triggered his deadly cancer. > >Theresa Orrell said she has been struggling with the VA over her >husband's case for nine years, seeking acknowledgement of the dangers >that he faced, as well as compensation for her family. > >About six weeks before dying in 1999, Lt. Col. William A. Orrell III, >an Army Reserve officer, filed a claim with the VA, certain that his >pancreatic cancer was connected with his encounter with depleted >uranium in Kuwait. He was 56 when he died. > >Last month, an appeals judge, Lisa Barnard, took Orrell's depleted >uranium death claim under advisement after a hearing in Montgomery. A >ruling is expected in six to nine months. > [edit] > >C 2008 Press-Register >C 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved. > >http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46053&hd=&size=1&l=e > >------------------------------------ > >[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]Yahoo! Groups Links > From syd.levine at mindspring.com Wed Jul 30 20:19:29 2008 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:19:29 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU References: <4ec2f9380807301801l7ab44048o3f8a4a3a291d153@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Definitely not. You should send them to Kentucky to me. Just kidding. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan McCarn" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:01 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU > Hi Group: > > I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration > sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice > from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt > of > purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. > > Comments? > > -- > Dan W. McCarn > Geologist > > Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 > Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile 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/ From eic at shaw.ca Wed Jul 30 20:32:37 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:32:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Hi Al and all, Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, which is too high, even for 0.25%U. Regards. Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "al gerhart" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged > Carpenter terms. > > "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one > wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." > So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out > of the rock itself? > > "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." > Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? > > On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There > is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, > would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. > Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of > the report. > I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to > learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be > determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld > meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure > we got it. > Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide > gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters > except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even > if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? > I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that > should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one > can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against > what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method > and result? > And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the > granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably > mined? > This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. > This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the > entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium > high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. > But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine > granite? > Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for > being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a > Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) > By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 > 5:13 PM > > > From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 23:39:46 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:39:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [Rad_Sci_Health] MiniCAT mini-dose Message-ID: <447560.11706.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Jim, I enjoy reading your comments; particularly,those which reveals the biting wit and sarcasm while referring to the omissions and commissions of ICRP, NCRP and others in the regulatory community. I may not be able to support the view that companies want to retain ALARA principles because of some profit motive I shall appreciate your comments on the following: 1. What is the radiation dose below which you will not have any concern about (harmful!) radiation effects(0.5mSv,5 mSv,10 mSv, 50 mSv????) 2. Do you accept the dose limits of ICRP (a) with out ALARA "principle" (b) With ALARA "principle" 3. If you have all the authority to enforce radiation safety what are the possible recommendations? (Preferably in one page?) I welcome the responses from other list members as well. I request the respondents' permission to quote their comments in a feature article I am planning to write. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muckerheide To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose Friends, Here?s another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It?s not just the big medical equipment makers ?waiting in the wings? any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA ?principles? and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of ?radiation safety.? Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT ? CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can?t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars ? allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut ? that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on?because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 ? 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It?s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don?t realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. ?Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child? says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. ?One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.? __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Yahoo! Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Yahoo! Groups Find balance between nutrition, activity & well-being. Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! . __,_._,___ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 23:44:51 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:44:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Your recommendations on dose limits Message-ID: <915602.24854.qm@web23105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear lists members, I am resending my earlier message; the only change is in the subject line. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: parthasarathy k s To: Jerry Cuttler ; Jim Muckerheide ; radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; Rad_Sci_Health Sent: Thursday, 31 July, 2008 10:09:46 AM Subject: Re: [Rad_Sci_Health] MiniCAT mini-dose Dear Jim, I enjoy reading your comments; particularly,those which reveals the biting wit and sarcasm while referring to the omissions and commissions of ICRP, NCRP and others in the regulatory community. I may not be able to support the view that companies want to retain ALARA principles because of some profit motive I shall appreciate your comments on the following: 1. What is the radiation dose below which you will not have any concern about (harmful!) radiation effects(0.5mSv,5 mSv,10 mSv, 50 mSv????) 2. Do you accept the dose limits of ICRP (a) with out ALARA "principle" (b) With ALARA "principle" 3. If you have all the authority to enforce radiation safety what are the possible recommendations? (Preferably in one page?) I welcome the responses from other list members as well. I request the respondents' permission to quote their comments in a feature article I am planning to write. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muckerheide To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose Friends, Here?s another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It?s not just the big medical equipment makers ?waiting in the wings? any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA ?principles? and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of ?radiation safety.? Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT ? CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can?t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars ? allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut ? that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on?because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 ? 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It?s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don?t realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. ?Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child? says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. ?One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.? __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Yahoo! Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Yahoo! Groups Find balance between nutrition, activity & well-being. Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! . __,_._,___ ________________________________ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 01:31:44 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan McCarn) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:31:44 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <4ec2f9380807302331s1a9d4a2ew3520dc041de81f51@mail.gmail.com> Hello Group: Before we go any further in this thread, let me say that the definition of a granite in the dimension stone business and the definition by a geologist are not the same. Apparently pegmatites, migmatites, and schists are likely listed as granites. Perhaps Al can illuminate this dark sector of the dimension stone business. But the next time I go to Verona for the annual world dimension stone exhibition, I'll be sure to care my scintilation counter and perhaps my gamma spectormeter. Perhaps the European Federation of Geologists can send a delegation! Al communicated with me separately that indeed he did have a "white" granite from Namibia which was moderately radioactive. This may likely be an alaskitic (white, quartz-rich) granite possibly associated with the alaskites of the Rossing U deposit. But also, importantly, my estimate of the 0.25% total U from the apparent pegmatite is only supported by the U-235 activity. If this is in error, then my estimate is also in error. It would indeed be interesting to get a total extractable U chemical assay from several samples (hot nitric acid leach) to confirm the amount of U in the rock. But I would also veer away from having an ore-grade piece of rock in the kitchen or dressing-up the floors of my house. Have a good day! Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Albuquerque & Houston On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kai Kaletsch wrote: > Hi Al and all, > > Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I > don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first > choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is > important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing > by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. > > 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several > regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower > levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered > 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is > contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the > material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the > exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can > see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations > here: > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie > > Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or > mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a > bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to > Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. > > You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of > uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see > http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the > documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a > pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off > by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or > similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will > see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you > want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, > which is too high, even for 0.25%U. > > Regards. > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "al gerhart" < > webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org> > To: > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:23 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > > > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged >> Carpenter terms. >> >> "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one >> wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." >> So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out >> of the rock itself? >> >> "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." >> Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? >> >> On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There >> is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, >> would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. >> Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of >> the report. >> I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to >> learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be >> determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld >> meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure we >> got it. >> Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide >> gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters >> except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even >> if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? >> I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that >> should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one >> can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against >> what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method and >> result? >> And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the >> granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably >> mined? >> This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. >> This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the >> entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium high >> like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. >> But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine >> granite? >> Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for >> being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a >> Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) >> By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 >> 5:13 PM >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: HotGreenChile at gmail.com From jc.mora at ciemat.es Thu Jul 31 04:47:59 2008 From: jc.mora at ciemat.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mora_Ca=F1adas_Juan_Carlos?=) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:47:59 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU References: <4ec2f9380807301801l7ab44048o3f8a4a3a291d153@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <84A7FC01A35CFC429F64E62E3EABAA043F30C7@STR.ciemat.es> Dan. The european law has the same exemption levels that you can find at the IAEA BSS (#115), so check there if the activities or specific activities are lower and if so, you should have no problem (as exemption level assures). Anyway I would consult first to the air company in order to accomplish their requirements (if any). Juan Carlos Mora CIEMAT -----Mensaje original----- De: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl en nombre de Dan McCarn Enviado el: jue 31/07/2008 3:01 Para: radsafe at radlab.nl Asunto: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Hi Group: I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt of purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. Comments? -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile 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/ From axel.lindroth at canberra.com Thu Jul 31 05:14:02 2008 From: axel.lindroth at canberra.com (LINDROTH Axel) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:14:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] software for making dose budgets Message-ID: <54ABD6EBE81E7341AF92F73D8B8762BC513ADE@bfrcsqymx01.bdom.ad.corp> Hello, Does anyone know some good software for managing dose budgets? WBR, Axel From charlene.vollrath at monserco.com Thu Jul 31 05:17:50 2008 From: charlene.vollrath at monserco.com (Charlene Vollrath) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:17:50 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Message-ID: <200807311015.m6VAFWBS005577@mail305c9.megamailservers.com> Dan Check IATA regs first ? most airlines say no to any radioactives on checked/personal luggage. Charlene Vollrath Health Physics Consultancy Manager Monserco Limited, An EnergySolutions Company T: 905.450.3507 .232 F: 905.450.8523 C: 416.571.2104 E: charlene.vollrath at monserco.com P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. P S.V.P. ne pas imprimer ce courriel ? moins que ce soit absolument requis. - -----Mensaje original Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:47:59 +0200 From: Mora Ca?adas Juan Carlos Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU To: "Dan McCarn" , Message-ID: <84A7FC01A35CFC429F64E62E3EABAA043F30C7 at STR.ciemat.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dan. The european law has the same exemption levels that you can find at the IAEA BSS (#115), so check there if the activities or specific activities are lower and if so, you should have no problem (as exemption level assures). Anyway I would consult first to the air company in order to accomplish their requirements (if any). Juan Carlos Mora CIEMAT - -----Mensaje original----- De: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl en nombre de Dan McCarn Enviado el: jue 31/07/2008 3:01 Para: radsafe at radlab.nl Asunto: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Hi Group: I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt of purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. Comments? - -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From brian.riely at ngc.com Thu Jul 31 07:28:00 2008 From: brian.riely at ngc.com (Riely, Brian P.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:28:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A544303537B3A@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> Mike I agree that Dr. Graham's scenario is not credible; however, in theory you can cover all of the continental US with one 20-megaton bomb emitted at 200 miles above Kansas. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH) Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:22 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. "They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us." Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?" Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," ... "The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States." The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. "The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams," Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. "So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point. And it wouldn't do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even if you could get through to them." The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"... The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. "You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. "I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack," he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people - about the number that existed in the decades after America's independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.htm l Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is >the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be >exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject >at all. I don't know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research >program at the University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Thu Jul 31 07:50:25 2008 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:50:25 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: Hi Kai ( I like the sound of that, but I am probably pronouncing it wrong), Al and all, This seems to be related to any discussion of the radioactivity from granite: http://www.junkscience.com/apr01/crstudy.htm "Radiation Sources at the U.S. Capitol and Library of Congress Buildings" Unfortunately, I don't have any granite counter tops. How about marble window ledges? Enjoy, Don Kosloff, License Renewalist 6310 N. Harris Harbor Drive Oak Harbor OH 43449 "Kai Kaletsch" Sent by: To radsafe-bounces at r "al gerhart" adlab.nl , cc 07/30/2008 09:51 PM Subject Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Hi Al and all, Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, which is too high, even for 0.25%U. Regards, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From frantaj at aecl.ca Thu Jul 31 10:14:45 2008 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:14:45 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Message-ID: Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From eic at shaw.ca Thu Jul 31 10:48:51 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:48:51 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite References: Message-ID: <024001c8f324$f6c7ca80$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Hi Don (you are pronouncing it right), The problem with the junkscience article is that it makes it sound like elevated radiation levels can only be fount at the Capitol. Around here, 90% of all commercial buildings are made with brown brick, which approximately doubles the background radiation level. Ironically, all the meetings where the antis are condemning the dangers of increasing BG radiation by 0.00...001% are held in these buildings. On the positive side, my kids can find their way to school, even in a good Saskatchewan blizzard, by using a Geiger counter. Regards, Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Kai Kaletsch" Cc: ; ; "al gerhart" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Hi Kai ( I like the sound of that, but I am probably pronouncing it > wrong), > Al and all, > > This seems to be related to any discussion of the radioactivity from > granite: > http://www.junkscience.com/apr01/crstudy.htm > > "Radiation Sources at the U.S. Capitol and Library of Congress Buildings" > > Unfortunately, I don't have any granite counter tops. How about marble > window ledges? > > Enjoy, > Don Kosloff, License Renewalist > 6310 N. Harris Harbor Drive > Oak Harbor OH 43449 > > > > > > "Kai Kaletsch" > > Sent by: To > radsafe-bounces at r "al gerhart" > adlab.nl >, > cc > 07/30/2008 09:51 > PM Subject > Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in > Granite > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Al and all, > > Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I > don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first > choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it > is > important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing > by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. > > 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several > regulations > dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For > example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source > material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained > in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material > from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the > exporter > > didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our > Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie > > Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or > mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a > bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to > Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. > > You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of > uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see > http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the > documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a > pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be > off > by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or > similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will > see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless > (you > want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, > which is too high, even for 0.25%U. > > Regards, > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc > > ----------------------------------------- > The information contained in this message is intended only for the > personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If > the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an > agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you > are hereby notified that you have received this document in error > and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete > the original message. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.8/1582 - Release Date: 7/30/2008 > 6:37 PM > > > From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Thu Jul 31 11:00:57 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:00:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? References: Message-ID: <03cc01c8f326$acb4b550$31e0a4ac@your4dacd0ea75> Chlorine is used to purify graphite during manufacture, in a reactor the residual chlorine becomes activated to Cl-36. The T/2 is 301 thousand years. George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jul 31 11:05:04 2008 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:05:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jaro It must be from neutrons on stable Cl-35. Chlorine has 2 stable isotopes, Cl-35 (~75%) and Cl-37 (~25%). All of the Cl-36 (halflife ~ 40000years) produced will still be there. John *************** John R Johnson, PhD CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 4535 West 9th Ave 604-676-3556 Vancouver, B. C. V6R 2E2, Canada idias at interchange.ubc.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:14 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 31 11:28:03 2008 From: Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk (Arvic Harms) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:28:03 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Jaro, I guess neutron activation of Cl-35 present in graphite. There are some other pathways involving neutron activation of K-39 and S-34, but these are probably less important. Kind regards, Arvic Harms National Physical Laboratory UK > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On > Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav > Sent: 31 July 2008 16:15 > To: Radsafe (E-mail) > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? > > > Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from > old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? > Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 > MBq/kg from Cl-36. > > Thanks in advance. > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE > > This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that > is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. > Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information > may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. > > AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E > > Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de > l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits > d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, > divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations > non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e > envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 31 12:40:43 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:40:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A544303537B3A@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A544303537B3A@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B18@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> I stand corrected on the number of weapons needed (though making a missile-deliverable 20 MT weapon is a non-trivial challenge, even compared to a missile-deliverable 20 KT weapon). -----Original Message----- From: Riely, Brian P. [mailto:brian.riely at ngc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:28 AM To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Mike I agree that Dr. Graham's scenario is not credible; however, in theory you can cover all of the continental US with one 20-megaton bomb emitted at 200 miles above Kansas. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH) Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:22 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. "They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us." Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?" Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," ... "The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States." The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. "The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams," Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. "So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point. And it wouldn't do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even if you could get through to them." The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"... The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. "You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. "I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack," he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people - about the number that existed in the decades after America's independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.htm l Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is >the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be >exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject >at all. I don't know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research >program at the University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 31 13:29:50 2008 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:29:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Prostate Cancer Linked to Diagnostic X-rays In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807311846.m6VIjcNS011711@mx2.ucdavis.edu> July 31, 2008 AS REPORTED BY NEWSMAX.COM: Prostate Cancer Linked to X-Rays British researchers have linked prostate cancer with X-rays. A study conducted by the University of Nottingham shows a connection between diagnostic radiation and elevated risk of young-onset prostate cancer, which affects about ten percent of men diagnosed. Young-onset prostate cancer is by definition found in men before the age of sixty. The study included 431 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It showed that men who had typical diagnostic X-rays in the form of barium enemas or X-rays of the pelvis or hip in the previous ten years, were two and a half times more likely to be stricken with prostate cancer than the population at large. In men with a family history of the disease, the link appeared even stronger. The study also emphasized that the evidence that ties X-rays to prostate cancer is still weak at this stage. Professor Kenneth Muir, who led the study, said, "Although these results show some increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who had previously had certain radiological medical tests, we want to reassure men that the absolute risks are small and there is no proof that the radiological tests actually caused any of the cancers." 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 From radmax at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 14:52:27 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:52:27 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMPs credibility Message-ID: <9417072.1217533948050.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Brian, no one thought 19 twits could enter the US, take flight training for months, hijack 4 airliners with only box cutters and then kill over 3000 people and reak havok on the scale of 9-11 before that happened either! I'ld rather they try to forcast the incredible than miss the possible. I personally have thought of several ways a dedicated small group (20) could do a repeat without ANY special tech and without getting caught, killing thousands and costing trillions... and it scares the stuffing out of me to think THEY might figure these things out. One just has to look at the recent salmonella scare. Mike, Doug, George... Not my field of expertise, but... from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse According to an internet primer published by the Federation of American Scientists[2] A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth's magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently. The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400?500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point. According to the accompaning wiki graphs: A: a device delivered 400 km over North Dakota would deliver a 25,000 v/m EM pulse to most of the continental US (Red states) due to the earth's magnetic field. B: a device with a nominal 10 kt promt gamma (approx 100 kt total yield) detonated at 300 km would generate 50,000 v/m, 4 kA/m at ground zero. C: a SINGLE device detonated 300 miles over Kansas would affect the entire continental US and a good portion of Canada and Mexico... almost 3000 miles diameter... We're talking NO unhardened computers or electronics, no GPS, Aircraft falling out of the sky, no financial systems, no electricity, etc... The American 1.4 Mt Starfish test at 400-km, on 9 July 1962, induced large EMP currents in the overhead wires of 30 strings of Oahu streetlights, each string having 10 lights (300 streetlights in all). The induced current was sufficient to blow the fuses. EMP currents in the power lines set off ?hundreds? of household burglar alarms and opened many power line circuit breakers. On the island of Kauai, EMP closed down telephone calls to the other islands despite the 1962 sturdy relay (electromechanical) telephone technology, by damaging the equipment in a microwave link: Oahu was over 1300 km away from Starfish ground zero. http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html (A VERY SCARY READ!!! ) Can you say 'Stone Age'? Sure, I knew you could... This was 1962, there were NO micro-electronics then. I have seen a 2004 computer's modem and a weather station's power supply fried from a lightning strike 10 miles from the SURGE PROTECTED data line buried in the dry Arizona desert out in the middle of nowhere. According to a 2006 Congressional report titled "High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and High Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: Threat Assessments" http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32544.pdf ... even a single, specially designed low-yield nuclear explosion high above the United States, or over a battlefield, can produce a large-scale EMP effect that could result in a widespread loss of electronics, but no direct deaths, and may not necessarily evoke a large nuclear retaliatory strike by the U.S. military. This, coupled with the possible vulnerability of U.S. commercial electronics and U.S. military battlefield equipment to the effects of EMP, may create a new incentive for other countries to develop or acquire a nuclear capability. GEORGE, as far as I'm concerned, I want a Patriot System on every street corner WORLDWIDE. DOUG, In an article titled, "Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars," an Iranian Military journal explains how an attack on America's electronic infrastructure, would bring the country to its knees. ("Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars," Nashriyeh e Siasi Nezami, 1999.) In 2001, this same journal stated ?Terrorist information warfare [includes] using the technology of directed energy weapons (DEW) or electromagnetic pulse (EMP).? After breezing thru FAS's primer page on EMP ( http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm ) and the rest of the above sources, this scares the shiite out of me. Is that credible enough for you? Again, not my field, argue the math and politics with them. Radmax -----Original Message----- From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Sent: Jul 30, 2008 2:21 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: "Riely, Brian P." Sent: Jul 31, 2008 5:28 AM To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" , radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Mike I agree that Dr. Graham's scenario is not credible; however, in theory you can cover all of the continental US with one 20-megaton bomb emitted at 200 miles above Kansas. From radmax at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 14:54:08 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:54:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Message-ID: <26088125.1217534048777.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Maybe not trivial Mike, but they (Iran) have already accomplished it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3 2,200 lbs to 1300 miles, portable launcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadr-110 potentially 3000km, 30 minute setup, also portable launcher In 1963, the former USSR fielded the R-21 submarine launched ICBM with a 1 Mt warhead weighing 1.2 tons, just over the Shahab-3 capacity... I imagine it weighs alot less without the re-entry shielding. By 1980, the Sov's had a 500 Mt device weighing ONLY 0.45 tons with re-entry shielding. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_slbm.html It's starting to sound very credible to me. Again it may be trivial compared to Russian or US capabilities, but a match can do just as much damage as a blowtorch... Radmax -----Original Message----- >From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" >Sent: Jul 31, 2008 10:40 AM >To: radsafe at radlab.nl >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs > >I stand corrected on the number of weapons needed (though making a >missile-deliverable 20 MT weapon is a non-trivial challenge, even >compared to a missile-deliverable 20 KT weapon). > From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 31 15:57:33 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Did anyone receive my news distribution yesterday title - Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in MO Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C056085B3@gdses.corp.gds.com> I sent this out twice yesterday PDT and have not received it back. Would like to know if anyone received it on Radsafe. If not, is there a system problem with E-Mail delivery? Thanks, Sandy ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Thu Jul 31 16:18:52 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:18:52 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Prostate Cancer Linked to Diagnostic X-rays Message-ID: <073120082118.15111.48922C3C000B30C800003B072216549976B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Common cause, rather than cause-effect is more likely with the young men's prostate cancer association with x-rays of hip, colon etc. Testosterone increases both. Risk sports increase hip x-rays. Aggressiveness disrupts the colon. Also, the animal and cell experiments of Pollycove, Bobby Scott and others show the opposite: less cancer with more x-ray (up to 10-20 x usual background. I'd want to stimulate the body defenses in my spleen with 75 rem 2x/week for a month if I had a prostate cancer. Watch for an article soon by Cuttler and Pollycove. Howard Long MD MPH (epidemiology) -------------- Original message -------------- From: Otto Raabe > July 31, 2008 > > AS REPORTED BY NEWSMAX.COM: > > Prostate Cancer Linked to X-Rays > > British researchers have linked prostate cancer with X-rays. A study > conducted by the University of Nottingham shows a connection between > diagnostic radiation and elevated risk of young-onset prostate > cancer, which affects about ten percent of men diagnosed. Young-onset > prostate cancer is by definition found in men before the age of sixty. > > The study included 431 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It showed > that men who had typical diagnostic X-rays in the form of barium > enemas or X-rays of the pelvis or hip in the previous ten years, were > two and a half times more likely to be stricken with prostate cancer > than the population at large. In men with a family history of the > disease, the link appeared even stronger. > > The study also emphasized that the evidence that ties X-rays to > prostate cancer is still weak at this stage. Professor Kenneth Muir, > who led the study, said, "Although these results show some increase > in the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who had previously > had certain radiological medical tests, we want to reassure men that > the absolute risks are small and there is no proof that the > radiological tests actually caused any of the cancers." > > > 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/ From edmond0033 at comcast.net Thu Jul 31 16:37:56 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:37:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? References: Message-ID: <001201c8f355$b312c2a0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> I believe it is from Cl- 35 (Stable) (n, gamma) Cl-36. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:14 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 19:08:22 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:08:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <021c01c8f300$e201af90$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <337771.2506.qm@web706.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <021c01c8f300$e201af90$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <01bb01c8f36a$b76f8080$264e8180$@com> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com Dear Group, Kai & Al: Back to basics, and a little simplified, but what the heck! Primary mineralized uranium is usually the reduced species uraninite, UO2, also known as pitchblende. When uraninite comes in contact with oxidizing groundwater, the redox state changes rapidly from +4 to +6. Normally, oxidized uranyl species UO2 +2 reacts with groundwater to form the highly soluble solid species UO2(OH)2 H2O (Schoepite) and then to form carbonate anionic aqueous species e.g. UO2(CO3)2 -2 or UO2(CO3)3 -4 because of the high abundance of bicarbonate (HCO3-) in oxidizing natural groundwater conditions.? This includes the range of pH from about 6.2 ? >10.? Below a pH of 6.2 the neutral aqueous species, UO2(CO3)2 0 forms. So, at a pH of 7, the dominate form of aqueous uranyl species is UO2(CO3)2 -2. When solution mining, this species is concentrated in anion exchange resins (bumps Cl -1 off) and the pH is maintained close to 7 to optimize the bicarbonate complexation of uranyl. How much concentration? Up to several hundred mg/L U concentration depending on the bicarbonate ion concentration. Sometimes NaHCO3 is added to enhance the groundwater's ability to complex uranium. Because the kinetics are quite good, the reaction goes pretty fast. Note: rain water, equilibrated to atmospheric CO2 and O2 is easily able to rapidly mobilize uraninite (UO2) forming quite a nice, mildly acid leaching solution of pH = about 5.6. As a geologist, this is quite exciting, and I can only add, "Yippee". Dan ii From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic at shaw.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:31 AM To: al gerhart Cc: Dan W McCarn Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Uranium is usually pretty mobile and either acids of bases will leach it. Even if you just dig up the ore and leave it sitting outside, the oxygen and water are enough to leach it and you will find a yellow crust on the bottom of the rocks or a yellow stain leading to the floor drain after a few years. ? I meant that you could back calculate U content from dose rate (not for risk assessment). 3.5 mR/hr still sounds a bit too high (but more realistic than 10.5). On a large thick slab, that would correspond to ~ 0.5?%U. If I remember correctly, pancake detectors tend to read high on U ore (even if you shield out the alphas and betas). So, your pancake reading?could be reasonably consistent with the 0.25% from Dan's calculation. On a smaller piece of ore, you need a higher U concentration to get the same dose rate. How thick was the slab and how big was the hot area? ? Regards, Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: al gerhart To: Kai Kaletsch Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Hi Kai, ? I've heard that Uranium can leach out with water or slightly acidic liquids,? Professor Nussebaum brought it to our attention.? Good to hear another voice on the issue.? We will look into it.? I understand that a lead test swab will react to the Uranium as if it is lead, but are there Uranium swabs that don't react to lead content? ? Or do we have to use acid and precipitate it out??? Then have it measured.? I talked to a local chemist we have done work for and he recommended lab if need be. ? This is indeed getting very political and commercial on some levels, no one is spending this much time and effort without something rewarding their risk.? Let's face it, nothing gets done without an interested party on some level.? But, if the concerns are valid, then it matters little the motivation, just be glad someone stepped up and took a shot at it. ? As to the other stakeholders, they were shown reports just like this long ago along with a request that it be looked into.? Once was a huge stone company, the other time it was a PhD level Professor.? Nothing got done.? Too much money at stake. ? Regulation, yes, we would love to have the protection you guys were smart enough to pass.? As it is, not many countries will allow this stuff to be imported, so America becomes the dumping ground for too hot material. ? What a great idea on using the low level granite to provide a baseline!? Why didn't I think of that?? We will do just that. ? I will use your calculator for the risk assessment.? I need to take the time to learn more about the Geometry aspect of radiation measurements, soaking up a little on Geiger Counter Enthusiasts and the other Rad groups of George Dowel. ? The high reading is total radiation, 12.5 or so before we chopped up the slab into samples for the five scientists that are studying it.? I used a piece of ?paper for an Alpha shield, got 10.5 mR if I remember right.? I didn't have any aluminum, but I used 1/8" of plastic for a Beta shield and got around 3.5 mR/hr. ? All measurements were taken with a LENi Geiger counter (George Dowel sells them) with a pancake probe, with about 8 or 9 mm standoff.?? I've got the measurements in cpm too, or multiply ?the results by 600 to get a close idea. ? Thanks for the info, it has been invaluable.? I'll post this tomorrow on Radsafe, wanted to thank you personally for the time and effort. ? Thanks, AL Kai Kaletsch wrote: Hi Al and all, Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, which is too high, even for 0.25%U. Regards. Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "al gerhart" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged > Carpenter terms. > > "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one > wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." > So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out > of the rock itself? > > "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." > Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? > > On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There > is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, > would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. > Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of > the report. > I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to > learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be > determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld > meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure > we got it. > Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide > gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters > except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even > if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? > I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that > should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one > can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against > what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method > and result? > And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the > granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably > mined? > This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. > This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the > entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium > high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. > But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine > granite? > Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for > being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a > Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) > By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 > 5:13 PM > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.8/1582 - Release Date: 7/30/2008 6:37 PM From radmax at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 20:17:42 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs correction Message-ID: <29160311.1217553462298.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Chris, it was 3am when I initially wrote it... took it directly from the russianspaceweb.com table without questioning... Correct yield for 1980 Soviet R-31 SLBM was 0.5 Mt to 1 Mt http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-31-specs.htm, http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r31.htm weight is still correct at around 0.45 tons. Regardless, still an easily deliverable device for the Shahab, with enough yield to put alot of us into the stone age. radmax -----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Van Den Bergen >Sent: Jul 31, 2008 7:26 PM >To: "Richard D. Urban Jr." >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs > >500 Mt you say? Why exactly would you need one of them? > >Chris van den Bergen >OHSE Consultant >Clayton, Vic > From sontermj at tpg.com.au Thu Jul 31 21:19:16 2008 From: sontermj at tpg.com.au (Mark Sonter) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:19:16 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: tailings cover for gamma attenuation In-Reply-To: <200807311917.m6VJHdYT017833@mail8.tpg.com.au> References: <200807311917.m6VJHdYT017833@mail8.tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <489272A4.3020308@tpg.com.au> Hi all, Does anyone out there in Radsafe Land have good, preferably experimental, info on the Half-Value Layer for sand or soil capping over thorium-bearing tailings from mineral processing plants (either mineral sands dry plants or rare earths extraction plants)?? The thickness required *for gamma attenuation* is likely to be greater than for uranium tails because of the dominant 2.6 MeV from Thallium versus the 609 keV from Bismuth 214... Dan McCarn? Phil Edigi?? Dr Parthasarathy? Anybody else?? Cheers, 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 > From LNMolino at aol.com Thu Jul 31 21:55:39 2008 From: LNMolino at aol.com (Louis N. Molino, Sr.) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:55:39 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs correction Message-ID: <1238868089-1217559337-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1364254984-@bxe151.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> What's the flight time for this? LNM from Baku, Azerbaijan ------Original Message------ From: Richard D. Urban Jr. Sender: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl To: Radsafe To: Christopher.Van-Den-Bergen at adm.monash.edu.au ReplyTo: Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Aug 1, 2008 06:17 Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs correction Chris, it was 3am when I initially wrote it... took it directly from the russianspaceweb.com table without questioning... Correct yield for 1980 Soviet R-31 SLBM was 0.5 Mt to 1 Mt http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-31-specs.htm, http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r31.htm weight is still correct at around 0.45 tons. Regardless, still an easily deliverable device for the Shahab, with enough yield to put alot of us into the stone age. radmax -----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Van Den Bergen >Sent: Jul 31, 2008 7:26 PM >To: "Richard D. Urban Jr." >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs > >500 Mt you say? Why exactly would you need one of them? > >Chris van den Bergen >OHSE Consultant >Clayton, Vic > _______________________________________________ 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/ Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T From fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jul 29 10:17:30 2008 From: fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:30 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ICRP Application of the Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of Individuals Living in Long Term Contaminated Territories after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency" Message-ID: <001801c8f18e$38662f10$a9328d30$@co.uk> >From the ICRP " Application of the Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of Individuals Living in Long Term Contaminated Territories after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency" This draft, which is now posted here for public consultation, is a companion document to the draft on emergency exposure situations, on which ICRP is consulting from 21 May to 8 August. The present draft however discusses such issues as the transition from an emergency to a 'post-accident rehabilitation' phase, the strategies to achieve levels of exposure comparable to those in normal situations, and the direct involvement of exposed persons in their own protection. Whilst the draft was developed with a view to long-term contamination after an accident or incident, many aspects may also be broadly applicable to other existing exposure situations. The draft report can be downloaded here http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/remissvar.asp In order for ICRP to be able to take your comments into account, we need to have them no later than Monday 13 October." Fred Dawson New Malden England From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 30 10:48:39 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:48:39 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in MO Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C056084A3@gdses.corp.gds.com> Index: Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities ------------------------------------- Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. AmerenUE applied Monday to federal nuclear regulators for a license to build and operate a potential new nuclear power plant in Callaway County. The St. Louis-based utility filed an 8,000-page license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a reactor adjacent to Ameren's existing nuclear facility, the Callaway Plant, outside of Fulton. Ameren said it has not decided to build a second nuclear plant, but wanted to preserve that option if the need arose. Also, applying now puts Ameren in a position to seek federal loan guarantees and production tax credits created by the federal energy law of 2005. Ameren said its 1,190-megawatt electric generating plant at Callaway accounts for 19 percent of the utility's total generation. It came online in December 1984. AmerenUE president Thomas Voss said greater demand for power in Missouri in the next two decades will require the utility to have a large generating plant online by 2018. The company said it hopes to decide by 2010 whether to proceed with the plant. Voss said Ameren will continue to encourage development of renewable energy sources and help customers reduce consumption and demand. "But going forward, we will also need nuclear energy from our existing Callaway unit and possibly from a second unit at Callaway," he said. Ameren said it wants to pursue a possible nuclear plant because it wouldn't produce greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause climate change. But some environmentalists say the benefit is offset by the problem of safely storing the process' nuclear waste. Ameren spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said the Callaway plant's waste is safely stored in secure pools onsite. She said some European nuclear plants reuse the waste to generate more power. Commercial nuclear power plants now produce some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but concern about waste disposal has hampered the industry's growth. Nevada's Yucca Mountain, billed as the nation's first nuclear waste repository, originally was supposed to open in 1998 but has been beset by lawsuits and political and scientific controversies, and cost overruns. The best-possible opening date is now 2020. Earlier this month, a second nuclear reactor at AmerenUE's Callaway plant was the focus of an NRC-hosted public forum in Fulton. Advocates touted Callaway's safety record and a jobs windfall from a second plant. Opponents said they want Ameren Corp., the utility's corporate parent, to more aggressively pursue alternative and renewable energy options. The company then known as Union Electric initially planned a second nuclear reactor at the Callaway County site. That plan was scrapped after a grass-roots effort opposing the Callaway project led Missouri voters in 1976 to decisively approve a law prohibiting state utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built. Persuading state lawmakers to overturn that restriction is a top priority for Ameren in the next legislative session. Should that fail, the company likely won't build a second reactor but instead pursue more costly natural gas generators. Ameren expects the new reactor to cost at least $6 billion, or $9 billion with financing -- roughly the entire value of the parent corporation. Scott Burnell, spokesman for the NRC, said it will take a month for staff to ensure Ameren's application is complete. Once the application is accepted for review, the NRC will alert the public that it can raise challenges within 60 days. Ameren's application will be reviewed on technical and regulatory grounds. The whole process takes roughly 42 months, Burnell said. ---------- NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE (AGI) - Helsinki, 30 July - A small fire broke out on the grounds of a third-generation nuclear site under construction in Finland, but was put out a few hours later without endangering the population in anyway. Reports were from Teolisuuden Voima (TVO), the Scandinavian country's power company which manages the plant. The fire, which did not result in any injuries, broke out in the Olkiluoto plant in south-eastern Finland, where the German Siemens and the French Areva are building the first reactor in the world running on pressurized water. At the time of the fire, work was not underway, and damage was limited to scaffolding and some building materials. The reactor, which is expected to be ready for 2011, will be the fifth in Finland and the third in the Olkiluoto plant. -------------- 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated GRENOBLE, France - About 100 employees were evacuated from a nuclear site in southern France on Tuesday after an alarm went off accidentally, the power plant said. The false alarm at the Tricastin nuclear complex followed two other incidents there in less than a month -- a leak of unenriched uranium and the release of radioactive particles from a pipe. The incidents have raised concerns in heavily nuclear-dependent France. Stephanie Biabaut, a spokeswoman for the plant near the city of Avignon, said the alarm went off accidentally Tuesday, and medical tests showed that personnel were not contaminated. There was some confusion earlier, however, as site engineer Jean Girardi had said medical tests found "extremely weak traces of radioactivity" on two people checked following the alarm. He also said the alarm was apparently set off by a minor leak of radioactive particles. French electric company EdF, which runs the plant, declined to explain Girardi's comments but insisted the case was merely a false alarm. The CGT trade union said the two cases of radioactivity cited by Girardi dated back to a July 23 incident in which radioactive particles spewed from a pipe, slightly contaminating 100 employees. In another incident on July 7, liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a Tricastin factory into two nearby rivers. France is among the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world, with 59 reactors churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity. But the recent incidents at Tricastin have prompted questions about the still-secretive state-run nuclear industry and given fodder to anti-nuclear activists. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has said the incidents were minor, but ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants. --------- More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes A Canadian panel has called for more nuclear reactors to be set up to ensure uninterrupted supply of radioisotopes and also a better communication mechanism among the agencies involved. The shutdown of the National Research Universal nuclear reactor at Chalk River in November 2007 had sparked off a near crisis in the nuclear medicine community. The reactor, which provides two-thirds of the world's radioisotopes, stopped supplying nuclear material essential for medical imaging and diagnostic scans for fractures, cancers and heart conditions. It was restarted on December 16. A group of health specialists, including experts from the field of nuclear medicine, was convened by Health Canada in December 2007 during the prolonged shutdown. The group was conveying to the government its assessment of the impact of the isotope shortage. Once the reactor was restarted and the supply of medical isotopes returned to normal, the group began work on lessons learned from the situation. In their report released Monday, the doctors write how they were in the dark when the Chalk River nuclear reactor halted production of medical isotopes late last year, a critical oversight that put patients at risk. Doctors say they were forced to delay diagnostic and treatment procedures for patients across the country when the supply of isotopes dried up last December. And not knowing how long the isotope shortage would last, they were forced to decide whether to proceed with other procedures for their patients that carried more risk or would be less accurate. ---------- Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines DOLNI ROZINKA, Czech Republic, July 30 (Reuters) - Renewed interest in nuclear power and high uranium prices may extend the life of Czech uranium mines or even reopen closed deposits, said the head of the country's sole, state-owned miner Diamo. The centre-right cabinet of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek gave the ailing industry a boost last year, allowing Diamo to explore uranium reserves at its only remaining mine in Dolni Rozinka, 180 km (113 miles) east of Prague. "We have completed the first three drill holes," Diamo Director Jiri Jez told Reuters in an interview. "It is hard to say what the reserves are now ... but we keep discovering new reserves so it may happen that we will operate here beyond 2012, maybe until 2015," he said. The Rozinka mine has some 700 tonnes of proven uranium reserves left, enough to keep it open at least until 2010. The new exploration should be largely completed by the year-end. The industry has been on the brink of extinction since the 1989 collapse of the Communist regime, which in its hey-days in the 1950s forced tens of thousands of political opponents, held under harsh conditions in labour camps, to extract the radioactive ore for export to the Soviet Union. But record high oil prices and fear of Russian energy supremacy put energy security high on the agenda in Europe, bringing resources such as uranium back in favour. The Czech move mirrors rising interest in exploration by fellow EU members such as Romania, which plans to double uranium output this year. Bulgaria will decide this autumn whether to grant new permits after closing its mines in the 1990s. Spot prices of uranium, used to fuel nuclear plants, hit a record $136 per pound last June. They have since slipped to $64.50, according to Ux Consulting, a leading publisher of uranium prices, but still remain high above the $10-$15 level seen for years before the peak. Some 263 tonnes of uranium were extracted from the Rozinka mine last year and output of 230 tonnes is planned for 2008. Uranium coming from waste processing at another location should put Diamo's total production at 310 tonnes this year, Jez said. Although a fraction of the maximum 3,036 tonnes per year seen in the late 1950s, the current figures still put the Czechs in 12th place in the world behind South Africa and ahead of Brazil, according to the World Nuclear Association. Diamo's output covers roughly one third of Czech power firm CEZ's needs of 700 tonnes a year. KEY DEPOSIT OUT OF REACH FOR NOW Jez said a huge deposit of some 115,000 tonnes at Diamo's northern mine of Straz pod Ralskem, closed since 1996, was out of reach in the near future due to resistance by the Greens, a junior government member, as well as by neighbouring villages. This might change, however, with next general election in 2010, Jez hopes, given CEZ's plans to expand its nuclear assets. "This is a world-ranking deposit, which could supply our nuclear plants for 150 years," Jez said. "Interest is high. Recently, we had Romanians here, looking to buy uranium." He said it would take five to 10 years before mining could start in Straz, where reserves are roughly equal to what the country had extracted in total since the end of World War II. Czech uranium has already drawn interest from Australia's Uran Limited, but its requests for permits have been turned down by the environment ministry, controlled by the Greens. ---------- EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Electricite de France SA, the world's largest owner of nuclear reactors, is close to an accord to buy British Energy Group Plc for 12.5 billion pounds ($24.9 billion), three people with knowledge of the talks said. The proposed price is about 775 pence a share, two of the people said. That's 7.2 percent above today's close of 723 pence and 27 percent more than March 14, the trading session before British Energy said it may get an offer. Centrica Plc may acquire about 25 percent of the British Energy business as part of the agreement. The takeover may be discussed by Electricite de France executives at a July 31 meeting, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are confidential. A deal would conclude more than three months of talks on British Energy's future after the company said in May it received a ``range of proposals'' for a takeover. Gaining control of the East Kilbride, Scotland-based company, the U.K.'s largest nuclear generator, would give Electricite de France access to eight U.K. atomic plants as well as sites on which new ones can be built. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on June 22 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, he backs new atomic plants to meet demand. Energy Cost ``High energy prices, further life extensions and access to the country's most qualitative new-build sites make us confident that the real value of British Energy to EDF is close'' to 770 pence a share, Dexia Bank NV analyst Steven de Proost said in a note published July 25. The bank reiterated a ``buy'' rating on the utility yesterday before a possible deal. Electricite de France shares fell 1.1 percent to 54.59 euros in Paris trading, while shares of British Energy, which have climbed 32 this year, dropped 0.6 percent to 723 pence in London. Centrica rose 1.6 percent to 309.75 pence and is down 14 percent since the end of December. British Energy, led by Chief Executive Officer Bill Coley, said last week it is in ``advanced discussions'' regarding a takeover offer without specifying whom the talks were with. British Energy spokesman Andrew Dowler and Centrica spokesman Andrew Turpin declined to comment yesterday. Electricite de France spokeswoman Carole Trivi also declined to comment. The acquisition, if agreed on, would come 15 months after Spanish power company Iberdrola SA paid 14.4 billion pounds for Glasgow-based Scottish Power Plc in April last year. Nuclear Increase The government owns 35.7 percent of British Energy, and has sought new investors for atomic plants which Business Secretary John Hutton said on March 10 may ``maintain or increase the nuclear contribution'' to the country's electricity production. The country may need to spend 45 billion pounds through 2025 on new generation, Ernst & Young LLP said in January. Electricite de France, which is based in Paris, expects to run 10 of the latest new-generation reactors by 2020, Chief Executive Officer Pierre Gadonneix has said, similar to one under construction at Flamanville, Normandy, in northern France. Centrica, based in Windsor, England, and led by Chief Executive Officer Sam Laidlaw, is Britain's biggest energy supplier. The purchase would expand Electricite de France's operations in the U.K., where its EDF Energy Plc unit sold power to 7.9 million customers last year. The French utility can raise power rates more in the U.K. than in France, where an agreement with the government links increases to inflation. EDF Energy announced last week a 17 percent increase in power bills and a 22 percent rise in gas charges. Higher Prices The Business and Enterprise Committee in the House of Commons, which includes members of Parliament from the U.K.'s three main political parties, concluded in a report yesterday that the country has higher natural gas prices than other European countries. The panel said this suggests a lack of competition, though it didn't find proof of price-fixing. ``Britain has a diverse electricity generation portfolio, owned by a number of different companies,'' the report said. ``We are concerned that this may be undermined by market consolidation, such as a takeover of British Energy.'' Brown favors nuclear power because it emits less carbon dioxide, the gas blamed for global warming, than gas and coal- fed stations. The U.K.'s policy contrasts with Germany, which is committed to closing down its nuclear power plants by about 2021. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's new government announced its intention in May to start building a nuclear plant within five years, after the country abandoned atomic energy for safety reasons in the 1980s. Earnings Drop British Energy in May said full-year profit declined 28 percent after the discovery of corroded wires led to production shutdowns. Net income for the fiscal year ended March 31 slid to 335 million pounds from 465 million a year earlier. EDF said in May first-quarter sales rose 5.2 percent 18.3 billion euros ($28.8 billion) on increased heating demand and higher prices. The company has said earnings will be crimped this year by higher costs and reactor repairs that will dent output. In February it published results showing a 44 percent increase in second-half net income to about 2.11 billion euros. EDF, which operates 58 reactors in France, is pursuing projects in China, South Africa and the U.S., Gadonneix said in an interview on July 4. UBS AG is advising the government on the sale of its stake, Merrill Lynch & Co. is advising EDF and NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd. is working with British Energy. --------- DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada WASHINGTON, July 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator John McCain today will bring his promise of four more years of President Bush's failed energy policies back to Nevada. The last time he was in the Silver State, McCain gave a 3,000 word speech on energy that didn't mention Yucca Mountain or solar power once. Instead, McCain focused on his newfound support for offshore oil drilling, which even he and President Bush admit will have only a "psychological" impact on gas prices. McCain's support for offshore drilling may not provide economic relief for working families, but it did open a flood of new support for McCain's campaign from the oil and gas industry. McCain may be reluctant to detail his record on Yucca Mountain, but the facts are clear. Except for some election-year hedging during his two presidential campaigns, McCain has repeatedly been a champion of Yucca Mountain. In fact, despite his admitted concern about shipping nuclear material through Arizona McCain wants to build at least 45 new nuclear power plants and says dealing with spent nuclear fuel is a "NIMBY" problem that we must have "guts and the courage" to address. See the DNC's web video "NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg "During his 25 years in Congress, Senator McCain has been a part of America's energy problem by repeatedly voting against the kind of policies that would create green jobs in Nevada and break our dependence on fossil fuels," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Now, McCain is promising more of the same by pandering to his new friends in the oil and gas industry and promising to store tons of spent fuel in Nevada, even though he's not comfortable shipping the material through Arizona on its way there. America's working families deserve new energy ideas, not more of the same failed policies that have cost us jobs, driven energy prices through the roof, and done nothing to make America less dependent on foreign oil." The following is a fact sheet on McCain's support for Yucca Mountain: MCCAIN HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED YUCCA... McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996] McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08] McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08] McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08] McCain: "We Will Build At Least 45 New Nuclear Plants." In a speech in Denver, Colorado, McCain said, "We will develop more clean energy. Nuclear power is the most dependable source of zero-emission energy we have. We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them." [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Denver, CO), 7/7/08] ...EXCEPT WHEN HE HEDGED IN CAMPAIGNS 2008: Campaigning In Nevada, McCain Said He Could Be Compelled To Reverse Support For Storage Of Nuclear Waste At Yucca Mountain. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "On the nuclear dump site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which most Nevadans oppose, McCain stressed the importance to national security of finding somewhere to store spent nuclear fuel currently at power plants across the country. But he indicated he could be persuaded to end his support for Yucca as the site. 'I will respect scientific opinion,' he said. 'The scientific opinion that I had up until recently was that Yucca Mountain was a suitable storage place.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV), 3/29/08] 1999: McCain Made Same Vague Promise To Consider Other Sites For Disposal To Nevadans Prior To His 2000 Run. On a trip to Nevada in February 1999, McCain met with key supporters in the gambling industry and the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Associated Press reported that McCain's votes to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could hurt him among Nevada voters. According to AP, "McCain said he is willing to hear arguments on the issue of whether Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as the nation's nuclear waste repository, but he said the storage problem must be resolved." McCain also said, "I'm not expert enough to know if that's the place or not, but it's unconscionable to leave nuclear waste sitting around in facilities forever." [Associated Press, 2/17/1999] MCCAIN HAS HIS OWN NIMBY PROBLEM. MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08] MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch? ---------- Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy JENKINSVILLE, SC (WIS) - South Carolina needs safe, reliable and environmentally friendly energy. The state's biggest public and private utilities say nuclear is the way to go. But it will cost us, and sooner than we might think. Two nuclear generating units built and operated by two of the state's major utilities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, could be a big part of South Carolina's energy future. The units would be located in Jenkinsville, already home to the VC Summer Nuclear Plant. If both go online, the new nukes could turn out enough electricity to provide power to 1.8 million customers. "We looked at coal-fired generation, we looked at natural-gas fired generation. Nuclear. We looked at renewables. And at the end of the day, every time we went through that process of evaluating, nuclear came out on top," says Eric Boomhower of SCE&G. Nuclear power, though controversial and costly, is undeniably efficient. A small fuel pellet provides the energy equivalent of nearly a ton of coal. Boomhower says nuclear is also a clean, practical and increasingly popular alternative to fossil fuels. "I think what has grown is public support for nuclear. You know, it's a different world that we live in today than it was 25-30 years ago. The importance of generation that is clean, you know, not emitting greenhouse gases, is more important than ever. And nuclear has really come to the forefront in terms of what solutions do we have available to us," says Boomhower. But with a total project cost of nearly $10 billion, ratepayers will be asked to chip in. SCE&G is asking for a rate increase of about .5 percent for the average residential customer starting next march. The first of the two units is not scheduled to begin operation until 2016. And you would continue to pay during what will be a long review process. First, the state public service commission will be holding a public hearing in late October that could last five days. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would then spend three to four years examining the plan. If approved, construction would take five or six years. The total cost to SCE&G alone would be more than six billion dollars. --------- Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities REGINA - Saskatchewan's attempt to enter the nuclear power game takes another step today with a tour of an Ontario power plant. Lyle Stewart, the province's enterprise and innovation minister, says he's been invited to tour Bruce Power's massive nuclear generating facilities. Bruce currently operates six reactor units on a site northwest of Toronto. The tour comes after Bruce announced last month that it will study the potential of bringing nuclear energy to Saskatchewan - the world's largest producer of uranium. Stewart says he wants to see what the facilities look like and what kind of "a footprint" they have. The minister half-jokingly says that "Bruce is likely trying to sell" him on the idea, adding that he believes the company is sold on the idea of doing business in Saskatchewan. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 30 17:05:25 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:05:25 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in MO Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C0560852E@gdses.corp.gds.com> Re-sending this news distribution since 7 hours have passed since I sent the first mailing. Perhaps it is lost in Cyberspace! Index: Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities ------------------------------------- Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. AmerenUE applied Monday to federal nuclear regulators for a license to build and operate a potential new nuclear power plant in Callaway County. The St. Louis-based utility filed an 8,000-page license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a reactor adjacent to Ameren's existing nuclear facility, the Callaway Plant, outside of Fulton. Ameren said it has not decided to build a second nuclear plant, but wanted to preserve that option if the need arose. Also, applying now puts Ameren in a position to seek federal loan guarantees and production tax credits created by the federal energy law of 2005. Ameren said its 1,190-megawatt electric generating plant at Callaway accounts for 19 percent of the utility's total generation. It came online in December 1984. AmerenUE president Thomas Voss said greater demand for power in Missouri in the next two decades will require the utility to have a large generating plant online by 2018. The company said it hopes to decide by 2010 whether to proceed with the plant. Voss said Ameren will continue to encourage development of renewable energy sources and help customers reduce consumption and demand. "But going forward, we will also need nuclear energy from our existing Callaway unit and possibly from a second unit at Callaway," he said. Ameren said it wants to pursue a possible nuclear plant because it wouldn't produce greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause climate change. But some environmentalists say the benefit is offset by the problem of safely storing the process' nuclear waste. Ameren spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said the Callaway plant's waste is safely stored in secure pools onsite. She said some European nuclear plants reuse the waste to generate more power. Commercial nuclear power plants now produce some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but concern about waste disposal has hampered the industry's growth. Nevada's Yucca Mountain, billed as the nation's first nuclear waste repository, originally was supposed to open in 1998 but has been beset by lawsuits and political and scientific controversies, and cost overruns. The best-possible opening date is now 2020. Earlier this month, a second nuclear reactor at AmerenUE's Callaway plant was the focus of an NRC-hosted public forum in Fulton. Advocates touted Callaway's safety record and a jobs windfall from a second plant. Opponents said they want Ameren Corp., the utility's corporate parent, to more aggressively pursue alternative and renewable energy options. The company then known as Union Electric initially planned a second nuclear reactor at the Callaway County site. That plan was scrapped after a grass-roots effort opposing the Callaway project led Missouri voters in 1976 to decisively approve a law prohibiting state utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built. Persuading state lawmakers to overturn that restriction is a top priority for Ameren in the next legislative session. Should that fail, the company likely won't build a second reactor but instead pursue more costly natural gas generators. Ameren expects the new reactor to cost at least $6 billion, or $9 billion with financing -- roughly the entire value of the parent corporation. Scott Burnell, spokesman for the NRC, said it will take a month for staff to ensure Ameren's application is complete. Once the application is accepted for review, the NRC will alert the public that it can raise challenges within 60 days. Ameren's application will be reviewed on technical and regulatory grounds. The whole process takes roughly 42 months, Burnell said. ---------- NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE (AGI) - Helsinki, 30 July - A small fire broke out on the grounds of a third-generation nuclear site under construction in Finland, but was put out a few hours later without endangering the population in anyway. Reports were from Teolisuuden Voima (TVO), the Scandinavian country's power company which manages the plant. The fire, which did not result in any injuries, broke out in the Olkiluoto plant in south-eastern Finland, where the German Siemens and the French Areva are building the first reactor in the world running on pressurized water. At the time of the fire, work was not underway, and damage was limited to scaffolding and some building materials. The reactor, which is expected to be ready for 2011, will be the fifth in Finland and the third in the Olkiluoto plant. -------------- 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated GRENOBLE, France - About 100 employees were evacuated from a nuclear site in southern France on Tuesday after an alarm went off accidentally, the power plant said. The false alarm at the Tricastin nuclear complex followed two other incidents there in less than a month -- a leak of unenriched uranium and the release of radioactive particles from a pipe. The incidents have raised concerns in heavily nuclear-dependent France. Stephanie Biabaut, a spokeswoman for the plant near the city of Avignon, said the alarm went off accidentally Tuesday, and medical tests showed that personnel were not contaminated. There was some confusion earlier, however, as site engineer Jean Girardi had said medical tests found "extremely weak traces of radioactivity" on two people checked following the alarm. He also said the alarm was apparently set off by a minor leak of radioactive particles. French electric company EdF, which runs the plant, declined to explain Girardi's comments but insisted the case was merely a false alarm. The CGT trade union said the two cases of radioactivity cited by Girardi dated back to a July 23 incident in which radioactive particles spewed from a pipe, slightly contaminating 100 employees. In another incident on July 7, liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a Tricastin factory into two nearby rivers. France is among the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world, with 59 reactors churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity. But the recent incidents at Tricastin have prompted questions about the still-secretive state-run nuclear industry and given fodder to anti-nuclear activists. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has said the incidents were minor, but ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants. --------- More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes A Canadian panel has called for more nuclear reactors to be set up to ensure uninterrupted supply of radioisotopes and also a better communication mechanism among the agencies involved. The shutdown of the National Research Universal nuclear reactor at Chalk River in November 2007 had sparked off a near crisis in the nuclear medicine community. The reactor, which provides two-thirds of the world's radioisotopes, stopped supplying nuclear material essential for medical imaging and diagnostic scans for fractures, cancers and heart conditions. It was restarted on December 16. A group of health specialists, including experts from the field of nuclear medicine, was convened by Health Canada in December 2007 during the prolonged shutdown. The group was conveying to the government its assessment of the impact of the isotope shortage. Once the reactor was restarted and the supply of medical isotopes returned to normal, the group began work on lessons learned from the situation. In their report released Monday, the doctors write how they were in the dark when the Chalk River nuclear reactor halted production of medical isotopes late last year, a critical oversight that put patients at risk. Doctors say they were forced to delay diagnostic and treatment procedures for patients across the country when the supply of isotopes dried up last December. And not knowing how long the isotope shortage would last, they were forced to decide whether to proceed with other procedures for their patients that carried more risk or would be less accurate. ---------- Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines DOLNI ROZINKA, Czech Republic, July 30 (Reuters) - Renewed interest in nuclear power and high uranium prices may extend the life of Czech uranium mines or even reopen closed deposits, said the head of the country's sole, state-owned miner Diamo. The centre-right cabinet of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek gave the ailing industry a boost last year, allowing Diamo to explore uranium reserves at its only remaining mine in Dolni Rozinka, 180 km (113 miles) east of Prague. "We have completed the first three drill holes," Diamo Director Jiri Jez told Reuters in an interview. "It is hard to say what the reserves are now ... but we keep discovering new reserves so it may happen that we will operate here beyond 2012, maybe until 2015," he said. The Rozinka mine has some 700 tonnes of proven uranium reserves left, enough to keep it open at least until 2010. The new exploration should be largely completed by the year-end. The industry has been on the brink of extinction since the 1989 collapse of the Communist regime, which in its hey-days in the 1950s forced tens of thousands of political opponents, held under harsh conditions in labour camps, to extract the radioactive ore for export to the Soviet Union. But record high oil prices and fear of Russian energy supremacy put energy security high on the agenda in Europe, bringing resources such as uranium back in favour. The Czech move mirrors rising interest in exploration by fellow EU members such as Romania, which plans to double uranium output this year. Bulgaria will decide this autumn whether to grant new permits after closing its mines in the 1990s. Spot prices of uranium, used to fuel nuclear plants, hit a record $136 per pound last June. They have since slipped to $64.50, according to Ux Consulting, a leading publisher of uranium prices, but still remain high above the $10-$15 level seen for years before the peak. Some 263 tonnes of uranium were extracted from the Rozinka mine last year and output of 230 tonnes is planned for 2008. Uranium coming from waste processing at another location should put Diamo's total production at 310 tonnes this year, Jez said. Although a fraction of the maximum 3,036 tonnes per year seen in the late 1950s, the current figures still put the Czechs in 12th place in the world behind South Africa and ahead of Brazil, according to the World Nuclear Association. Diamo's output covers roughly one third of Czech power firm CEZ's needs of 700 tonnes a year. KEY DEPOSIT OUT OF REACH FOR NOW Jez said a huge deposit of some 115,000 tonnes at Diamo's northern mine of Straz pod Ralskem, closed since 1996, was out of reach in the near future due to resistance by the Greens, a junior government member, as well as by neighbouring villages. This might change, however, with next general election in 2010, Jez hopes, given CEZ's plans to expand its nuclear assets. "This is a world-ranking deposit, which could supply our nuclear plants for 150 years," Jez said. "Interest is high. Recently, we had Romanians here, looking to buy uranium." He said it would take five to 10 years before mining could start in Straz, where reserves are roughly equal to what the country had extracted in total since the end of World War II. Czech uranium has already drawn interest from Australia's Uran Limited, but its requests for permits have been turned down by the environment ministry, controlled by the Greens. ---------- EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Electricite de France SA, the world's largest owner of nuclear reactors, is close to an accord to buy British Energy Group Plc for 12.5 billion pounds ($24.9 billion), three people with knowledge of the talks said. The proposed price is about 775 pence a share, two of the people said. That's 7.2 percent above today's close of 723 pence and 27 percent more than March 14, the trading session before British Energy said it may get an offer. Centrica Plc may acquire about 25 percent of the British Energy business as part of the agreement. The takeover may be discussed by Electricite de France executives at a July 31 meeting, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are confidential. A deal would conclude more than three months of talks on British Energy's future after the company said in May it received a ``range of proposals'' for a takeover. Gaining control of the East Kilbride, Scotland-based company, the U.K.'s largest nuclear generator, would give Electricite de France access to eight U.K. atomic plants as well as sites on which new ones can be built. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on June 22 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, he backs new atomic plants to meet demand. Energy Cost ``High energy prices, further life extensions and access to the country's most qualitative new-build sites make us confident that the real value of British Energy to EDF is close'' to 770 pence a share, Dexia Bank NV analyst Steven de Proost said in a note published July 25. The bank reiterated a ``buy'' rating on the utility yesterday before a possible deal. Electricite de France shares fell 1.1 percent to 54.59 euros in Paris trading, while shares of British Energy, which have climbed 32 this year, dropped 0.6 percent to 723 pence in London. Centrica rose 1.6 percent to 309.75 pence and is down 14 percent since the end of December. British Energy, led by Chief Executive Officer Bill Coley, said last week it is in ``advanced discussions'' regarding a takeover offer without specifying whom the talks were with. British Energy spokesman Andrew Dowler and Centrica spokesman Andrew Turpin declined to comment yesterday. Electricite de France spokeswoman Carole Trivi also declined to comment. The acquisition, if agreed on, would come 15 months after Spanish power company Iberdrola SA paid 14.4 billion pounds for Glasgow-based Scottish Power Plc in April last year. Nuclear Increase The government owns 35.7 percent of British Energy, and has sought new investors for atomic plants which Business Secretary John Hutton said on March 10 may ``maintain or increase the nuclear contribution'' to the country's electricity production. The country may need to spend 45 billion pounds through 2025 on new generation, Ernst & Young LLP said in January. Electricite de France, which is based in Paris, expects to run 10 of the latest new-generation reactors by 2020, Chief Executive Officer Pierre Gadonneix has said, similar to one under construction at Flamanville, Normandy, in northern France. Centrica, based in Windsor, England, and led by Chief Executive Officer Sam Laidlaw, is Britain's biggest energy supplier. The purchase would expand Electricite de France's operations in the U.K., where its EDF Energy Plc unit sold power to 7.9 million customers last year. The French utility can raise power rates more in the U.K. than in France, where an agreement with the government links increases to inflation. EDF Energy announced last week a 17 percent increase in power bills and a 22 percent rise in gas charges. Higher Prices The Business and Enterprise Committee in the House of Commons, which includes members of Parliament from the U.K.'s three main political parties, concluded in a report yesterday that the country has higher natural gas prices than other European countries. The panel said this suggests a lack of competition, though it didn't find proof of price-fixing. ``Britain has a diverse electricity generation portfolio, owned by a number of different companies,'' the report said. ``We are concerned that this may be undermined by market consolidation, such as a takeover of British Energy.'' Brown favors nuclear power because it emits less carbon dioxide, the gas blamed for global warming, than gas and coal- fed stations. The U.K.'s policy contrasts with Germany, which is committed to closing down its nuclear power plants by about 2021. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's new government announced its intention in May to start building a nuclear plant within five years, after the country abandoned atomic energy for safety reasons in the 1980s. Earnings Drop British Energy in May said full-year profit declined 28 percent after the discovery of corroded wires led to production shutdowns. Net income for the fiscal year ended March 31 slid to 335 million pounds from 465 million a year earlier. EDF said in May first-quarter sales rose 5.2 percent 18.3 billion euros ($28.8 billion) on increased heating demand and higher prices. The company has said earnings will be crimped this year by higher costs and reactor repairs that will dent output. In February it published results showing a 44 percent increase in second-half net income to about 2.11 billion euros. EDF, which operates 58 reactors in France, is pursuing projects in China, South Africa and the U.S., Gadonneix said in an interview on July 4. UBS AG is advising the government on the sale of its stake, Merrill Lynch & Co. is advising EDF and NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd. is working with British Energy. --------- DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada WASHINGTON, July 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator John McCain today will bring his promise of four more years of President Bush's failed energy policies back to Nevada. The last time he was in the Silver State, McCain gave a 3,000 word speech on energy that didn't mention Yucca Mountain or solar power once. Instead, McCain focused on his newfound support for offshore oil drilling, which even he and President Bush admit will have only a "psychological" impact on gas prices. McCain's support for offshore drilling may not provide economic relief for working families, but it did open a flood of new support for McCain's campaign from the oil and gas industry. McCain may be reluctant to detail his record on Yucca Mountain, but the facts are clear. Except for some election-year hedging during his two presidential campaigns, McCain has repeatedly been a champion of Yucca Mountain. In fact, despite his admitted concern about shipping nuclear material through Arizona McCain wants to build at least 45 new nuclear power plants and says dealing with spent nuclear fuel is a "NIMBY" problem that we must have "guts and the courage" to address. See the DNC's web video "NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg "During his 25 years in Congress, Senator McCain has been a part of America's energy problem by repeatedly voting against the kind of policies that would create green jobs in Nevada and break our dependence on fossil fuels," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Now, McCain is promising more of the same by pandering to his new friends in the oil and gas industry and promising to store tons of spent fuel in Nevada, even though he's not comfortable shipping the material through Arizona on its way there. America's working families deserve new energy ideas, not more of the same failed policies that have cost us jobs, driven energy prices through the roof, and done nothing to make America less dependent on foreign oil." The following is a fact sheet on McCain's support for Yucca Mountain: MCCAIN HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED YUCCA... McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996] McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08] McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08] McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08] McCain: "We Will Build At Least 45 New Nuclear Plants." In a speech in Denver, Colorado, McCain said, "We will develop more clean energy. Nuclear power is the most dependable source of zero-emission energy we have. We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them." [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Denver, CO), 7/7/08] ...EXCEPT WHEN HE HEDGED IN CAMPAIGNS 2008: Campaigning In Nevada, McCain Said He Could Be Compelled To Reverse Support For Storage Of Nuclear Waste At Yucca Mountain. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "On the nuclear dump site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which most Nevadans oppose, McCain stressed the importance to national security of finding somewhere to store spent nuclear fuel currently at power plants across the country. But he indicated he could be persuaded to end his support for Yucca as the site. 'I will respect scientific opinion,' he said. 'The scientific opinion that I had up until recently was that Yucca Mountain was a suitable storage place.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV), 3/29/08] 1999: McCain Made Same Vague Promise To Consider Other Sites For Disposal To Nevadans Prior To His 2000 Run. On a trip to Nevada in February 1999, McCain met with key supporters in the gambling industry and the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Associated Press reported that McCain's votes to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could hurt him among Nevada voters. According to AP, "McCain said he is willing to hear arguments on the issue of whether Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as the nation's nuclear waste repository, but he said the storage problem must be resolved." McCain also said, "I'm not expert enough to know if that's the place or not, but it's unconscionable to leave nuclear waste sitting around in facilities forever." [Associated Press, 2/17/1999] MCCAIN HAS HIS OWN NIMBY PROBLEM. MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08] MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch? ---------- Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy JENKINSVILLE, SC (WIS) - South Carolina needs safe, reliable and environmentally friendly energy. The state's biggest public and private utilities say nuclear is the way to go. But it will cost us, and sooner than we might think. Two nuclear generating units built and operated by two of the state's major utilities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, could be a big part of South Carolina's energy future. The units would be located in Jenkinsville, already home to the VC Summer Nuclear Plant. If both go online, the new nukes could turn out enough electricity to provide power to 1.8 million customers. "We looked at coal-fired generation, we looked at natural-gas fired generation. Nuclear. We looked at renewables. And at the end of the day, every time we went through that process of evaluating, nuclear came out on top," says Eric Boomhower of SCE&G. Nuclear power, though controversial and costly, is undeniably efficient. A small fuel pellet provides the energy equivalent of nearly a ton of coal. Boomhower says nuclear is also a clean, practical and increasingly popular alternative to fossil fuels. "I think what has grown is public support for nuclear. You know, it's a different world that we live in today than it was 25-30 years ago. The importance of generation that is clean, you know, not emitting greenhouse gases, is more important than ever. And nuclear has really come to the forefront in terms of what solutions do we have available to us," says Boomhower. But with a total project cost of nearly $10 billion, ratepayers will be asked to chip in. SCE&G is asking for a rate increase of about .5 percent for the average residential customer starting next march. The first of the two units is not scheduled to begin operation until 2016. And you would continue to pay during what will be a long review process. First, the state public service commission will be holding a public hearing in late October that could last five days. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would then spend three to four years examining the plan. If approved, construction would take five or six years. The total cost to SCE&G alone would be more than six billion dollars. --------- Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities REGINA - Saskatchewan's attempt to enter the nuclear power game takes another step today with a tour of an Ontario power plant. Lyle Stewart, the province's enterprise and innovation minister, says he's been invited to tour Bruce Power's massive nuclear generating facilities. Bruce currently operates six reactor units on a site northwest of Toronto. The tour comes after Bruce announced last month that it will study the potential of bringing nuclear energy to Saskatchewan - the world's largest producer of uranium. Stewart says he wants to see what the facilities look like and what kind of "a footprint" they have. The minister half-jokingly says that "Bruce is likely trying to sell" him on the idea, adding that he believes the company is sold on the idea of doing business in Saskatchewan. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From jerrycuttler at rogers.com Wed Jul 30 22:40:29 2008 From: jerrycuttler at rogers.com (Jerry Cuttler) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:40:29 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MiniCAT mini-dose Message-ID: <002f01c8f2bf$2dad3320$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> MiniCAT mini-doseOnly two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity -- and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muckerheide To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose Friends, Here's another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It's not just the big medical equipment makers "waiting in the wings" any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA "principles" and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of "radiation safety." Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT T CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can't agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars - allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut - that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on.because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 - 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It's so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don't realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. "Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child" says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. "One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT." From webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org Thu Jul 31 19:07:01 2008 From: webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org (al gerhart) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium in granite Message-ID: <250652.63173.qm@web701.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Kai, I've heard that Uranium can leach out with water or slightly acidic liquids, Professor Nussebaum brought it to our attention. Good to hear another voice on the issue. We will look into it. I understand that a lead test swab will react to the Uranium as if it is lead, but are there Uranium swabs that don't react to lead content? Or do we have to use acid and precipitate it out? Then have it measured. I talked to a local chemist we have done work for and he recommended lab if need be. This is indeed getting very political and commercial on some levels, no one is spending this much time and effort without something rewarding their risk. Let's face it, nothing gets done without an interested party on some level. But, if the concerns are valid, then it matters little the motivation, just be glad someone stepped up and took a shot at it. As to the other stakeholders, they were shown reports just like this long ago along with a request that it be looked into. Once was a huge stone company, the other time it was a PhD level Professor. Nothing got done. Too much money at stake. Regulation in Canada, yes, we would love to have the protection you guys were smart enough to pass. As it is, not many countries will allow this stuff to be imported, so America becomes the dumping ground for too hot material. What a great idea on using the low level granite to provide a baseline! Why didn't I think of that? We will do just that. I will take a look at your calculator for the risk assessment. I need to take the time to learn more about the Geometry aspect of radiation measurements, soaking up a little on Geiger Counter Enthusiasts and the other Rad groups of George Dowel. The high reading is total radiation, 12.5 mR (A,B,G) or so before we chopped up the slab into samples for the five scientists that are studying it. I used a piece of paper for an Alpha shield, got 10.5 mR if I remember right. I didn't have any aluminum, but I used 1/8" of plastic for a Beta shield and got around 3.5 mR/hr. All measurements were taken with a LENi Geiger counter (George Dowel sells them) with a pancake probe, with about 8 or 9 mm standoff. I've got the measurements in cpm too, or multiply the results by 600 to get a close idea. Thanks for the info, it has been invaluable. Thanks, AL From peter.bossew at jrc.it Tue Jul 1 03:20:43 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:20:43 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4869E8DB.4080008@jrc.it> I would like to remind the web site http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html which has an amazing wealth of technical and historical information about a./n. bombs. also: http://www.abomb1.org/index.html http://www.atomicarchive.com/index.shtml http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/resources.htm http://www.nukestrat.com/index.htm regards, p -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it WWW: http://rem.jrc.cec.eu.int "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 1 08:52:10 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:52:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Atomic reactions VS Nuclear reactions. Message-ID: <015101c8db81$aaf22840$9d8da9ac@your4dacd0ea75> "Atomic physics (or atom physics) is the field of physics that studies atoms as an isolated system of electrons and an atomic nucleus. It is primarily concerned with the arrangement of electrons around the nucleus and the processes by which these arrangements change. This includes ions as well as neutral atoms and, unless otherwise stated, for the purposes of this discussion it should be assumed that the term atom includes ions. The term atomic physics is often associated with nuclear power and nuclear bombs, due to the synonymous use of atomic and nuclear in standard English. However, physicists distinguish between atomic physics-which deals with the atom as a system comprising of a nucleus and electrons, and nuclear physics-which considers atomic nuclei alone." Nuclear reactions are those involving the nucleus. Pretty simple idea. Atomic reactions are those involving the atom as a whole. That includes chemical reactions of course. Sorry. The populous masses get their science from Popular Mechanics magazine, so the nuclear bomb will forever be tagged Atomic Bomb in the English popular language. I'm going to go grab a Pop Mechanics magazine and a beer, go watch football and smoke a cigar, and fry something, just to see what it feels like. Or not. No response required. George Dowell From john.p.jones at usu.edu Tue Jul 1 09:29:19 2008 From: john.p.jones at usu.edu (John Jones) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:29:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080630181609.009f2610@mail.swcp.com> References: <5.2.1.1.1.20080628093921.009eb130@mail.swcp.com> <5.2.1.1.1.20080630181609.009f2610@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <91F7ACE96B883549BB063A1F576C2AE107D95AAFBC@exchg-be04.aggies.usu.edu> There is a page on "The Manhattan Project, An Interactive History" website with links to PDF's of several books including one to Robert Serber's "The Los Alamos Primer." This link should take you to that page. http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/library.htm#fakley John ---------------- John P. Jones Radiation Safety Utah State Univ. (435) 797 - 2888 john.p.jones AT usu.edu http://www.ehs.usu.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 6:21 PM To: Dukelow, James S Jr; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs June 30 James: Thank you for your explanation of the subtleties of a Pu bomb, and for recommending Serber's book. I also appreciated your explanation of the distinctions between atomic and chemical explosions. I will look on Amazon for Serber's book. Steven Dapra At 10:52 AM 6/30/08 -0700, Dukelow, James S Jr wrote: >Nobody has really answered Dapra's original question, which has some >contemporary relevance. > >The difference between the U-235 bomb and the Pu-239 bomb is that the >Pu-239 was contaminated with other isotopes of Pu that have significant >spontaneous fission rates. If the process of assembling a critical mass >was "slow" (say, tens of milliseconds), there would be a significant >probability that the assembling critical mass would be "pre-ignited" by >stray neutrons from the spontaneous fissions, leading to a lower yield -- >a "fizzle". The answer was to used carefully designed explosive charges >to assemble the critical mass very quickly. Until Trinity, the implosion >design was theoretical and the test was need to give confidence that the >weapon would work. > >All of this is very nicely described in The Los Alamos Primer, by Robert >Serber. It is the annotated notes of the lectures that Serber gave to >physicists and other arriving at Los Alamos to participate in the >Manhattan Project. The notes were published in 1992 and are currently >available from Amazon. > >This problem did not exist with U-235 and the physicists were quite >confident it would work the first time. > >The current relevance is that Iran, and earlier, North Korea is/were using >both plutonium production and uranium enrichment to pursue nuclear weapon >capability. The weaponization issues remain with plutonium weapons and >uranium weapons remain simple to implement once sufficient fissile >material is available (although "deliverable" weapons may be more of an issue). > >Dowell's linguistic distinction between nuclear (fission and fusion) >explosions and atomic/chemical explosions is not standard usage, but is >reasonable. The nuclear weapons involve the release of the nuclear >binding energy of the atomic nucleus, while chemical explosions release >the chemical binding energy of the electron orbitals. > >Hanford's weapons mission is over and it is probably not to hard to >arrange tours of most of the facilities, although I haven't tried to do it. > >Best regards. > >Jim Dukelow >Pacific Northwest National Laboratory >Richland, WA >jim.dukelow at pnl.gov > >These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my >management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. > >-----Original Message----- >From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Steven Dapra >Sent: Sat 6/28/2008 8:49 AM >To: radsafe at radlab.nl >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs > >June 28, 2008 > > From time to time I have read that one of the Hiroshima and > Nagasaki bombs >had to be tested before it was used, and that one did not --- that the >engineers were so certain the latter bomb would explode that they didn't >bother testing it. I also read recently that hydrogen bombs must be >tested. Of these three types of bombs, which ones must be tested, and >why? For the one that did not have to be tested, why not? (I don't have >any bombs I want to test, I am merely curious.) > >Steven Dapra >sjd at swcp.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/ From mds02 at health.state.ny.us Tue Jul 1 09:32:10 2008 From: mds02 at health.state.ny.us (Michael D. Soucie) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:32:10 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing In-Reply-To: <200807010129.m611T4gv026046@pony1.health.state.ny.us> Message-ID: Franz, I think you are wrong. Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? Mike Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist State of New York, Department of Health Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection 547 River Street, Room 530 Troy, New York 12180-2216 Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 mds02 at health.state.ny.us IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. From hreynolds at energysolutions.com Tue Jul 1 10:46:59 2008 From: hreynolds at energysolutions.com (Harry Reynolds) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:46:59 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing In-Reply-To: <20080701145232.F099E190DBF@mailscan.energysolutions.com> References: <200807010129.m611T4gv026046@pony1.health.state.ny.us> <20080701145232.F099E190DBF@mailscan.energysolutions.com> Message-ID: <6638FFB91C092D43BA515FC6E5ACB1268B2F4E@esclexch1.energysolutions.com> Examples: "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station" "Atomic Energy Commission" etc. Harry Reynolds Clive Site Health Physics ENERGYSOLUTIONS 801-649-2219 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael D. Soucie Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:32 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Franz, I think you are wrong. Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? Mike Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist State of New York, Department of Health Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection 547 River Street, Room 530 Troy, New York 12180-2216 Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 mds02 at health.state.ny.us IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 11:51:13 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 11:51:13 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing In-Reply-To: <6638FFB91C092D43BA515FC6E5ACB1268B2F4E@esclexch1.energysolutions.com> References: <200807010129.m611T4gv026046@pony1.health.state.ny.us> <20080701145232.F099E190DBF@mailscan.energysolutions.com> <6638FFB91C092D43BA515FC6E5ACB1268B2F4E@esclexch1.energysolutions.com> Message-ID: <01c201c8db9a$ad3d6e70$07b84b50$@com> There is, of course: The International Atomic Energy Agency. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Harry Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10:47 AM To: Michael D. Soucie; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Examples: "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station" "Atomic Energy Commission" etc. Harry Reynolds Clive Site Health Physics ENERGYSOLUTIONS 801-649-2219 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael D. Soucie Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:32 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Franz, I think you are wrong. Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? Mike Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) Associate Radiological Health Specialist State of New York, Department of Health Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection 547 River Street, Room 530 Troy, New York 12180-2216 Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 mds02 at health.state.ny.us IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ _______________________________________________ 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/ From cooperc at teleport.com Tue Jul 1 16:13:03 2008 From: cooperc at teleport.com (Chuck Cooper) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:13:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Message-ID: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Good Afternoon, I recently came across a container of Samarium(-40 mesh, 99% trace metals basis). It is unopened. It has a radioactive symbol on it. Does anyone have any information on this material. I know it is a flammable solid. Any thoughts on disposal would also be appreciated? Should it go out as RAM? NORM? Hazardous? Anybody know what EU RAM symbol means? Thanks Dave David J. McDonough, MS, CHMM Hazardous Waste Manager Chemical Hygiene Officer Temple University Environmental Health & Radiation Safety 3307 N. Broad Street, Room B-49 Phila. PA 19140 Office-215-707-0109 Fax-215-707-1600 Cell-215-768-1928 Pager-215-691-0204 Web-www.temple.edu/ehs From csimmons at athompsonlaw.com Tue Jul 1 17:02:21 2008 From: csimmons at athompsonlaw.com (Charlie Simmons) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:02:21 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium In-Reply-To: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <707FEFE89C842E44B34EEE5964D1581318F6F8@file-srv.Thompson.local> Greetings: This issue recently came up in the context of a natural samarium compound. First, if the Sm in issue is a non-natural isotope (Sm-151, for example) then it is likely a "byproduct material" subject to regulation by US NRC or Agreement States. Second, if "natural" - then it is a "NORM" material. Samarium is a rare earth element that naturally occurs as a combination of five stable and three unstable (radioactive) isotopes. The radioactive isotopes of samarium include Sm-147 at a natural abundance of 15% and which undergoes alpha decay with a very long (approximately 106 billion year) half-life. The two other radioactive isotopes, Sm-148 at a natural abundance of 11% and half-life of 8,000 trillion years and Sm-149 at an abundance of 14% and half-life of 10,000 trillion years have such exceedingly slow rates of decay that they are 100,000 times less radioactive than Sm-147, and for all practical purposes, are essentially indistinguishable from stable, non-radioactive isotopes. The specific activity of Sm-147 is 2.3 E-8 Ci/g (23,000 pCi/g or 851 Bq/g) and at its natural abundance in samarium of 15%, pure samarium would be expected to have a specific activity of 127 Bq/g (3450 pCi/g). Natural Sm is not regulated by NRC (or Agreement States) because it is not "source, byproduct or special nuclear" material. Conceivably, natural Sm could be regulated by a State pursuant to NORM regulations, but that depends on the State and how the regulations are drafted. The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations governing Class 7 (radioactive) hazardous materials exclude the following materials from the scope of regulation: "Natural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides which are not intended to be processed for use of these radionuclides, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the values specified in ? 173.436." 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4). The Table in ?173.436 identifies 1.0 E1 Bq/g (10 Bq/g) as the activity concentration for exempt material for Sm-147, so natural samarium would be outside the scope of DOT regulations provided it does not exceed 10 x 10 = 100 Bq/g. Depending on the quantity of Sm in your container, and assuming it is, in fact, natural samarium, then it could be subject to DOT regulations - probably as LSA-1 Class 7 (radioactive) material when offered for transportation or transported. I can offer no opinion on the meaning of the EU RAM symbol - however, I believe the trefoil symbol is universally adopted pursuant to IAEA's TS-R-1 transportation regulations. Please advise if this understanding is incorrect. Regards, Charlie Simmons -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Chuck Cooper Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:13 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Good Afternoon, I recently came across a container of Samarium(-40 mesh, 99% trace metals basis). It is unopened. It has a radioactive symbol on it. Does anyone have any information on this material. I know it is a flammable solid. Any thoughts on disposal would also be appreciated? Should it go out as RAM? NORM? Hazardous? Anybody know what EU RAM symbol means? Thanks Dave David J. McDonough, MS, CHMM Hazardous Waste Manager Chemical Hygiene Officer Temple University Environmental Health & Radiation Safety 3307 N. Broad Street, Room B-49 Phila. PA 19140 Office-215-707-0109 Fax-215-707-1600 Cell-215-768-1928 Pager-215-691-0204 Web-www.temple.edu/ehs _______________________________________________ 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/ From john.p.jones at usu.edu Tue Jul 1 17:29:29 2008 From: john.p.jones at usu.edu (John Jones) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:29:29 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium In-Reply-To: <707FEFE89C842E44B34EEE5964D1581318F6F8@file-srv.Thompson.local> References: <14402962.1214946783772.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <707FEFE89C842E44B34EEE5964D1581318F6F8@file-srv.Thompson.local> Message-ID: <91F7ACE96B883549BB063A1F576C2AE107D95AB1D5@exchg-be04.aggies.usu.edu> We also discovered a small bottle of Samarium a couple months back, and arrived at the same conclusions as Charlie. We took a conservative approach and added it to our long-lived waste stream. John ---------------- John P. Jones Radiation Safety Utah State Univ. (435) 797 - 2888 john.p.jones AT usu.edu http://www.ehs.usu.edu -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Charlie Simmons Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:02 PM To: Chuck Cooper; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Greetings: This issue recently came up in the context of a natural samarium compound. First, if the Sm in issue is a non-natural isotope (Sm-151, for example) then it is likely a "byproduct material" subject to regulation by US NRC or Agreement States. Second, if "natural" - then it is a "NORM" material. Samarium is a rare earth element that naturally occurs as a combination of five stable and three unstable (radioactive) isotopes. The radioactive isotopes of samarium include Sm-147 at a natural abundance of 15% and which undergoes alpha decay with a very long (approximately 106 billion year) half-life. The two other radioactive isotopes, Sm-148 at a natural abundance of 11% and half-life of 8,000 trillion years and Sm-149 at an abundance of 14% and half-life of 10,000 trillion years have such exceedingly slow rates of decay that they are 100,000 times less radioactive than Sm-147, and for all practical purposes, are essentially indistinguishable from stable, non-radioactive isotopes. The specific activity of Sm-147 is 2.3 E-8 Ci/g (23,000 pCi/g or 851 Bq/g) and at its natural abundance in samarium of 15%, pure samarium would be expected to have a specific activity of 127 Bq/g (3450 pCi/g). Natural Sm is not regulated by NRC (or Agreement States) because it is not "source, byproduct or special nuclear" material. Conceivably, natural Sm could be regulated by a State pursuant to NORM regulations, but that depends on the State and how the regulations are drafted. The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations governing Class 7 (radioactive) hazardous materials exclude the following materials from the scope of regulation: "Natural material and ores containing naturally occurring radionuclides which are not intended to be processed for use of these radionuclides, provided the activity concentration of the material does not exceed 10 times the values specified in ? 173.436." 49 CFR 173.401(b)(4). The Table in ?173.436 identifies 1.0 E1 Bq/g (10 Bq/g) as the activity concentration for exempt material for Sm-147, so natural samarium would be outside the scope of DOT regulations provided it does not exceed 10 x 10 = 100 Bq/g. Depending on the quantity of Sm in your container, and assuming it is, in fact, natural samarium, then it could be subject to DOT regulations - probably as LSA-1 Class 7 (radioactive) material when offered for transportation or transported. I can offer no opinion on the meaning of the EU RAM symbol - however, I believe the trefoil symbol is universally adopted pursuant to IAEA's TS-R-1 transportation regulations. Please advise if this understanding is incorrect. Regards, Charlie Simmons -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Chuck Cooper Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 5:13 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Disposal of Samarium Good Afternoon, I recently came across a container of Samarium(-40 mesh, 99% trace metals basis). It is unopened. It has a radioactive symbol on it. Does anyone have any information on this material. I know it is a flammable solid. Any thoughts on disposal would also be appreciated? Should it go out as RAM? NORM? Hazardous? Anybody know what EU RAM symbol means? Thanks Dave David J. McDonough, MS, CHMM Hazardous Waste Manager Chemical Hygiene Officer Temple University Environmental Health & Radiation Safety 3307 N. Broad Street, Room B-49 Phila. PA 19140 Office-215-707-0109 Fax-215-707-1600 Cell-215-768-1928 Pager-215-691-0204 Web-www.temple.edu/ehs _______________________________________________ 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/ From efforrer at aol.com Tue Jul 1 18:00:47 2008 From: efforrer at aol.com (efforrer at aol.com) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:00:47 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] LLRW Waste minimization Message-ID: <8CAA9E56F188581-98C-7A1@webmail-nc15.sysops.aol.com> I am Putting together a presentation on LLRW minimization.? I thought I wuld pick the collective brain on the topic.? I was hoping some of you might have some interesting methods of reduction you would share. Gene Forrer ARSO UCSC From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 1 20:00:47 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] LLRW Waste minimization Message-ID: <388971.55807.qm@web80807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Although my experience was at a nuclear power plant, some of this may be helpful.? There are three major types of programs: 1.? Keep the waste from being generated.? You have to take a close look at your processes.? Sometimes, unnecessary materials are brought into the restricted area.? For example, packaging materials should be removed from materials before they enter the restricted area, if feasible.? Sometimes, disposable equipment can be replaced with reusable equipment.? In some cases unneeded radioactive materials are being ordered, just because it's "what we always do."? You will need the help of the users for this. 2.? Waste reduction technologies should be used, when feasible, such as compaction or incineration.? If you wish to incinerate LLRW, check with the incinerator operator to determine accepted and prohibited materials.? Try to have waste generators use disposable materials that are incinerable. 3.? You may have material which may be clean, but has to be handled as LLRW since it's been used in the restricted area.? Some waste processors will accept this material for monitoring and sorting.? The clean material can be sent to a nonradioctive landfill, which saves big $$$. Bill Lipton It's not about dose it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: "efforrer at aol.com" To: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 7:00:47 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] LLRW Waste minimization I am Putting together a presentation on LLRW minimization.? I thought I wuld pick the collective brain on the topic.? I was hoping some of you might have some interesting methods of reduction you would share. Gene Forrer ARSO UCSC _______________________________________________ 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 21:20:54 2008 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] ALARA In-Reply-To: <062420082340.3748.486185FC0009D44E00000EA42215561264B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Message-ID: <542676.98906.qm@web54305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> At the NCRP meeting an NRC presentative indicated that they were not going to eliminate there ALARA requirements in their regulations.? So it goes. ? I thought that it was interesting?when the monitor at one question session told Ted Rockwell that if he did not a valid question of the panel to sit down.? Sad but true. ? Sorry you could not make it Dr. Long. +++++++++++++++++++ -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com --- On Tue, 6/24/08, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net wrote: From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA To: NeilKeeney at aol.com, radsafe at radlab.nl Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:40 PM ALARA Supporters, You have strong help from Ted Rockwell in, Creating the New World: Stories and Images from the Dawn of the Atomic Age. Therein, Ted relates the value of submariner perfectionism in selling and making the first nuclear power plants safely. However, now that instrumentation and evidence that up to 20 rem/year actually promotes longevity and reduces cancer, isn't it time to draw that line? Prompt energy increase depends on it. All would agree that great pains must be taken to assure there is no repeat of Chernobyl. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: NeilKeeney at aol.com > > Gary or Joe et al: > > In direct response to your question, we unquestionably 'get something' from > ALARA. I've primarily been associated with planning and implementation of > major projects at commercial nuclear facilities around the country for the last > couple of decades. My observations and conclusions closely align with what > Dr. Lipton has indicated. > > To take it a couple of steps further, the depth and degree of planning and > preparation necessary to achieve some of the key objectives of ALARA, which, > in the aggregate result in reduced collective dose may be summarized in a few > points: > 1. There is generally less rework necessary to be performed across our > major project tasks because: > > a. We have workable plans that were compelled to be developed in detail > in part as the result of ALARA considerations. Some of these go so far as to > specify the exact tools, parts and pieces necessary to perform the work. In > some cases they call for backup equipment or components. These variables are > based on the lessons-learned for the activity. I have often observed, in > the 'old' days, a work group exiting the work areas because they had the wrong > bolt, forgot a wrench, the tool broke, the wrong gasket; on and on. That > doesn't happen anymore at a facility with a good ALARA program. It simply > results in greater efficiency all around which, in turn, optimizes the activity > in terms of collective dose expenditure. > > b. We have superior scheduling that takes into consideration work > sequences that result in avoiding unnecessary exposure. For example, if it > were not > for the ALARA concept, there would be nothing preventing any particular > project management team from draining the Steam Generator shell of secondary > water (shielding) thus exposing the workforce to 30,000 manhours of increased > dose-rates on the order of 2 - 3 times that of a filled shell. An extreme > example but I've seen the results of premature drain-down. > > c. Via this concept, we have been able to reconcile internal and external > exposure via TEDE ALARA precepts. This took thousands of people out of > respirators and also greatly increased worker efficiency and, therefore > improved > production making us more reliable as an industry. This also compelled > advances in the use and utility of engineering controls for ventilation and > Containment At The Source concepts for contamination control. > > 2. Enhanced proficiency in performing difficult or complex tasks - > previously discussed. There's nothing like achieving greater reality on the > scope > and magnitude of one's part in a complex task. It's a drill of the technique > and methodology and is consistent with other such practices across our > society. This is how a process is debugged prior to actual execution and it's > a > valuable element of reducing or avoiding dose. > > I have observed the improvements across our industry first-hand. Work > implementation used to be carried out in a cavalier fashion without respect to > collective dose. Rework was routine. Schedules ignored shielding > installation, > work group interferences with one another, or water level management > techniques (in PWRs). Workers were worked until they maxed-out on dose and > then you > got another guy and did the same with him. It was pretty ugly. > > Well. These are a few viewpoints about the matter. There are many more but > I've been accused in the past of being too verbose so I will leave it at > this for now. > > Neil Keeney > NRRPT > Currently at CR3 SGRP > > > In a message dated 6/23/2008 6:43:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: > > Bill, > > Did Alara produce the successful facility, or did the successful > facility produce doses that were Alara? > > In other words, if you went into a "dirty" plant and made them > implement Alara, would the plant become a model facility? Or would it > still be "dirty" wherever scrutiny was lacking? I agree that the > correlation you recall exists, but I strongly doubt that Alara is the > causative factor. > > Unless you are willing to insist that Alara is a causative factor, > your concluding statement is unfounded. I assert that the well run > facilities you recall would have been just as well run (perhaps > better) if Alara had never been conceived, had never been made a part > of the compliance requirement. > > So I'm back to this: Do we get anything from ALARA that we could not > have just by writing clear regs? > > And, this is the last I will post on this issue. I am so busy keeping > things Alara that I have no more time to think about whether this is a > good policy. :P > > -Gary Isenhower > > > > > > > > > **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for > fuel-efficient used cars. > (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From crispy_bird at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 21:36:20 2008 From: crispy_bird at yahoo.com (John Jacobus) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 19:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <053120081608.7483.4841781A0005307D00001D3B221652585609020104D20B9D0E990108@comcast.net> Message-ID: <61955.53033.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dr. Long, Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.? As a physician, I would think you knew what it meant.? ? But I have always been fasicinate with your lack of knowledge.? +++++++++++++++++++ -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com --- On Sat, 5/31/08, howard.long at comcast.net wrote: From: howard.long at comcast.net Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de, garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl Date: Saturday, May 31, 2008, 12:08 PM Evidence of protection from teratogenesis by many times usual background radiation should be added to Ranier's excellent but brief discussion of teratogenesis (genetic disease). "- congenital heart malformations -1.5 cases per 1,000 - under 19. " [10,000 persons 9-20 years in Taiwan apts averaged 0.4Sv from Co60 in construction steel] "-official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalance rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. [in other local population] - it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure." Is Chronic Radiation An Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? Chen WL,Luan YC et al J Am Physicians and Surgeons 9:1 Spring 2004 and www.aapsonline.org Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: > Gary and all, > > to add some more relevant facts ? relevant also with respect to radiation > protection ? to this somewhat confusing ? or in part obfuscated ? exchange: > > Environmental toxins affect either cells of the soma or of the germ-line > yielding somatic or genetic sequelae. Soma and germ-line constitute an > exhaustive and mutually exclusive partition of the cells of higher metazoa. > > Somatic effects affect the exposed individual. Genetic effects are imprinted to > the genome (possibly including the epi-genom) of germ-line cells and thereby > become transmitted to the F1. Non-lethal, genetic effects accumulate in an > exposed population leading to the ? so far - about 3000 known hereditary > diseases in humans. > > Effects to the progeny of exposures between conception and birth can be somatic > and genetic again. Genetic effects in utero again become manifest not until the > next, the F2, generation. > > Somatic effects to progeny of exposures in utero result in untoward outcomes > such as stillbirth, premature birth, or teratogenesis (malformations) such as > spina bifida or microencephaly. Teratogenesis, i.e., ? the disturbed growth > processes involved in the production of a malformed neonate? results from > irregular timing or incomplete sequences of organogenesis due to stimuli from > the environment ? which includes the maternal organism. > > Addressing the business of radsafe by turning to ionizing radiation as an > environmental toxin, the findings from the most important exposure of human > populations, i.e., the survivors of the atomic bombings demonstrate that this so > far most severe exposure did not yield any measurable genetic effect in the F1 > generation. Concerning teratogenesis, fetuses exposed in a period between 8 to > about 15 weeks after gestation showed few incidences of microencephaly as the > only teratogenic sequela from the atomic bombing. Importantly, the corresponding > dose effect relation ? crudely as it could be determined ? displayed the > hallmark of deterministic radiation effects, i.e., a more or less marked dose > threshold below which no effects will ensue. Given this empirical data base, the > claim that radiation from depleted uranium can engender genetic or teratogenic > health effects at the exposures in question must be relegated to the realm of > science fiction. > > Regards, Rainer > > Off topic: From the perspective of the conceptus/fetus the statistically largest > environmental risk of irregular organogenesis and an untoward outcome of a > pregnancy nowadays stems from the mental constitution of the maternal organism ? > in particular if the fetus carries two X chromosomes. > > ----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of garyi at trinityphysics.com > Sent: Fri 30.05.2008 19:22 > To: radsafelist > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] teratogenesis can be pre-utero > > Statements like this show that James is not competent to debate this issue. > When you get > caught with your pants down like this, especially when it is pointed out gently > as Rainer has > done, the correct response is to admit the blunder. Instead, James (whatever > his name is > right now) pretends to be absolutely correct. > > -Gary Isenhower > > On 30 May 2008 at 6:34, James Salsman wrote: > > > Dear Dr. Facius, > > > > Thank you for your message: > > > > >... teratogenesis by definition refers to effects > > > engendered IN UTERO.... > > > > On the contrary, any damage to spermatogonium, oogonium, oocyte, > > ootid, or ovum chromosomes prior to folliculogenesis may also result > > in congenital malformations. _______________________________________________ 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/ From howard.long at comcast.net Wed Jul 2 11:36:04 2008 From: howard.long at comcast.net (howard.long at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:36:04 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ALARA Message-ID: <070220081636.6895.486BAE740001D5B500001AEF221655799609020104D20B9D0E990108@comcast.net> If NCRP did reject Rockwell as Jacobus writes, its incest of ideas misapplies Rockwell's (and others') classic shielding data (which is still a guide for ALARA). Insofar as NCRP meetings may be for self-perpetuation, we learn more from Rockwell and others who actually did the tests and present data (instead of ignorant edicts). Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: John Jacobus > At the NCRP meeting an NRC presentative indicated that they were not going to > eliminate there ALARA requirements in their regulations. So it goes. > > I thought that it was interesting when the monitor at one question session told > Ted Rockwell that if he did not a valid question of the panel to sit down. Sad > but true. > > Sorry you could not make it Dr. Long. > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > --- On Tue, 6/24/08, HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net wrote: > > From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA > To: NeilKeeney at aol.com, radsafe at radlab.nl > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 7:40 PM > > ALARA Supporters, > You have strong help from Ted Rockwell in, > Creating the New World: Stories and Images from the Dawn of the Atomic Age. > Therein, Ted relates the value of submariner perfectionism in selling and > making the first nuclear power plants safely. > > However, now that instrumentation and evidence that up to 20 rem/year actually > promotes longevity and reduces cancer, isn't it time to draw that line? > Prompt energy increase depends on it. > All would agree that great pains must be taken to assure there is no repeat of > Chernobyl. > > Howard Long > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: NeilKeeney at aol.com > > > > > Gary or Joe et al: > > > > In direct response to your question, we unquestionably 'get > something' from > > ALARA. I've primarily been associated with planning and implementation > of > > major projects at commercial nuclear facilities around the country for the > last > > couple of decades. My observations and conclusions closely align with what > > > Dr. Lipton has indicated. > > > > To take it a couple of steps further, the depth and degree of planning and > > > preparation necessary to achieve some of the key objectives of ALARA, > which, > > in the aggregate result in reduced collective dose may be summarized in a > few > > points: > > 1. There is generally less rework necessary to be performed across our > > major project tasks because: > > > > a. We have workable plans that were compelled to be developed in detail > > in part as the result of ALARA considerations. Some of these go so far as > to > > specify the exact tools, parts and pieces necessary to perform the work. > In > > some cases they call for backup equipment or components. These variables > are > > based on the lessons-learned for the activity. I have often observed, in > > the 'old' days, a work group exiting the work areas because they > had the wrong > > bolt, forgot a wrench, the tool broke, the wrong gasket; on and on. That > > doesn't happen anymore at a facility with a good ALARA program. It > simply > > results in greater efficiency all around which, in turn, optimizes the > activity > > in terms of collective dose expenditure. > > > > b. We have superior scheduling that takes into consideration work > > sequences that result in avoiding unnecessary exposure. For example, if it > > > were not > > for the ALARA concept, there would be nothing preventing any particular > > project management team from draining the Steam Generator shell of > secondary > > water (shielding) thus exposing the workforce to 30,000 manhours of > increased > > dose-rates on the order of 2 - 3 times that of a filled shell. An extreme > > example but I've seen the results of premature drain-down. > > > > c. Via this concept, we have been able to reconcile internal and external > > exposure via TEDE ALARA precepts. This took thousands of people out of > > respirators and also greatly increased worker efficiency and, therefore > > improved > > production making us more reliable as an industry. This also compelled > > advances in the use and utility of engineering controls for ventilation > and > > Containment At The Source concepts for contamination control. > > > > 2. Enhanced proficiency in performing difficult or complex tasks - > > previously discussed. There's nothing like achieving greater reality > on the > > scope > > and magnitude of one's part in a complex task. It's a drill of the > technique > > and methodology and is consistent with other such practices across our > > society. This is how a process is debugged prior to actual execution and > it's > > a > > valuable element of reducing or avoiding dose. > > > > I have observed the improvements across our industry first-hand. Work > > implementation used to be carried out in a cavalier fashion without > respect to > > collective dose. Rework was routine. Schedules ignored shielding > > installation, > > work group interferences with one another, or water level management > > techniques (in PWRs). Workers were worked until they maxed-out on dose and > > > then you > > got another guy and did the same with him. It was pretty ugly. > > > > Well. These are a few viewpoints about the matter. There are many more but > > > I've been accused in the past of being too verbose so I will leave it > at > > this for now. > > > > Neil Keeney > > NRRPT > > Currently at CR3 SGRP > > > > > > In a message dated 6/23/2008 6:43:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: > > > > Bill, > > > > Did Alara produce the successful facility, or did the successful > > facility produce doses that were Alara? > > > > In other words, if you went into a "dirty" plant and made them > > implement Alara, would the plant become a model facility? Or would it > > still be "dirty" wherever scrutiny was lacking? I agree that the > > > correlation you recall exists, but I strongly doubt that Alara is the > > causative factor. > > > > Unless you are willing to insist that Alara is a causative factor, > > your concluding statement is unfounded. I assert that the well run > > facilities you recall would have been just as well run (perhaps > > better) if Alara had never been conceived, had never been made a part > > of the compliance requirement. > > > > So I'm back to this: Do we get anything from ALARA that we could not > > have just by writing clear regs? > > > > And, this is the last I will post on this issue. I am so busy keeping > > things Alara that I have no more time to think about whether this is a > > good policy. :P > > > > -Gary Isenhower > > > > > > > > > > > From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 2 12:06:39 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:06:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FYI Message-ID: <001b01c8dc66$00617120$cc4481ac@your4dacd0ea75> >From Glasstone's "Sourcebook of Atomic Energy": "Since the energy of fission is actually due to a decrease of nuclear mass, resulting from a rearrangement of protons and neutrons, it should strictly be called nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the general, historical name "atomic energy", which is widely used, although not quite so precise, is justifiable because the nucleus is part of the atom" The term "atomic energy" was coined at least 20 years before the neutron was even postulated, and 30 years before it was demonstrated to exist. By the same definition, strictly speaking, all chemical reactions involve atoms ( or molecules) are also "atomic" . A reaction to do with only the nucleus is nuclear. To the person who mentioned me as "a person supposedly living on selling used equipment" , you forgot to mention that I also design, manufacture, test, repair and calibrate radiological equipment, both meters and probes. Yes I am happy being merely a meter swinger. George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab From joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil Wed Jul 2 12:33:55 2008 From: joel.baumbaugh at navy.mil (Baumbaugh, Joel SPAWAR) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:33:55 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FYI In-Reply-To: <001b01c8dc66$00617120$cc4481ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <7DB6DF83D2CD9140ADA0622B1A05BF2F0676D320@nawespscez02> George, I enjoy your postings. Joel Baumbaugh SPAWARSYSCEN San Diego -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF To the person who mentioned me as "a person supposedly living on selling used equipment" , you forgot to mention that I also design, manufacture, test, repair and calibrate radiological equipment, both meters and probes. Yes I am happy being merely a meter swinger. From Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu Tue Jul 1 11:48:27 2008 From: Tom_Johnston at nymc.edu (Johnston, Thomas) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:48:27 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODE Magazine Message-ID: Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have beneficial effects at very low doses. By Ursula Sautter http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ Tom From muckerheide at comcast.net Tue Jul 1 17:53:17 2008 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:53:17 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Bomb Testing Message-ID: Mike, Since you didn't link to the original msg, we can only guess what you are referring to. :-) However, if it's Franz' msg: "George, could you please enlighten a dumb or probably mentally retarded person like me, what your definitions are based upon? They seem to be your private ones and you obviously expect that the whole world "has" to accept them, because you are such an incredible eminent scientist. We have to overthrow all our well established wording in nuclear sciences, just because a person supposedly living on selling used equipment wants to have it his own way." He's right, although you need to go to his earlier msg to get his more specific criticism of George?s terminology. It?s George's ?private definitions? that are "wrong," or at least not recognized by any atomic/nuclear semantic convention applicable to the last 60 years re atomic/nuclear bombs/power plants, etc. And you agree with Franz about the semantics also; just not who?s error it was. :-) And combustion/chemical reactions are really molecular, not "atomic" even under the stressed definition of erroneously calling them "atomic" (as chemical) vs. "nuclear" reactions. Such chemical reactions change molecular bonds, not atoms. Regards, Jim on 7/1/08 10:32 AM, Michael D. Soucie at mds02 at health.state.ny.us wrote: > Franz, > > I think you are wrong. > > Today we refer to all weapons/devices which use energy from fission or > fusion of the nucleus as nuclear weapons/devices. We get it, enough said. > > However, back in the 1940's, it was said the world had entered the "Atomic > Age". Bombs were called "Atomic Bombs" and "A-Bombs" and then another one > was developed and was called the "H-Bomb." It just was. Countries other > than the United States may have given these issues less press. Were these > terms technically misleading or inaccurate? Perhaps. However, this is a > matter of historical fact, which cannot be changed by any subsequent > physics courses, textbooks or verbal convention. I would guess that you > have seen other examples in your travels of Circa 1940s-1950s "Nuclear" > being referred to as "Atomic" ( ie: Atomic Testing Museum )? > > Mike > > > > Michael Soucie, MS, R.T.(n) > Associate Radiological Health Specialist > State of New York, Department of Health > Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection > 547 River Street, Room 530 > Troy, New York 12180-2216 > Phone (518) 402-7556 Fax (518) 402-7554 > mds02 at health.state.ny.us > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or > sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise > protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the > addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not > authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any > attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete > this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From muckerheide at comcast.net Wed Jul 2 00:41:09 2008 From: muckerheide at comcast.net (Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:41:09 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <61955.53033.qm@web54302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: John, You misread Howard's statement; and you seem to misunderstand the basic biology: 1. On the biology, see, e.g.: http://www.rwjuh.edu/health_information/centers_pregnancy_typegene.html ?What are the types of genetic disease? The following are the different types of genetic diseases: -chromosomal abnormalities -single gene defects -multifactorial problems -teratogenic problems? 2. But Howard?s statement said nothing about that. He referred to the fact that LDR results in lower birth defect rates. It does this (essentially equivalent to reducing tumors) by enhancing the normal capacity for error-free cellular repair and removal. At the 2- to 4-cell embryo stage (1-3 days in humans) there is increased miscarriage as a result of limitations on cell-society capacity to organize cell removal/replacement. This results in fewer birth defects. (This is pre-implantation stage.) Regards, Jim ========= on 7/1/08 10:36 PM, John Jacobus at crispy_bird at yahoo.com wrote: > Dr. Long, > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.? As a physician, I > would think you knew what it meant.? > ? > But I have always been fasicinate with your lack of knowledge.? > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > -- John > John Jacobus, MS > Certified Health Physicist > e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com > > --- On Sat, 5/31/08, howard.long at comcast.net wrote: > > From: howard.long at comcast.net > Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from > much teratogenesis > To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de, garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl > Date: Saturday, May 31, 2008, 12:08 PM > > Evidence of protection from teratogenesis by many times usual background > radiation > should be added to Ranier's excellent but brief discussion of > teratogenesis (genetic disease). > > "- congenital heart malformations -1.5 cases per 1,000 - under 19. " > [10,000 persons 9-20 years in Taiwan apts averaged 0.4Sv from Co60 in > construction steel] > "-official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalance rate of > congenital malformation is > 23 cases per 1,000 children. [in other local population] > - it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with > this chronic radiation exposure." > Is Chronic Radiation An Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? Chen WL,Luan YC > et al > J Am Physicians and Surgeons 9:1 Spring 2004 and www.aapsonline.org > > Howard Long > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: > >> Gary and all, >> >> to add some more relevant facts ? relevant also with respect to > radiation >> protection ? to this somewhat confusing ? or in part obfuscated ? > exchange: >> >> Environmental toxins affect either cells of the soma or of the germ-line >> yielding somatic or genetic sequelae. Soma and germ-line constitute an >> exhaustive and mutually exclusive partition of the cells of higher > metazoa. >> >> Somatic effects affect the exposed individual. Genetic effects are > imprinted to >> the genome (possibly including the epi-genom) of germ-line cells and > thereby >> become transmitted to the F1. Non-lethal, genetic effects accumulate in an > >> exposed population leading to the ? so far - about 3000 known hereditary > >> diseases in humans. >> >> Effects to the progeny of exposures between conception and birth can be > somatic >> and genetic again. Genetic effects in utero again become manifest not > until the >> next, the F2, generation. >> >> Somatic effects to progeny of exposures in utero result in untoward > outcomes >> such as stillbirth, premature birth, or teratogenesis (malformations) such > as >> spina bifida or microencephaly. Teratogenesis, i.e., ? the disturbed > growth >> processes involved in the production of a malformed neonate? results > from >> irregular timing or incomplete sequences of organogenesis due to stimuli > from >> the environment ? which includes the maternal organism. >> >> Addressing the business of radsafe by turning to ionizing radiation as an >> environmental toxin, the findings from the most important exposure of > human >> populations, i.e., the survivors of the atomic bombings demonstrate that > this so >> far most severe exposure did not yield any measurable genetic effect in > the F1 >> generation. Concerning teratogenesis, fetuses exposed in a period between > 8 to >> about 15 weeks after gestation showed few incidences of microencephaly as > the >> only teratogenic sequela from the atomic bombing. Importantly, the > corresponding >> dose effect relation ? crudely as it could be determined ? displayed > the >> hallmark of deterministic radiation effects, i.e., a more or less marked > dose >> threshold below which no effects will ensue. Given this empirical data > base, the >> claim that radiation from depleted uranium can engender genetic or > teratogenic >> health effects at the exposures in question must be relegated to the realm > of >> science fiction. >> >> Regards, Rainer >> >> Off topic: From the perspective of the conceptus/fetus the statistically > largest >> environmental risk of irregular organogenesis and an untoward outcome of a > >> pregnancy nowadays stems from the mental constitution of the maternal > organism ? >> in particular if the fetus carries two X chromosomes. >> >> ----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of garyi at trinityphysics.com >> Sent: Fri 30.05.2008 19:22 >> To: radsafelist >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] teratogenesis can be pre-utero >> >> Statements like this show that James is not competent to debate this > issue. >> When you get >> caught with your pants down like this, especially when it is pointed out > gently >> as Rainer has >> done, the correct response is to admit the blunder. Instead, James > (whatever >> his name is >> right now) pretends to be absolutely correct. >> >> -Gary Isenhower >> >> On 30 May 2008 at 6:34, James Salsman wrote: >> >>> Dear Dr. Facius, >>> >>> Thank you for your message: >>> >>>> ... teratogenesis by definition refers to effects >>>> engendered IN UTERO.... >>> >>> On the contrary, any damage to spermatogonium, oogonium, oocyte, >>> ootid, or ovum chromosomes prior to folliculogenesis may also result >>> in congenital malformations. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 15:39:28 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:39:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Message-ID: John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Wed Jul 2 17:00:31 2008 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:00:31 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger " Message-ID: Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger Tribune Editorial Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose of their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week. Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each category to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open the door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the more dangerous waste classifications. The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how you mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. The Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the Legislature has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after 100 years. Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven private company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that produce them. Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation very closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to rewrite the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite the law to ban blended waste from the state. ================================================== From garyi at trinityphysics.com Wed Jul 2 17:54:56 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:54:56 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <486BC0F0.5422.5F91D8D@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I too had a pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you would technically be right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in previous messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. You would do well to pay more attention to those messages. However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to ignore me and stick with that if you want. -Gary Isenhower On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 2 19:28:32 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:28:32 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702182206.009f0060@mail.swcp.com> July 2 James you certainly (seem to) know a lot about all this stuff. Why don't you do us all a great big favor and post your CV here? We'd love to read the details of your education and knowledge. Please include a list of all the refereed papers you have published, along with full citations to them. Thank you for your prompt and full cooperation. Steven Dapra At 01:39 PM 7/2/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >John Jacobus wrote: > > > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. > >That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. > >James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 2 19:37:19 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:37:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <486BC0F0.5422.5F91D8D@garyi.trinityphysics.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702183153.009f4ec0@mail.swcp.com> July 2 I can remember James calling himself Ben on a regular basis. DIdn't he also hide behind the name Dave for a short time? How about it James --- or do you remember all your fake names? (I can hardly wait to read your CV.) Referring to James' snippy reply, and from a precise and medical standpoint, is a genetic disease the same thing as a heritable defect? Steven Dapra At 05:54 PM 7/2/08 -0500, garyi at trinityphysics.com wrote: >Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I >too had a >pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. > >You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you >would technically be >right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in >previous messages >reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several >people have hinted to >you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your >cause. You would do >well to pay more attention to those messages. > >However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to >ignore me and stick >with that if you want. > >-Gary Isenhower > > >On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: > >[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] > >John Jacobus wrote: > > > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. > >That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. > >James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 20:43:19 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:43:19 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Message-ID: Thank you for writing, Gary, > your usage of the term ["Teratogenesis"? "Teratogens"?] in previous > messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble. We saw how studies in 1952 and 1953 showed that a single acute dose of a uranyl compound is a reproductive toxin. I believe that you have congratulated him in multiple messages up to his admission that he was in the wrong. Why would anyone approve of his position? However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. > Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a > teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity? --- forwarded message --- [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 3 00:54:56 CEST 2008 Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I too had a pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you would technically be right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in previous messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. You would do well to pay more attention to those messages. However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to ignore me and stick with that if you want. -Gary Isenhower On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 2 21:37:40 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 21:37:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a701c8dcb5$c3da15e0$4b8e41a0$@rr.com> << Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. >> I thought Doug Rokke had that honor. (:-) Bob C -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:43 PM To: garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Thank you for writing, Gary, > your usage of the term ["Teratogenesis"? "Teratogens"?] in previous > messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble. We saw how studies in 1952 and 1953 showed that a single acute dose of a uranyl compound is a reproductive toxin. I believe that you have congratulated him in multiple messages up to his admission that he was in the wrong. Why would anyone approve of his position? However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. > Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a > teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity? --- forwarded message --- [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 3 00:54:56 CEST 2008 Hi James, thought you had faded out. Did you see a few days ago that I too had a pseudonym? I think I was Joe for about 45 minutes. You can split hairs and say that John is technically not correct, and you would technically be right. But that won't change the fact that your usage of the term in previous messages reveals that you have a pretty superficial understanding of it. Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. You would do well to pay more attention to those messages. However, I am enjoying your "Is TOO!" line of argument, so feel free to ignore me and stick with that if you want. -Gary Isenhower On 2 Jul 2008 at 13:39, James Salsman wrote: John Jacobus wrote: > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases. That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 00:15:19 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:15:19 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702231109.009f0ba0@mail.swcp.com> July 2 (Some portions of Salsman's message have been omitted.) James Salsman wrote: ?What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble.? Steven Dapra's comment: Most of this is false. I did not hold out for ?years? about uranyl teratogenicity. When JS and I were disputing about DU in March of 2006, we were not talking about the teratogenicity. I was showing that JS?s quotes of eight papers on DU were quotes that had been manipulated in some way. Earlier this year JS dragged out the teratogenicity of DU. Technically, I was wrong. DU is teratogenic in laboratory mice and rats. Whether or not these results can be applied to humans is at best debatable. I don?t think I ?tried to suggest? that uranyl acetate was different from uranyl oxide. I merely asked the question. James Salsman wrote: ?However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second mostt difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic.? SD's comment: Who cares how difficult it was to obtain this paper? What is ?suburb? information? James Salsman wrote: ?Several people have hinted to you or stated outright that DU as a teratogen is not very helpful to your cause. What do you think my cause is? Some say I am trying to attack the offensive capability of the troops, but I say I am trying to improve their health. I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. Towards those ends, it is obvious to me at least that exploring the details of uranyl teratology and neurotoxicity as well as carcinogenicity. Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years. Are you suggesting that there is some other way to address the issue than to tell the truth about uranyl teratogenicity and neurotoxicity?? SD's comment: Singling out a few of JS's comments: ?I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force.? SD's comment: This sounds somewhat on the self-serving side to me. ?Increasing the likelihood of reproductive health issues in military families makes it harder to recruit and for that and other reasons it's an attack on the military to have weapons that work off the battlefield. This is nothing new, it's been against international law for almost 90 years.? SD's comment: I rather doubt that potential recruits are asking recruiting sergeants about reproductive health ?issues.? My guess is that the armed services and the soldiers want their weapons to work ?off the battlefield.? What good is a rifle, machine gun, or tank that only works on the battlefield? Pretty hard to do any target shooting when your rifle only works when the user is shooting at the enemy. Cite the so-called international laws that you are invoking here. Here is the abstract to the Miller and McClain paper that JS found it to difficult to obtain. Note the qualifier ?suggest the possibility.? For those who want to take the time, if you look up the work ?controversy? you will find that that everything is controversial. Hence, the word doesn?t mean much of anything. ?The use of depleted uranium in armor-penetrating munitions remains a source of controversy because of the numerous unanswered questions about its long-term health effects. Although no conclusive epidemiologic data have correlated DU exposure to specific health effects, studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. Until issues of concern are resolved with further research, the use of depleted uranium by the military will continue to be controversial.? Link and citation: Rev Environ Health. 2007 Jan-Mar;22(1):75-89. Miller, Alexandra and McClain, David. Steven Dapra Interesting aside: Reviews on Environmental Health is published by Freund Publishing House Ltd which is located in Tel Aviv. This is from its web site: ?Freund Publishing House Ltd was founded in 1970 in Tel Aviv, Israel by H.E. Freund. The company is now the largest international publisher of technical and scientific material in Israel. ?Since its inception, Freund Publishing House Ltd has continued to abide by its commitment to customer service and support. ?We publish books and journals on Chemistry, Materials Science and Engineering, Genetics, Endocrinology, Orthopedics, Neuroscience, Psychology, Sociology, Physiology, Pharmacology, and Environment Health, Mathematics, and Education. Also, Children's Books, Judaism, and the Holocaust, as well as Computerized education aids and games in science. Also: Co-publishing, Co-production, Cooperative distribution for new books and journals; and Translation, editing and printing services.? ----- END ----- From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 01:09:28 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:09:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. Dan, How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be rectified. James Salsman From radbloom at comcast.net Thu Jul 3 05:39:02 2008 From: radbloom at comcast.net (Cindy Bloom) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:39:02 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080702231109.009f0ba0@mail.swcp.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20080703063234.037b4b58@mail.comcast.net> Although I know it's a bit off this note's point, I can't help but think that any finding of teratogenicity (or other effect) is linked to some minimal dose in mice and rats, which has yet to be related to the range of uranium doses occurring in humans. Cindy At 11:15 PM 7/2/2008 -0600, Steven Dapra wrote: >July 2 > > (Some portions of Salsman's message have been omitted.) > >James Salsman wrote: > >"What in particular suggested an insufficient understanding of >teratogenicity? Do you remember that Steve Dapra has been holding out for >years against the reality of uranyl teratogenicity? When he finally >admitted he was wrong less than three months ago, he tried to suggest that >uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion >products, uranyl oxide, which is actually far more soluble." > >Steven Dapra's comment: > > Most of this is false. I did not hold out for "years" about > uranyl teratogenicity. When JS and I were disputing about DU in March of > 2006, we were not talking about the teratogenicity. I was showing that > JS's quotes of eight papers on DU were quotes that had been manipulated > in some way. Earlier this year JS dragged out the teratogenicity of > DU. Technically, I was wrong. DU is teratogenic in laboratory mice and > rats. Whether or not these results can be applied to humans is at best > debatable. I don't think I "tried to suggest" that uranyl acetate was > different from uranyl oxide. I merely asked the question. <> From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jul 3 09:25:12 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:25:12 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> James; It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. Thanks and regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. Dan, How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be rectified. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jul 3 09:35:56 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:35:56 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002d01c8dd1a$3922a880$ab67f980$@oilfield.slb.com> James: 1) I am happy that you have obtained a copy of the Miller and McClain paper, that you state contains superb information. Does any of it support your position/ would you be willing to share this with us? 2) You state you were born on an army base. Would you care to elaborate, with the name of the base and in what position your family resided there? I believe you have stated that you were brought up in the Religious Society of Friends, who are by belief pacifists. I therefore assume that if a member of your family was in the army, it was in a non-combat position? Regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman ........ However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. ....... I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 10:28:50 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:28:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> <> James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain James; It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. Thanks and regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. Dan, How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be rectified. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From RodgersJ at Theragenics.com Thu Jul 3 10:36:02 2008 From: RodgersJ at Theragenics.com (Joe Rodgers) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:36:02 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Position Opening Message-ID: Please respond to Karen Pfeifer at pfeiferk at theragenics.com Theragenics Corporation Position Title: Director of Health Physics / Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) Supervisor: Director of Quality Systems & Regulatory Affairs, Dotted Line Reporting to the Chief Executive Officer Primary Contact: Karen Pfeifer, 5203 Bristol Industrial Way, Buford, GA 30518. 770-831-4187 or pfeiferk at theragenics.com. Primary Function: Directs the Corporation's radiation safety program for all personnel, products, and facilities. Serves as the designated Radiation Safety Officer on the Corporation's radioactive material licenses, and is responsible for compliance with the provisions of these licenses and state and federal laws pertaining to the use and shipment of radioactive materials. Serves as the Corporation's primary point of contact and communication with appropriate regulatory agencies. Prepares and submits all amendments, applications, and other required documents and reports related to licenses and sealed source certificates. Identifies potential areas of non-compliance and reports these issues along with corrective actions to the Radiation Safety Committee and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. Identifies and mitigates safety risks through application of ALARA principles. Leads and directs the Health Physics function, including the hiring and development of a competent staff, design and implementation of short- and long-term plans and objectives, implementation of corrective actions to ensure compliance, monitoring of outcomes, and achieving desired results. Develops procedures, systems, and programs required to ensure safe and effective operations. Supports the Radiation Physics function by providing technical oversight of the development of source characterization, and safe practices for sealed sources in development, as well as support of the R&D efforts as requested. Position Duties: 1. Directs the general surveillance over all activities involving radioactive material, including routine monitoring and special surveys of all areas in which radioactive material is used or in which sources of ionizing radiation are present. 2. Determines compliance with rules and regulations, license conditions, and procedures as approved by the Radiation Safety Committee. Such compliance shall ensure completion of safety evaluations of proposed uses of radioactive material that take into consideration such matters as the adequacy of facilities and equipment, the training and experience of the user, and the operating or handling procedures. 3. Directs and reviews the inventory of radioactive sources and materials 4. Directs and reviews survey records 5. Directs the evaluation of user training and work practices 6. Evaluates compliance with the RSC permit and safety manual requirements. 7. Maintains detailed knowledge of the radiation safety systems in all facilities (tanks, HEPAs, alarms, shielding, hot cells, etc.) 8. Furnishes internal consulting services in all aspects of radiation protection to personnel at all levels of responsibility. 9. Directs the receiving, delivering, and inspection of all shipments of radioactive material arriving at the site as well as packaging and shipping all radioactive material leaving the site. 10. Directs the distributing of personnel monitoring equipment, determining the need for and evaluation of bioassays, keeping personnel exposure and bioassay records, and notifying individuals and their supervisors of exposures approaching maximum permissible amounts and recommending appropriate remedial action. 11. Directs the conducting of training programs and otherwise instructing personnel in the proper procedures for the use of radioactive material prior to use, at periodic intervals (refresher training), and as required by changes in procedures, equipment, and regulations. 12. Maintains surveillance over the radioactive waste disposal program and keeping waste storage and disposal records. 13. Maintains surveillance over the storing of all radioactive materials not in current use, including wastes. 14. Maintains the performance of required leak tests on all sealed sources. 15. Maintains surveillance over the inventory of all radioisotopes in the Corporation's possession and limiting the quantity of radionuclides to the amounts authorized by the license. 16. Takes timely actions to address any activity found to be a threat to health or property. 17. Notifies the Chairman, Radiation Protection Committee and/or the CEO of Theragenics Corporation, and the Radioactive Materials Unit of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources of any unsafe radiation hazards or serious infraction of the rules or regulations. 18. Maintains other records as may be required. 19. Interfaces with radiation regulatory bodies regarding audits, inspections, license applications, amendments, and renewals; sealed source certifications and amendments, and other matters. 20. Directs the Company ALARA program. 21. Performs audits of radiation protection programs to determine areas of noncompliance with SOPs and regulatory requirements. Implements corrections to identified problems. 22. Directs the counting of samples with the germanium counting system to determine the quantities of radioisotopes in the samples. Maintains a quality control system to ensure accurate results. Interprets the results to ensure accuracy. 23. Directs the security system established for the gamma sterilizer, including attaining clearances required. Incumbents must submit to and successfully pass the comprehensive criminal history and background checks required to direct the system. Ensures compliance of this system with applicable regulations. Education and Experience: Requires a masters degree in Health Physics, Nuclear Engineering, or related field. Requires ten or more years experience in radiation operations or related functions. Certified Health Physicist, Board Certified Radiological Physicist, and/or Professional Engineer Designations or equivalent training, experience, and education are desirable. Skills: Must have proven leadership or supervisory skills. Must be able to wear PPE, personal dosimeter, and respirator. Must also possess the following skills: 1. Communication, both written and verbal 2. Company, community and professional leadership 3. Management (project, personnel, development) 4. Integration of diverse functions (achieve safety in economic manner) 5. Technical (radiation safety, health physics, shielding) 6. Regulatory (licenses preparation, compliance, procedure) 7. Design management (Q.A., design process development, specifications, etc.) 8. Analysis of radiation effects and radiation related processes Confidentiality: Requires access to company intellectual property to verify design compliance with regulatory radiation safety requirements. Interfaces with NRC, Non-Agreement States, Licensing States, the State of Georgia, and foreign regulatory bodies regarding compliance with licenses, sealed source registrations, or other issues. Establishes licenses to 1) operate radiation producing facilities, 2) to manufacture and distribute sealed sources, 3) to possess radiation, 4) to ship, transport and receive radiation, and 5) to perform related R&D, with domestic (state and NRC) and international/foreign regulatory bodies. Joseph J. Rodgers, M.S. Director of Radiation Physics 770-831-4181 (direct) 770-560-3172 (cell) 770-831-4369 (fax) www.theragenics.com From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 10:50:30 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:50:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: personal note Message-ID: <005a01c8dd24$863dd720$92b98560$@com> Dear James: You never answered my question about the San Luis Valley (SLV) analog. Dan ii -----Original Message----- From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:17 PM To: 'radsafelist' Subject: RE: personal note Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com Dear James: I apologize if you feel that my last comment amounted to an ad hominem attack. Please accept my apologies if you have felt slighted by my comments. I do hope that someday that you will complete your degree and add a host of peer-reviewed publications to your CV. I am keenly aware of your obsession with DU, and also your lack of response to the San Luis Valley (SLV) Analog. Analogs are the basis for comparison and form one of the bases of FEPs (Features, Events & Processes) used to assess among other things, nuclear waste repositories. Analogs also provide a typology for mineral deposits, and provide a formalized recognition criteria for exploration. <> Funny, I thought that the purpose of the RadSafe community was to do exactly that! But placing the source term in contact with a human receptor in the critical group through a multi-pathway mechanism sometimes requires a little more than a "medical" opinion, sometimes (Dear Lord!) it requires a geologist, geochemist and hydrologist who can place relationships and timing around "reasonable" dose estimates. Who complained about geologists, hydrologists and their ilk and Yucca Mountain? Steve, was that you? Don't be shy! <> Is this an attempt to "Bait and Switch?" I try to "fool" no one. There are two aquifers in the SLV: 1) a pressurized flowing, artesian aquifer, and 2) An unconfined surficial aquifer. The pressurized artesian aquifer hosts the uranium targets. These are regional redox fronts located at the change in the depositional environment from braded fluvial / fan to reducing lacustrine through which lots of uranium-bearing water has passed for a long time creating the uranium feature. Anthropogene events, notably the drilling of the first artesian well in the 1880s led to the massive development of the aquifer for agriculture by 1910. Drilling in the vicinity of the redox front allows oxidizing waters to flow across the redox front mobilizing uranium. It's the same idea as in situ leach (ISL) uranium mining. Over the past 100 years, the unconfined, surficial aquifer has become very brackish due to high rates of evapotranspiration and brackish recharge. It is no longer usable as a source of agricultural, livestock or domestic water. The pressurized, artesian SLV water is still used as drinking water. The fact is that once DU or any uranium becomes uranyl, it will begin to percolate downward in the soil column via rainwater, be adsorbed, desorbed, mineralized and demineralized until it reaches equilibrium conditions with the soil, or enters groundwater and no longer be available for runoff. I find it quite significant that in the SLV Analog, groundwater alone accounts for 9X to 18X times the annual flux (per unit area) of uranium entering the soil column when compared to the total in the Iraqi theater, 90X-180X the amount over 10 years, and 900X to 1800X the amount since full irrigation was achieved in the SLV as described by Siebenthal (1910). Siebenthal also identified the redox target (methanogenic / oxidizing) and alteration fronts for my uranium feature that seems to have eluded present day USGS personnel. I'm sure that if uranium had been known in 1910, he would have reported it as well. Ref: Siebenthal, C.E., 1910, Geology and water resources of the San Luis Valley, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 240, 128 p. Once uranium is in groundwater, it will take decades to move a significant distance, and the same processes which occur in soils will be present in the rock media. If the uranium encounters oxidizing conditions, it will be mobile in the absence of vanadium; if it encounters reducing conditions it will precipitate and become mineralized. I remember years ago in Grand Junction I left several hand samples (1 kg each) of organic-rich mixed uraninite & coffinite ores out by the walkway in front of the house. When I returned from the field two weeks later, a significant amount of uranium had oxidized and percolated 10-15 cm down into the soil column based on the clearly observed bright autunite / schoepite secondary color halo underneath the samples. The afternoon thunderstorms had provided enough moisture to complex with and mobilize the oxidized phases. After that, I bagged and canned my field samples in a sealed plastic paint bucket outside. I was quite impressed with the kinetics of the reactions. So, in a desert environment, the normal direction of solute transport in a soil is Down! Down! Down! Lickity-Split! ? la vitesse de la lumi?re! Wie schnell als m?glich! Regarding rainfall-runoff: Years ago I reviewed rainfall-runoff data for the Purgatoire River drainage in SE Colorado for estimating flood frequency and magnitude. The monitoring stations recorded volume of water in the drainages as well as specific conductivity, a measure of the ionic strength of the water. Classically, one would expect a pure dilution effect with rainfall-runoff, but there is one exception: caliche-forming soils with perched aquifers on top of impermeable black shales or limestones where water-soluble minerals (CaSO4-2H2O) were stripped from the surface of the soil and carried into the drainage in the initial runoff. A brief increase in Specific Conductivity could be observed in the data at the beginning of runoff. This is the exception to the rule. Initially, rainfall results in absorption by the soil (e.g. montmorillonite-type selling clays), downward percolation through the soil column until the soil becomes saturated, at which time additional rainfall becomes runoff. In steady state, soil can recharge only a certain amount per unit time of water depending on the hydrologic characteristics of the soil; beyond that runoff occurs. Once stripped of soluble materials, further runoff behaves as pure dilution. One other case: a permeable sandstone will form caliches when saturated to close to the surface. Remember that if the upper capillary fringe extends vertically into the upper soil zone, that portion heated by the sun (upper 5-10 cm), evaporative pumping will commence concentrating very large quantities of dissolved solids on the soil surface. Flood irrigation of a portion of the SLV was engineered this way in the 1910s and 1920s causing many square kilometers of surface to build up Na+CaSO4 caliches making those areas unusable for agriculture. Springs in desert climates sometimes build a rind of caliche around the perimeter of the spring. Reservoirs: There is a lot of chemistry going on in lakes and much depends on the nature of the lake. Is the lake itself is holomictic or meromictic, and if there is a chemocline in the lake? The oil shales in the Piceance basin were formed in a large, arid, salty meromictic lake with a strong redox & briny chemocline that precipitated uranium within the water column, at the interface with the highly methanogenic, reducing water in the lower portion of the lake. The sediments were punctuated by periodic limnic eruptions. In holomictic lakes, the sediments at the bottom of the lake are usually reducing and fixate uranium circulated in the oxidizing waters. Circulation occurs because of wind and coriolis forces causing counter-clockwise circulation in most lakes in the northern hemisphere. Vertical circulation are generally from changes in temperature at the surface of the lake. No one has provided numbers for water concentrations of uranium in Iraqi Lakes or water supplies that I have seen. Generally, surface waters, including lakes, have very low uranium concentrations. James, I strictly question your objectivity. The fact that you do not seem to doubt your own premises and remained focused on a "one cause fits all" mindset is prima fascia evidence that you lack objectivity. I will not elaborate on the formalized psychological issues and motivations related to this. D. Harris (1984), "Mineral Resources Appraisal", Chapter 14, formally discusses some of these psychological issues such as: 1) Limitations of evaluation and how effectively can the mind integrate and resolve complex uncertainties. 2) Bounded intelligence - whether we can make rational decisions with spatially limited and complex data; 3) Heuristics and biases - focused on representativeness, availability of data, and anchoring & adjustment. Anchoring & adjustment is basically how much can a person "dumb something down" to ease strain on memory, or "anchor" on what seems "representative". If you have never faced a formal verbal defense or tiered formal elicitation then it can be a daunting challenge. The major oil & gas and minerals companies require a multi-tiered formal process to assess potential projects for validity, representiveness, cost, risk and benefit. The process makes a doctoral defense look like a walk in the park. But, as regards "explaining away" issues: I merely present another viewpoint from a silent society. Sylvia's voice, as represented by her bitter letters spanning over 20 years, was one of the very few that I heard from southern Iraq during the dark days spanning the Iran-Iraq War and the First Gulf War, and up to present. Since they were written in a journal form, signed & dated, they bear first-hand witness to the dire events that occurred during that dark period. No amount of "rewriting history" can erase those expressions of reality in a such a hostile, closed society. Dan ii -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 4:45 PM To: Dan W McCarn Subject: personal note Dan, Do you think you are fooling me by measuring agricultural uptake bioavailability without runoff-sourced drinking water reservoirs? Do you think I am responsible for what Fathallah wrote? There medical reports on the same conditions and observations. Your attempt to explain away the problem using malnutrition failed. I have spent thousands of hours researching the situation, and I am convinced that there is no alternative hypotheses explaining the birth defects in Iraqi civilians, U.S., and U.K. troops forthcoming. Again, if you have an issue with Fathallah, then again, you should be trying to contact him. Does the subject matter of my schooling (math) bear on your ability to answer these questions, or were you asking after my degree because your inability to answer the questions I have posed embarrassed you, and you wish to join Steve Dapra in personal attacks? Do you think such retorical tactics make the readers more or less convinced of your position? Do you think they make me more or less interested in withdrawing from the topic? I have discussed this matter with medical experts, and I can put you in touch with them if you like. James Salsman From efforrer at aol.com Thu Jul 3 10:51:53 2008 From: efforrer at aol.com (efforrer at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:51:53 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" In-Reply-To: <200807031058.58e486ce8f996@rly-df11.mx.aol.com> References: <200807031058.58e486ce8f996@rly-df11.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CAAB3BD90410FA-5F8-12E8@webmail-nc16.sysops.aol.com> OK who ever wrote this article obviously has no clue as to what is Class A, B, And C waste. Half-life has nothing to do with the classification. The waste is characterized by where it originated. H-3 and C-14 will still have plenty of activity left after 100 years. If done properly this idea may not be entirely without merit. While at the Texas BRC I oversaw a soil mixing project that had a lot of promise for releasing former uranium in-situ mining operations. The theory was sound but unfortunately the operators execution made a mess of things. Gene Forrer From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 3 11:08:50 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:08:50 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: <002d01c8dd1a$3922a880$ab67f980$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <002d01c8dd1a$3922a880$ab67f980$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <002d01c8dd27$151cef60$3f56ce20$@rr.com> The Navy and Air Force have bases. The Army has posts. Bob C -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:36 AM To: 'James Salsman'; garyi at trinityphysics.com; 'radsafelist' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis James: 1) I am happy that you have obtained a copy of the Miller and McClain paper, that you state contains superb information. Does any of it support your position/ would you be willing to share this with us? 2) You state you were born on an army base. Would you care to elaborate, with the name of the base and in what position your family resided there? I believe you have stated that you were brought up in the Religious Society of Friends, who are by belief pacifists. I therefore assume that if a member of your family was in the army, it was in a non-combat position? Regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman ........ However, I recently found all 15 pages of Miller A.C. and McClain D. (2007 Jan-Mar). "A review of depleted uranium biological effects: in vitro and in vivo studies". Rev Environ Health 22 (1): 75?89. It was the second most difficult medical paper I've ever obtained. The information from page 84 to the end of the paper is suburb. Alexandria Miller is the U.S. armed forces' top uranium toxicity specialist. She is not allowed to speak to the press because of the damage that the people who have been telling us that uranium weapons are save has done to the veracity of the U.S. position on the topic. ....... I was born on an Army base and I feel a strong bond with the health of the force. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu Jul 3 11:37:49 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:37:49 +0200 Subject: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DE923@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> ________________________________ Von: Facius, Rainer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 11:41 An: Johnston, Thomas; Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine Thank you, Thomas, for his pointer. Given the fact that this lady, Ursula Sautter, writes from Germany, a European stronghold of radiophobia, this article is remarkable indeed. I can only speculate how many German news papers have turned down her attempts to publish it here. The closing 'cautionary' comment of Dave Eaton, director of the Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of Washington in Seattle merits special advertisement as a masterpiece of scientific reasoning: "For example, low levels of DNA damage may well activate certain DNA repair pathways that increase the extent and possibly the efficiency of DNA repair. But it is still possible that some of the low-level DNA damage escapes repair and is ultimately detrimental. Thus I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without potential harm." In other words (in view of the article's message) he appears to concede: We have no empirical evidence that exposure (of healthy people) to (low LET) ionizing radiation up to say 200 mSv acute (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) and to about 500 mSv chronic irradiation (epidemiological studies) are detrimental to human health. To the contrary, we have empirical evidence to the opposite from controlled laboratory work on cells and animals as well as from observations in human populations - bolstered by mounting insight into genetic/molecular control mechanisms which in turn can be successfully described by quantitative models. But - notwithstanding such knowledge: " ... I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without potential harm." This counterfactual 'assuming' is prudent carefulness indeed - but only in a world where there IS a free lunch, i.e., the world of (some) politicians and (some of) their regulators which never pay the bill for their decrees (all of them). The people ruled by such philanthropism pay the prize. Given that escalating costs of energy production will reduce its use, an example would be reduced lifespan. Global studies have shown positive association between lifespan and per capita energy supply. (Unfortunately I can not spot the reference for this paper (in the 1990s) but hopefully someone can add this.) 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 Johnston, Thomas Gesendet: Di 01.07.2008 18:48 An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have beneficial effects at very low doses. By Ursula Sautter http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ Tom _______________________________________________ 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/ From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Thu Jul 3 12:10:26 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:10:26 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste may eliminate the danger " Message-ID: <070320081710.27009.486D08020009FE01000069812216549976B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Only LNT (flat earth) believers can support, "Only time, and we're talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign." (below). Indeed, the solution to pollution may be dilution. "A+B+C=A" is not proposed, as I understand it. First, consider landfill of domestic trash. When large amounts of dirt or cement waste from construction is mixed with vegetable matter waste, the mix makes better topsoil immediately, than either alone. Next, consider radiation waste (which could be better described by most of you than by me). Does dilution make a damaging dose of radiation unlikely, (with unauthorized digging)? That depends on acceptance of hormesis - possible benefit, rather than teratogenesis or cancerfrom the smaller dose. Sell hormesis, to get more nuclear power! Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Jaro" > Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 > Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger > Tribune Editorial > Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT > > > Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical > mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and > Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose of > their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal Nuclear > Regulatory Commission last week. > Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen > at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each category > to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open the > door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste > landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the more > dangerous waste classifications. > The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of > mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only > way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. > Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how you > mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. The > Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the > Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're > talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. > Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's > proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing > more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the Legislature > has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after 100 > years. > Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining > Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power > industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the > radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven private > company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. > Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a > national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, > nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that > produce them. > Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation very > closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to rewrite > the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite > the law to ban blended waste from the state. > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 3 13:05:20 2008 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:05:20 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <200807031814.m63IEh2t013870@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> >July 3, 2008 If the Yucca mountain "repository" is supposed to be a radioactive waste disposal site for used fuel rods, it is not a good idea. We will need to recycle nuclear fuel in those used fuel rods (as the French do now) for the nuclear power plants of the future that will power our nation. Also, the radioactive waste volume and half-life will both be reduced when we recycle nuclear fuel. 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 *********************************************** From Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us Thu Jul 3 13:25:46 2008 From: Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us (Jim Hardeman) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:25:46 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" Message-ID: <486CE16B.1E3F.005A.0@dnr.state.ga.us> Gene et al. Actually, the classifications for low-level radioactive waste are concentration-based ... the regulations can be found in 10 CFR 61.55 (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part061/part061-0055.html) For a given radionuclide (yes, even C-14), waste can be Class A, Class C or even "greater than Class C" (GTCC) simply based on the concentration of the radionuclide in curies per cubic meter. I agree that whoever wrote the article doesn't know anything about radioactive waste, and doesn't understand how the classification system works. Jim Hardeman jim.hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us >>> 7/3/2008 11:51 >>> OK who ever wrote this article obviously has no clue as to what is Class A, B, And C waste. Half-life has nothing to do with the classification. The waste is characterized by where it originated. H-3 and C-14 will still have plenty of activity left after 100 years. If done properly this idea may not be entirely without merit. While at the Texas BRC I oversaw a soil mixing project that had a lot of promise for releasing former uranium in-situ mining operations. The theory was sound but unfortunately the operators execution made a mess of things. Gene Forrer From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jul 3 13:47:59 2008 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (Jerry Cohen) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:47:59 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is? Why is radwaste classified according to its concentration? The whole thing makes no sense to me---but then I suppose one needs to be a bureaucrat or politician to understand the "logic" behind it all. Jerry Cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaro" To: "RADSAFE" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " > Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 > Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger > Tribune Editorial > Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT > > > Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical > mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and > Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose > of > their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal > Nuclear > Regulatory Commission last week. > Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen > at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each > category > to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open > the > door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste > landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the > more > dangerous waste classifications. > The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of > mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only > way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. > Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how > you > mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. > The > Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the > Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're > talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. > Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's > proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing > more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the > Legislature > has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after > 100 > years. > Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining > Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power > industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the > radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven > private > company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. > Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a > national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, > nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that > produce them. > Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation > very > closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to > rewrite > the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite > the law to ban blended waste from the state. > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 13:58:50 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:58:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: Dan, You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think both are very important, so I am asking you: What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? Thank you for your help. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > <> > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM > To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > James; > It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. > > Thanks and regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM > To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing > teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of > removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, > general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating > the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying > only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in > any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > > Dan, > > How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" > holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent > water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be > rectified. > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:10:51 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:10:51 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: People have been asking about my background. Both of my parents devoted their lives to educating the children of U.S. officers stationed abroad, in the Defense Dependants' School system. They stand is stark contrast to those such as Dr. Cherry and Dr. Johnson, who have taken millions of taxpayer dollars and omitted mention of multiple long-known health issues with uranium in their reports saying depleted uranium munitions are safe. They follow in the crooked footsteps of Ron Kathren, long a leader in the Health Physics Society, who has always omitted mention of reproductive toxicity in his works on acute uranium toxicity, even though reproductive toxicity has been known to be an effect of a single acute exposure since the 1953 work of Maynard et al. Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth, increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors in nude mice. "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice developed leukemia. "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups. "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure. "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.) "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate the twitch response of ... muscles. "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure. Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased rapidly after injection and remained elevated.... "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well. "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:48:34 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:48:34 -0700 Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" Message-ID: Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman From jjcohen at prodigy.net Thu Jul 3 16:43:41 2008 From: jjcohen at prodigy.net (Jerry Cohen) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:43:41 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave, I agree with your assessment and have always thought the NRC LLW rules were nonsense. OTOH, if the NRC rulings were to make technological sense, they would likely be politically unacceptable. Jerry Cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Blaine" To: ; "radsafelist" Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" > Dear Dr. Cohen, > > I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of > concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its > potential danger, then what is?" > > The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to > Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one > million times worse for U238. > > Do you agree with that assessment? > > James Salsman From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 3 17:05:24 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:05:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACC@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> I assume that the author of this editorial also feels that all of Utah should be dug up and processed to remove all NORM for disposal, as it is as dangerous in its current dilute as it would be when concentrated. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jaro Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:01 PM To: RADSAFE Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger Tribune Editorial Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose of their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week. Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each category to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open the door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the more dangerous waste classifications. The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how you mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. The Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the Legislature has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after 100 years. Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven private company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that produce them. Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation very closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to rewrite the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite the law to ban blended waste from the state. ================================================== _______________________________________________ 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 17:08:39 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:08:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <008a01c8dd59$5a18ed30$0e4ac790$@com> Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:59 PM To: Dan W McCarn Cc: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think both are very important, so I am asking you: What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? Thank you for your help. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > <> > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM > To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > James; > It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. > > Thanks and regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM > To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing > teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of > removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, > general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating > the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying > only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in > any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > > Dan, > > How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" > holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent > water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be > rectified. > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 3 17:26:44 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " Message-ID: <95378.58730.qm@web80807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> While the radionuclide concentrations in radioactive waste are an important factor in its hazard, they are not the only consideration.? A major concern is the potential for causing human radiation exposure.? For blended waste with heterogeneous concentrations, there is a concern that, while the average concentration is Class A, someone will be exposed to part of the waste that is Class C.? I recommend reviewing the NRC's "Branch Technical Position On Concentration Averaging And Encapsulation."? Here's a link for this document:? http://rockyflats.apps.em.doe.gov/references/101-NRC%20Branch%20Tech%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Conc%20Avg.pdf Bill Lipton It's not about dose, it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: Jerry Cohen To: Jaro ; RADSAFE Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 2:47:59 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " If? the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is? Why is radwaste classified? according to its concentration? The whole thing makes no sense to me---but then I suppose one needs to be a bureaucrat or politician to understand the "logic" behind it all. Jerry Cohen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaro" To: "RADSAFE" Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger " > Presumably this will affect all sorts of Rad users ? > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9756721 > Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger > Tribune Editorial > Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 05:37:06 PM MDT > > > Officials from our nation's nuclear power industry have devised a magical > mathematical formula that miraculously transforms dangerous Class B and > Class C nuclear waste into less-ominous Class A waste. Anxious to dispose > of > their radioactive garbage, they pitched the proposal to the federal > Nuclear > Regulatory Commission last week. >? ? Now, all it will take is a few foolish strokes of the rule-writing pen > at the NRC, and the industry will be allowed to mix waste from each > category > to achieve a blend that qualifies as Class A. That, in turn, would open > the > door for disposal of hotter waste at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste > landfill in Tooele County, circumventing a Utah law that prohibits the > more > dangerous waste classifications. >? ? The trouble is, the formula defies the associative property of > mathematics, the laws of science and the canons of common sense. The only > way to make A + B + C = A is to remove B and C from the equation. >? ? Simply put, dilution is not the solution to pollution. No matter how > you > mix it, or how long you stir, the nature of the materials won't change. > The > Class B waste in the mix will still be hazardous for 300 years, and the > Class C waste will still be hazardous for 500 years. Only time, and we're > talking centuries, can render nuclear waste benign. >? ? Federal regulators need to see through the facade. The industry's > proposal, an act born of desperation, is nothing > more than a way to foist hotter waste on Utah, a state where the > Legislature > has wisely banned all but Class A waste, which is considered safe after > 100 > years. >? ? Obviously, after South Carolina this week closed the last remaining > Class B and C waste depository available for 36 states, the nuclear power > industry needs another place to toss its trash. And once again, the > radioactive waste facility within our bounds, and the profit-driven > private > company that operates it, have proven to be attractive nuisances. >? ? Congress needs to move quickly to solve the problem and establish a > national disposal site for all radioactive waste. Until that happens, > nuclear power plant operators can store their poison at the plants that > produce them. >? ? Utah lawmakers and Gov. Jon Huntsman need to monitor this situation > very > closely, and let their opinions be known. And should the NRC opt to > rewrite > the rules to allow blending, the state Legislature should quickly rewrite > the law to ban blended waste from the state. > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 3 17:32:15 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:32:15 -0700 Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACD@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Personally, I've always thought that the designation "mixed waste" was among the dumbest ideas foisted on the public (and there is stiff competition). It absorbs resources (money) without giving improved safety to anyone. If the main hazard of a material is it radiological properties, then that should drive the way it is handled. If the main hazard is its toxic hazard, then that should drive its handling. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:49 PM To: radsafelist Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 17:33:02 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:33:02 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Dan, Thank you for your question: > Again, what connection do you bring between > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around everywhere and that can not be good for containment. What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? James Salsman From rad_sci_health at comcast.net Thu Jul 3 17:41:29 2008 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Jim Muckerheide) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:41:29 -0400 Subject: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - ODEMagazine In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DE923@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: Dear Rainer et al. The "1993" reference about Misasa is likely the book: "HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION" By Sohei Kondo Kondo reports on the data from a 1992 paper, which is referred to by Sadao Hattori at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4Hattori94.html Kondo provides the tables of the data from all the cancer sites, and the "all cancers" data that is presented in this "Figure 4." There is a subsequent paper by an different group, Suzuki et al., in 1994. See the abstract at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4%20Suzuki94.html The Sobue/Ye et al. group made a later conference presentation in 1997, pub'd again in 1998 in the Jpn J Cancer Res; and a later case-control study in 2000 in the J Radiat Res (Tokyo). All of these can be linked from: http://www.radscihealth.org:9000/rsh/dd3/searchResult2.jsp?keyword4=2.1.2.1. 1.4+Japan (which is also: http://tinyurl.com/5kwhcc ) The full text/pdf of this 2000 paper is open and can be linked from the PubMed abstract. Regards, Jim Muckerheide =========================== on 7/3/08 12:37 PM, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de at Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote: > ________________________________ > > Von: Facius, Rainer > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 11:41 > An: Johnston, Thomas; Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers > listserve > Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different > perspective - ODEMagazine > > Thank you, Thomas, for his pointer. > > Given the fact that this lady, Ursula Sautter, writes from Germany, a > European stronghold of radiophobia, this article is remarkable indeed. I > can only speculate how many German news papers have turned down her > attempts to publish it here. > > The closing 'cautionary' comment of Dave Eaton, director of the Center > for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of Washington > in Seattle merits special advertisement as a masterpiece of scientific > reasoning: > > "For example, low levels of DNA damage may well activate certain DNA > repair pathways that increase the extent and possibly the efficiency of > DNA repair. But it is still possible that some of the low-level DNA > damage escapes repair and is ultimately detrimental. Thus I don't think > one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without potential > harm." > > In other words (in view of the article's message) he appears to concede: > We have no empirical evidence that exposure (of healthy people) to (low > LET) ionizing radiation up to say 200 mSv acute (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) and > to about 500 mSv chronic irradiation (epidemiological studies) are > detrimental to human health. To the contrary, we have empirical evidence > to the opposite from controlled laboratory work on cells and animals as > well as from observations in human populations - bolstered by mounting > insight into genetic/molecular control mechanisms which in turn can be > successfully described by quantitative models. But - notwithstanding > such knowledge: > > " ... I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are > without potential harm." > > This counterfactual 'assuming' is prudent carefulness indeed - but only > in a world where there IS a free lunch, i.e., the world of (some) > politicians and (some of) their regulators which never pay the bill for > their decrees (all of them). The people ruled by such philanthropism pay > the prize. Given that escalating costs of energy production will reduce > its use, an example would be reduced lifespan. Global studies have shown > positive association between lifespan and per capita energy supply. > (Unfortunately I can not spot the reference for this paper (in the > 1990s) but hopefully someone can add this.) > > 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 Johnston, Thomas > Gesendet: Di 01.07.2008 18:48 > An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective - > ODEMagazine > > Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group > and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The > magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." > > "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have > beneficial effects at very low doses. > > By Ursula Sautter > > http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ > > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 17:53:47 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:53:47 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ec2f9380807031553k488d7e5r9db84e693b2bd5bb@mail.gmail.com> Again, your assumptions make no sence to me. What assumptions have you made about At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage that could be affected by weather? What do you mean by "load"? Dan ii On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Dan, > > Thank you for your question: > > > Again, what connection do you bring between > > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? > > Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, > leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the > facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling > around everywhere and that can not be good for > containment. > > What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the > storage facilities? > > James Salsman > -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 3 18:53:39 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:53:39 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACE@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James, this makes no sense at all. Your first sentence has words in it, but they don't have meaning. I think I understand your question, and if you are asking about the current rate of U238 seeping out of spent fuel storage pools at nuclear reactor facilities in the United States, the answer is zero. If you can't figure out why that is, then you need to learn more about nuclear fuel, and holding pools. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:33 PM To: Dan W McCarn; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, Thank you for your question: > Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel > storage pools and weather? Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around everywhere and that can not be good for containment. What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From terryj at iit.edu Thu Jul 3 19:13:20 2008 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:13:20 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Hi James, What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the storage pools and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather events? Jeff On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Dan, > > Thank you for your question: > >> Again, what connection do you bring between >> at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? > > Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, > leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the > facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling > around everywhere and that can not be good for > containment. > > What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the > storage facilities? > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 19:26:47 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:26:47 -0500 Subject: FW: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: <00a901c8dd6c$a8000840$f80018c0$@com> FYI -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:00 PM To: Dan McCarn Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, I will try to list my assumptions when I think of them. "Load" means output power usage, in Ohms at a fixed voltage. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Dan McCarn wrote: > Again, your assumptions make no sence to me. What assumptions have you made > about At-Reactor Spent Fuel Storage that could be affected by weather? What > do you mean by "load"? > > Dan ii > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: >> >> Dan, >> >> Thank you for your question: >> >> > Again, what connection do you bring between >> > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? >> >> Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >> leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >> around everywhere and that can not be good for >> containment. >> >> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >> storage facilities? >> >> James Salsman > > > > -- > Dan W. McCarn > Geologist > > Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 > Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From BenjB4 at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 19:48:59 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:48:59 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> References: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Message-ID: Hey Jeff, I'm not sure of the total of all the different ways fuel storage containment can breach and how often it has been, which is why I've asked Dan. The problem is that the U238 standard was written before the scientists involved knew to care about things other than kidneys, which develop a tolerance to uranyl. It's only going to get harder for the government to find Ph.D.s who are willing to look the other way when it comes to five of the six aspects of uranium toxicity in vivo. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Terry wrote: > Hi James, > > What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the storage pools > and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather events? > > Jeff > > On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> Thank you for your question: >> >>> Again, what connection do you bring between >>> at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? >> >> Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >> leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >> around everywhere and that can not be good for >> containment. >> >> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >> storage facilities? >> >> James Salsman >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:23:50 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:23:50 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703192241.009fd0b0@mail.swcp.com> July 3 James, what are your academic credentials that allow you to spout off about this? Steven Dapra At 11:09 PM 7/2/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing >teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of >removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, >general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating >the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying >only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in >any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > >Dan, > >How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" >holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent >water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be >rectified. > >James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:30:21 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:30:21 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703192804.009f5be0@mail.swcp.com> July 3 James: Give us your CV. (That's curriculum vitae in case you don't already know.) Steven Dapra At 11:58 AM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Dan, > >You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a >geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think >both are very important, so I am asking you: > >What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and >radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the >ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? > >Thank you for your help. > >James Salsman > > >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > > < holding pools?>> > > > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > > > Dan ii > > > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:41:13 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:41:13 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703193054.009f5d80@mail.swcp.com> July 3 James: What is your CV? Knock it off with the self-serving stuff about your parents, and answer the question about where you were born. You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson; and on Ron Kathren. Don't you ever get tired of vilifying your opponents? Have you no sense of decency at long last? Yesterday you were moaning and groaning about me and uranyl acetate and uranyl oxide. You said I "tried to suggest that uranyl acetate was different from the largest of the uranium combustion products, uranyl oxide, . . .." Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*. Steven Dapra At 01:10 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >People have been asking about my background. Both of my parents >devoted their lives to educating the children of U.S. officers >stationed abroad, in the Defense Dependants' School system. They >stand is stark contrast to those such as Dr. Cherry and Dr. Johnson, >who have taken millions of taxpayer dollars and omitted mention of >multiple long-known health issues with uranium in their reports saying >depleted uranium munitions are safe. They follow in the crooked >footsteps of Ron Kathren, long a leader in the Health Physics Society, >who has always omitted mention of reproductive toxicity in his works >on acute uranium toxicity, even though reproductive toxicity has been >known to be an effect of a single acute exposure since the 1953 work >of Maynard et al. > >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: > >"Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast >cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... [edt] From sjd at swcp.com Thu Jul 3 20:42:42 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:42:42 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080703194150.009f6b50@mail.swcp.com> July 3 Yeah, there's a lot of floods and forest fires around power reactors. Steven Dapra At 03:33 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Dan, > >Thank you for your question: > > > Again, what connection do you bring between > > at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? > >Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >around everywhere and that can not be good for >containment. > >What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >storage facilities? > >James Salsman From terryj at iit.edu Thu Jul 3 22:29:51 2008 From: terryj at iit.edu (Jeff Terry) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:29:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Message-ID: <397DD81A-1D51-4A16-A491-547BCD6419F8@iit.edu> Hi James, I don't see how your response pertains to my question, so I guess that I will take a shot at answering it myself. I would be very surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle. I would expect that weather events such as you describe would lead to the zero net leaks in spent fuel pools due to accidents with heavy vehicles. While Ph.D.s are in short supply, the world certainly suffers from an overabundance of crackpots. Jeff On Jul 3, 2008, at 7:48 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Hey Jeff, > > I'm not sure of the total of all the different ways fuel storage > containment can breach and how often it has been, which is why I've > asked Dan. > > The problem is that the U238 standard was written before the > scientists involved knew to care about things other than kidneys, > which develop a tolerance to uranyl. > > It's only going to get harder for the government to find Ph.D.s who > are willing to look the other way when it comes to five of the six > aspects of uranium toxicity in vivo. > > James Salsman > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Terry wrote: >> Hi James, >> >> What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the >> storage pools >> and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather >> events? >> >> Jeff >> >> On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: >> >>> Dan, >>> >>> Thank you for your question: >>> >>>> Again, what connection do you bring between >>>> at-reactor spent fuel storage pools and weather? >>> >>> Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, >>> leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the >>> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling >>> around everywhere and that can not be good for >>> containment. >>> >>> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the >>> storage facilities? >>> >>> James Salsman >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 3 22:33:28 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" Message-ID: <153717.5028.qm@web80806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The EPA agrees with you.? See 40 CFR 266 Subpart N--CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION FOR LOW-LEVEL MIXED WASTE STORAGE, TREATMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL. These conditional exemptions allow low level mixed waste to be managed as radioactive waste.? CAUTION:? If you generate mixed waste in a state with its own RCRA program, this provision must be adopted in state regulations before a conditional exemption can be claimed. Bill Lipton It's not about dose it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" To: radsafelist Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 6:32:15 PM Subject: RE: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" ...? If the main hazard of a material is it radiological properties, then that should drive the way it is handled.? If the main hazard is its toxic hazard, then that should drive its handling.? -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:49 PM To: radsafelist Subject: Re; [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen thedanger" Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential? danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse,? According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 02:08:04 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 00:08:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: Jeff Terry wrote: >.... I would be very > surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool > has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle. The cask- and rod assembly-related accidents that have happened almost all involve heavy vehicles or other large-frame conveyance. A lot of the casks are susceptible to attack because their exact specifications are a matter of public record. Steven Dapra wrote: > What is your CV? The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports of actual experiments and compare them to the official work product of people such as Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson after they scrubbed their reports clean of any mention of reproductive toxicity. How much of your taxes were used to call that pathetic exercise in censorship "science"? > Answer the question about where you were born. Why? I already did. I was born on an Army base (that is what the host country called it, as did everyone else when they weren't in parade dress.) What difference does it make to be any more specific than that? > You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson; > and on Ron Kathren. Does anyone endorse their position of omitting mention of reproductive toxicity or other non-kidney-related health effects in their reports on uranium toxicity? > Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper > and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*. What do you think the percentage difference in solubility would be between the oxide and the chloride of uranyl, as the percentage of each in solution after seven days in lung fluid? James Salsman From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jul 4 06:04:16 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:04:16 +0200 Subject: AW: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a differentperspective - ODEMagazine In-Reply-To: References: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DE923@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA029DEB20@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Dear Jim, thank you for these references demonstrating once more that -in the low dose regime - the opposite of the LNT postulate is more often observed than the postulated association - to put it cautiously. However, this was not the topic addressed by the reference I am straining my memory to recover it. I have in mind a scatter plot with the x-axis giving annual (electric) energy production/consumption in kWh per caput and the y-axis some measure of the health status of the citizens of a given country - say lifespan. The entries for (nearly) all of the world's countries scattered neatly around a strictly monotonic increasing (straight?) regression line with the poor or developing countries populating the low energy supply/low lifespan quadrant and the rich industrialized countries populating the high energy supply/high lifespan quadrant! Maybe I read this paper even in the 1980s. Perhaps someone else's memory is better. Thank you one more and kind 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Jim Muckerheide Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Juli 2008 00:41 An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe Betreff: Re: WG: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a differentperspective - ODEMagazine Dear Rainer et al. The "1993" reference about Misasa is likely the book: "HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION" By Sohei Kondo Kondo reports on the data from a 1992 paper, which is referred to by Sadao Hattori at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4Hattori94.html Kondo provides the tables of the data from all the cancer sites, and the "all cancers" data that is presented in this "Figure 4." There is a subsequent paper by an different group, Suzuki et al., in 1994. See the abstract at: http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/dd3/2.1.2.1.1.4%20Suzuki94.html The Sobue/Ye et al. group made a later conference presentation in 1997, pub'd again in 1998 in the Jpn J Cancer Res; and a later case-control study in 2000 in the J Radiat Res (Tokyo). All of these can be linked from: http://www.radscihealth.org:9000/rsh/dd3/searchResult2.jsp?keyword4=2.1.2.1. 1.4+Japan (which is also: http://tinyurl.com/5kwhcc ) The full text/pdf of this 2000 paper is open and can be linked from the PubMed abstract. Regards, Jim Muckerheide =========================== on 7/3/08 12:37 PM, Rainer.Facius at dlr.de at Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote: > ________________________________ > > Von: Facius, Rainer > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. Juli 2008 11:41 > An: Johnston, Thomas; Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers > listserve > Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different > perspective - ODEMagazine > > Thank you, Thomas, for his pointer. > > Given the fact that this lady, Ursula Sautter, writes from Germany, a > European stronghold of radiophobia, this article is remarkable indeed. > I can only speculate how many German news papers have turned down her > attempts to publish it here. > > The closing 'cautionary' comment of Dave Eaton, director of the Center > for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of > Washington in Seattle merits special advertisement as a masterpiece of > scientific > reasoning: > > "For example, low levels of DNA damage may well activate certain DNA > repair pathways that increase the extent and possibly the efficiency > of DNA repair. But it is still possible that some of the low-level DNA > damage escapes repair and is ultimately detrimental. Thus I don't > think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are without > potential harm." > > In other words (in view of the article's message) he appears to concede: > We have no empirical evidence that exposure (of healthy people) to > (low > LET) ionizing radiation up to say 200 mSv acute (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) > and to about 500 mSv chronic irradiation (epidemiological studies) are > detrimental to human health. To the contrary, we have empirical > evidence to the opposite from controlled laboratory work on cells and > animals as well as from observations in human populations - bolstered > by mounting insight into genetic/molecular control mechanisms which in > turn can be successfully described by quantitative models. But - > notwithstanding such knowledge: > > " ... I don't think one can assume that all 'low-dose' responses are > without potential harm." > > This counterfactual 'assuming' is prudent carefulness indeed - but > only in a world where there IS a free lunch, i.e., the world of (some) > politicians and (some of) their regulators which never pay the bill > for their decrees (all of them). The people ruled by such > philanthropism pay the prize. Given that escalating costs of energy > production will reduce its use, an example would be reduced lifespan. > Global studies have shown positive association between lifespan and per capita energy supply. > (Unfortunately I can not spot the reference for this paper (in the > 1990s) but hopefully someone can add this.) > > 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 Johnston, Thomas > Gesendet: Di 01.07.2008 18:48 > An: Academic-Medical Radiation Safety Officers listserve > Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Interesting article from a different perspective > - ODEMagazine > > Ran across this article today and thought I would share with the Group > and originates from a perspective outside of our usual circles. The > magazine's coves uses the tagline: "ProRadiation." > > "Small can be healthy," Toxins like radon and even DDT may have > beneficial effects at very low doses. > > By Ursula Sautter > > http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/53/small-can-be-healthy/ > > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Fri Jul 4 07:58:54 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:58:54 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Teratogenesis has nothing to do with genetic diseases.> > That is false. Teratogens can cause heritable defects.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First: A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable _effects_ (not necessarily defects). Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s). Second: Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! Third: It is unlikely, for theoretical reasons, that a teratogen which also affects the germ cells by inducing mutations would have a chance to do anything bad that would show up in the next or future generations - simply because of the selection pressure against mutated germ cells that reach the fertilized (diploid) stage. A fundamental reason for this statement from my side also comes from follow-up studies of F1 and F2 generations of atomic bomb survivors - had F1 or F2 shown anything in terms of heritable defects I would not have posted these lines. My personal ideas only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ The i?m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 12:59:58 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:59:58 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> <63FB6B82-A472-40C6-BA6E-414F039BB515@iit.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704115510.009f3100@mail.swcp.com> July 4 Has a spent fuel storage containment ever been breached at a US commercial power reactor? At any commercial power reactor anywhere else in the world? If the answer to both of these questions is No, I don't think we have much to worry about --- not that our prophet of gloom and doom will fold up his tent and silently steal away. Steven Dapra At 05:48 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Hey Jeff, > >I'm not sure of the total of all the different ways fuel storage >containment can breach and how often it has been, which is why I've >asked Dan. > >The problem is that the U238 standard was written before the >scientists involved knew to care about things other than kidneys, >which develop a tolerance to uranyl. > >It's only going to get harder for the government to find Ph.D.s who >are willing to look the other way when it comes to five of the six >aspects of uranium toxicity in vivo. > >James Salsman > > >On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Jeff Terry wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > What is the current rate of large vehicles crashing into the storage pools > > and what do you project the rate to increase to due to weather events? > > > > Jeff > > > > On Jul 3, 2008, at 5:33 PM, James Salsman wrote: > > > >> Dan, > >> > >> Thank you for your question: > >> > >>> Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel > storage pools and weather? > > > Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to > cooling needs beyond the scope of the > >> facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around > everywhere and that can not be good for > >> containment. > >> > >> What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? > >> > >> James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 13:23:57 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:23:57 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704120837.009f7ec0@mail.swcp.com> July 4 (Steven Dapra's comments interspersed below.) At 12:08 AM 7/4/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Jeff Terry wrote: > > >.... I would be very > > surprised to learn that at some point in the last 70 years a pool > > has suffered a leak due to an accident with a heavy vehicle. > >The cask- and rod assembly-related accidents that have happened almost >all involve heavy vehicles or other large-frame conveyance. A lot of >the casks are susceptible to attack because their exact specifications >are a matter of public record. Steven Dapra's (SD) comments: On July 3 James Salsman (JS) wrote, "What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain?" He began with fuel holding pools. Now, he appears to be squawking about shipping cask accidents, and is moaning about the possibility of attacks on shipping casks. James, you can't even stay on the subject, or you are (apparently) unable to remember what you have asked about. To remind you, you asked about breaches of spent fuel containment holding ponds. >Steven Dapra wrote: > > > What is your CV? > >The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports >of actual experiments and compare them to the official work >product of people such as Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson after >they scrubbed their reports clean of any mention of reproductive >toxicity. How much of your taxes were used to call that pathetic >exercise in censorship "science"? SD: James, you can't read reports (or refereed papers) and quote from them properly or construe them properly. This looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. How much of our taxes have been wasted on your nonsensical delaying tactics and obstructionism at the NRC? And who cares about "reproductive toxicity" in laboratory rats and mice? I reiterate, show us your CV. You think you know so much, prove it. (Show us the money.) > > Answer the question about where you were born. > >Why? I already did. I was born on an Army base (that is what >the host country called it, as did everyone else when they >weren't in parade dress.) What difference does it make to >be any more specific than that? > > > You can also knock off your attacks on Drs. Cherry and Johnson; > > and on Ron Kathren. > >Does anyone endorse their position of omitting mention of >reproductive toxicity or other non-kidney-related health effects >in their reports on uranium toxicity? SD: Can you show that they *have* omitted it? Has it ever occurred to you that this reproductive toxicity in lab rats and mice may not have been germane to the matter under discussion? > > Look at the first quote from the Miller and McClain paper > > and you will find they are talking about uranyl *chloride*. > >What do you think the percentage difference in solubility >would be between the oxide and the chloride of uranyl, as >the percentage of each in solution after seven days in lung fluid? SD: My point, James, is that you were talking out of both sides of your mouth. You derided me for switching around between uranyl acetate and uranyl oxide, while the Miller and McClain paper you're waving around is talking about uranyl chloride. Steven Dapra From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 13:40:18 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:40:18 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704123605.009f81b0@mail.swcp.com> At 01:10 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: [edit] >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: [edit] >McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed >to DU in >friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the >study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a >statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as >compared with low-exposure groups. James, you have broadly insinuated that you have a copy of this Miller and McClain paper. Assuming that you actually have a copy of it, what is the full citation for the McDairmid et al. (2004) paper? Include the title. Steven Dapra From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 13:51:14 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:51:14 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704124905.009fcb00@mail.swcp.com> In a message a few minutes ago I asked for the citation to McDiarmid 2004. You need not send it, James. I already have it. Steven Dapra >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: >McDairmid et al >(2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in >friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the >study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a >statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as >compared with low-exposure groups. From frantaj at aecl.ca Fri Jul 4 13:33:47 2008 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:33:47 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704115510.009f3100@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again, there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Steven Dapra Sent: July 4, 2008 2:00 PM To: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain July 4 Has a spent fuel storage containment ever been breached at a US commercial power reactor? At any commercial power reactor anywhere else in the world? If the answer to both of these questions is No, I don't think we have much to worry about --- not that our prophet of gloom and doom will fold up his tent and silently steal away. Steven Dapra CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 16:50:05 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:50:05 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis Message-ID: Dear Dr. Cedervall, Thank you for your request: > Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s). I just posted them here: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010491.html In particular here: "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups. "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure. "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.) "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate the twitch response of ... muscles. "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure. Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased rapidly after injection and remained elevated.... "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well. "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth, increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors in nude mice. "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice developed leukemia. -- the above is from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89. James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 16:55:01 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:55:01 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Dr. Franta: > At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again Do you still contend that the intent of those who have been complaining about the health effects of depleted uranium intend to help terrorists? Since your accusation, the Colombian FARC -- themselves terrorists -- have been found with 33 kg of DU this past March which according to the "senior intelligence official" quoted by the L.A. times said, "the health threat was negligible.... what's the use of that other than irritating people?" http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28 "Negligible" -- the word appears in the reports which describe risk from cancer due to radiation and kidney effects only, such as those of Dr. Al Marshal from Sandia, not just the work of Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson -- all are pathetic attempts to keep information from the public. > there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military > production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... The U.S. overflow casks are a product of Yucca Mountain remaining closed, and are only rated for eight hours submerged. Flooding for as long as we've seen near some of the reactor sites could have easily gone twenty times that. The Baltimore tunnel fire has shown us that those casks were under-engineered for real-world conditions. Anyone who thinks the seepage rate is exactly zero is living in the imaginary magical world of absolutes. The question is not whether U(VI) has seeped into the water table from spent fuel, but: How much has, and how much is expected over time? James Salsman From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 17:22:58 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:22:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: References: <002c01c8dd18$b1554c10$13ffe430$@oilfield.slb.com> <005901c8dd21$7ff7baa0$7fe72fe0$@com> Message-ID: <014401c8de24$845cead0$8d16c070$@com> Dear James: I merely pointed-out that in order to understand the potential for dose / risk in a geogene / anthropogene system, one needs to include several areas of expertise, not solely a physician. Sometimes Health Physicists are even required! Radiation Safety in the larger sense involves a community of scientists, engineers and policy makers working from basic principles to frame and direct the overall discussion in order to reach consensus. In this case, Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question, but it leaves me puzzled at your seeming lack of knowledge about this feature of nuclear energy. I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse. If not, perhaps you might care to browse the NFCIS at the IAEA in order to learn a little more about Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/Default.asp There are also literally thousands of free IAEA publications which can be downloaded as pdf files in the form of TECDOCs at the IAEA site that you might inform yourself about specifics of at-reactor spent fuel storage. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/publications.asp Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:59 PM To: Dan W McCarn Cc: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dan, You recently suggested that it may be more important to get a geologist's opinion on some subjects than a medical opinion. I think both are very important, so I am asking you: What is the difference in the expected release of toxins and radioisotopes from used fuel holding pools with and without the ability to move the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain? Thank you for your help. James Salsman On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Dan W McCarn wrote: > <> > > James: Exactly what are you talking about this time? > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:25 AM > To: 'James Salsman'; 'radsafelist'; 'Dan W McCarn' > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > James; > It is extremely interesting that you support the Yucca mountain repository. I am sure this group would be eternally grateful if you would devote your considerable energy and persistence to assisting in defusing some of the negative publicity and public/local government actions against it. > > Thanks and regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:09 AM > To: radsafelist; Dan W McCarn > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain > > Failing to approve Yucca Mountain would be really bad, but allowing > teratogenesis in the military is worse, as is the lesser evil of > removing any mention of teratogenesis, chromosome malformations, > general reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, from reports evaluating > the safety of a substance or practice. I.e., the propaganda saying > only kidneys were at risk. That is really bad. Shame on everyone in > any one of the organizations that did so allow or remove. > > Dan, > > How much seepage have we had in recent weather from "short-term" > holding pools? Why can't Yucca Mountain be fast-tracked to prevent > water table seepage? There is a clear, immediate risk that could be > rectified. > > James Salsman > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jul 4 17:52:45 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:52:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect frommuch teratogenesis References: Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73DFE@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Mr. Salsman, with all due respect, I suggest you stop making an exhibition of yourself, or more precisely, of your inability to read. How otherwise should readers of your latest 'comment' interpret the fact, that not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Please! Sincerly, Rainer Facius Dr. Rainer Facius DLR, German Aerospace Center Institute of Aerospace Medicine Department of Radiation Biology 51147 K?ln GERMANY Tel: +49 2203 601 3147 ________________________________ Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von James Salsman Gesendet: Fr 04.07.2008 23:50 An: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafelist Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect frommuch teratogenesis Dear Dr. Cedervall, Thank you for your request: > Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s). I just posted them here: http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010491.html In particular here: "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration, sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups. "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure. "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.) "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate the twitch response of ... muscles. "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure. Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased rapidly after injection and remained elevated.... "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well. "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride.... The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth, increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors in nude mice. "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice developed leukemia. -- the above is from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 4 18:00:54 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: <15479.3532.qm@web81608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, ? ??? Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's?CEO?? If not, don't you think that it is only reasonable that Dr. Franta, and other readers, should be apprehensive about corresponding with you?? I bring this up because I too have been subjected to a rather pointed attack from you about my personal opinions and your accusations that?my?opinions were somehow the byproduct of some dis-information campaign by my employer.? I understand that you are personally frustrated?in that your?point of view hasn't received the recognition that you would have hoped for, but that doesn't excuse your personal attacks against individuals very livelihoods.? If you want your?opinion's to be respected then a good starting point would be for you?to be respectful to others! ?Roy Herren ----- Original Message ---- From: James Salsman To: frantaj at aecl.ca; radsafelist Sent: Friday, July 4, 2008 2:55:01 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dr. Franta: > At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again Do you still contend that the intent of those who have been complaining about the health effects of depleted uranium intend to help terrorists?? Since your accusation, the Colombian FARC -- themselves terrorists -- have been found with 33 kg of DU this past March which? according to the "senior intelligence official" quoted by the L.A. times said, "the health threat was negligible.... what's the use of that other than irritating people?" ? http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28 "Negligible" -- the word appears in the reports which describe risk from cancer due to radiation and kidney effects only, such as those of Dr. Al Marshal from Sandia, not just the work of Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson -- all are pathetic attempts to keep information from the public. >? there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military > production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... The U.S. overflow casks are a product of Yucca Mountain remaining closed, and are only rated for eight hours submerged.? Flooding for as long as we've seen near some of the reactor sites could have easily gone twenty times that.? The Baltimore tunnel fire has shown us that those casks were under-engineered for real-world conditions. Anyone who thinks the seepage rate is exactly zero is living in the imaginary magical world of absolutes. The question is not whether U(VI) has seeped into the water table from spent fuel, but: How much has, and how much is expected over time? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 4 18:05:17 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:05:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080704170313.009fbec0@mail.swcp.com> At 01:10 PM 7/3/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Here are some quotes from Alexandria C. Miller and >David McClain (2007) "A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: >In Vitro and In Vivo Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89: July 4 James Salsman (JS) presented us with some quotes from a paper by Miller and McClain that he appears to believe suggest or prove that depleted uranium is harmful. One of JS's quotes has Miller and McClain invoking McDairmid et al. (2004) as saying: "McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups." These are not the exact words of McDiarmid et al., this is how Miller and McClain summarize them. What about McDairmid et al., (2004)? I located their paper (Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10 Year Follow-up) on line. I'll present some quotes from it, and discuss them. "Baseline CAs [chromosomal aberrations] were statistically different, with the high uranium group displaying a higher, but minimally different, CA frequency per cell. This difference was not observed in previous surveillance rounds. Due to the limited number of chromosomal aberrations observed, it was not possible to use regression to assess its relationship with ln urine uranium or a method to test for the persistence of the relationship despite the presence of confounders. However, the association between chromosomal aberrations and urine uranium observed here does not appear to be the result of smoking, exposure to mutagens, or age in this cohort, since none of these were found to be significantly associated with either average chromosomal aberrations or urinary uranium levels." (from p. 289) (Note: ln means log normal.) According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. How can there be a "statistically significant increase" when the aberrations can't even be analyzed? Also: "In two previous observations, no differences in chromosomal aberrations (CAs) were noted between the high and low uranium groups, although there was a statistically significant increase in SCE observed in the high uranium group in the last evaluation (McDiarmid et al., 2001) . . .." (from p. 293) This statistically significant increase was found in sister chromatid exchanges, not in chromosomal aberrations. McDiarmid et al. note "a statistical difference in CAs (higher in the high U group)." They do not say it's significant, only that it's different. According the next sentence, "This is, however, based on close to normal absolute frequencies of CAs per cells." Look at that, James a "normal" frequency, not a statistically significant one. McDiarmid et al. also write: "Because multiple outcomes are being examined, there exists the risk that statistically significant findings may be observed by chance alone. Although the kidney is the putative "critical" target organ for uranium toxicity under acute and chronic exposure conditions, no evidence of renal dysfunction (glomerular or tubular) was found. The biomarkers for proximal tubule dysfunction, the presumed target of uranium, showed minimal differences between the groups." (p. 292; citations omitted.) I think this speaks for itself about any so-called statistically significant increase. I would like to emphasize the authors' statement that no damage was found in the kidneys. In light of that, I rather doubt that exposure to depleted uranium, or any type of uranium, did any damage anywhere else. The authors also say that since they only studied 39 veterans, "the power to detect subtle effects is low." Earlier today, James, in response to my request for your CV, you wrote, "The only pertinent qualification is the ability to read reports of actual experiments . . .." If you'll pardon me for saying so, it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steven Dapra REFERENCE McDiarmid, et al. Health Effects of Depleted Uranium on Exposed Gulf War Veterans: A 10 Year Follow-up. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 67:277-296; (2004). Available on line at: < www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/Env_Health%20Effects_DU.pdf>. From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 05:10:06 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 03:10:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish. He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment. For example, that answer also omits this: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm > I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse.... Ha! You accuse me of feigned ignorance but neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer an accurate figure for the rate at which spent fuel has and is expected to enter the environment. > This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the > IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all > non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. Then why are you unable to state a number? Rainer Facius wrote: > not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Incorrect. As Dr. Cedervall almost correctly pointed out: "A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable ... defects" http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html (His "necessarily" part is wrong -- a mutagen is a mutagen and a teratogenic mutagen has the mechanism of action in the germ cells.) The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? Why? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you magically lose your right to free association and speech? Would you magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? Steven Dapra wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were > found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? > it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office. She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 5 10:15:07 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 09:15:07 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705090754.009ee820@mail.swcp.com> At 03:10 AM 7/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Dan McCarn wrote: > > > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... > >No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish. He hasn't even >begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the >environment. For example, that answer also omits this: > >http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm [edit] July 5 James: You're an idiot. The first sentence of this article says, "The Pentagon has tracked traces of plutonium found in U.S. ammunition to contaminated equipment at plants in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee." The article is about minute amounts of plutonium being found in depleted uranium. It is not about spent fuel entering the environment. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? Why don't you read this junk before you post it to RADSAFE? Furthermore, some of the statements in the article tend to undercut your anti-DU historioncs. Later today I will have more to say about the balance of your unusually brainless message. Steven Dapra From rjgunter at chpconsultants.com Sat Jul 5 10:48:37 2008 From: rjgunter at chpconsultants.com (Robert J. Gunter) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 11:48:37 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain detecting Fuel failures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01c8deb6$98881b50$c99851f0$@com> Greetings All, There are quite a few meters, probes, and laboratory equipment available on ebay that can be used by anyone to assess for fuel element failures and leaks. You don't have to take anyones word for it. Sample away! That is one of the great aspects of radiation. Anyone can go sample for it and you will find plenty at background levels from atmospheric testing of nukes and should there be any leakage, it would be easy to find, and ..... impossible to hide. Rob Robert J. Gunter, CHP CHP Consultants rjgunter at chpconsultants.com www.chpconsultants.com www.chpdosimetry.com Tel: +(865) 387-0028 Fax: +(865) 483-7189 -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 5:55 PM To: frantaj at aecl.ca; radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Dr. Franta: > At the risk of our prophet of gloom and doom complaining my company CEO again Do you still contend that the intent of those who have been complaining about the health effects of depleted uranium intend to help terrorists? Since your accusation, the Colombian FARC -- themselves terrorists -- have been found with 33 kg of DU this past March which according to the "senior intelligence official" quoted by the L.A. times said, "the health threat was negligible.... what's the use of that other than irritating people?" http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/world/fg-dirtybomb28 "Negligible" -- the word appears in the reports which describe risk from cancer due to radiation and kidney effects only, such as those of Dr. Al Marshal from Sandia, not just the work of Kathren, Cherry, and Johnson -- all are pathetic attempts to keep information from the public. > there was the infamous case of Soviet dumping of spent fuel from military > production reactors into a lake, with disastrous consequences..... The U.S. overflow casks are a product of Yucca Mountain remaining closed, and are only rated for eight hours submerged. Flooding for as long as we've seen near some of the reactor sites could have easily gone twenty times that. The Baltimore tunnel fire has shown us that those casks were under-engineered for real-world conditions. Anyone who thinks the seepage rate is exactly zero is living in the imaginary magical world of absolutes. The question is not whether U(VI) has seeped into the water table from spent fuel, but: How much has, and how much is expected over time? James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 5 19:02:53 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:02:53 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705175930.009f2010@mail.swcp.com> July 5 Comments from Steven Dapra (SD). [edit] James Salsman (JS): The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 SD: This page of the National Research Council book cites two papers by Miller. One was published in 1998 and McClain is not one of the co-authors. The other was published in 2003, and McClain is the fifth of six co-authors. Even if Miller and McClain did write a paper in 2007 about mutations and other chromosome aberrations, it is not cited in the link given by JS. The Council has not "adopted" anything. All it did was report what Miller and an assortment of co-workers said in 1998 and in 2003. The Introduction to the 1998 Miller paper says, "In spite of epidemiological studies that suggest that uranium is a carcinogen (1), there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] Did you see that James? NO EVIDENCE. Following the Abstract, Miller and her co-authors say, "The contributions of Eric Daxon, [and various others] are greatly appreciated and were invaluable to the success of this project." On March 6, 2007, on RADSAFE, James Salsman wrote, "Then Eric Daxon lies that Kang actually found a decrease after medical records review, not an increase." Salsman calls Eric Daxon a liar, while Alexandra Miller --- whose work Salsman is waving around all over the place --- thanks him for his "invaluable" contributions. This would be funny if it weren't so utterly pathetic. [edit] Steven Dapra (SD) wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. James Salsman (JS): What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? SD: It doesn't matter what the relation is. All that matters is that so few aberrations were found that no analysis (regression) could be performed. (McDiarmid et al. wrote, ". . . it was not possible to use regression to assess its relationship with ln urine uranium . . .." There's your "relation" --- it's not possible.) Steven Dapra wrote: > it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. JS: Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic. How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office. She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. SD: I wasn't trying to convince anyone that uranyl wasn't teratogenic. I was asking you to present some evidence (for example the Domingo paper) to substantiate your anti-DU histrionics. As it turned out, the Domingo paper didn't do much to support your histrionics, and after some perfunctory comments you dropped the matter. Miller and McClain summarized McDiarmid et al. thus: "McDairmid et al (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as compared with low-exposure groups." McDiarmid et al. did not say there was a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations. If you had bothered to read McDiarmid you would have known this. If anyone on RADSAFE is playing the fool, it's you, James. Even if I'm the only one willing to say so, I'm certain it's obvious to everyone. Steven Dapra From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 20:06:04 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> James, ? ?? Why do you owe Dr. Franta an apology?? Simply because what you did was to take his?personal opinion?(free speech) from this very public forum and make it into a personal attack on his?very?livelihood.? Do you recall the Golden Rule,?"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?? ? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? I am not suggesting anything, nor am I threatening, but how would you feel if "everyone" on this mailing list who has taken exception to something that you have written over the years were to take it upon themselves to contact your employer about their many grievances with you?? I don't think your employer would appreciate such an action, and I certainly don't think?that you would enjoy the potential negative outcome.? There is nothing?"magic" about common decency!??Just ask yourself before you do something, if you would be upset if someone did to you whatever it is that you are planning.? If the answer is that you wouldn't appreciate the action, then? reconsider the action before hitting the ""Send" button.? We should all?impose self constraint in regards to our?"rights to free association and speech".? Our?rights should end when they start to trample on anothers rights.? You?know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very means of making a living.? You trampled on?his rights!? Dr. Franta didn't represent his "free speech" public opinion as being that of his employer, therefore you didn't have any need to drag his employer into the fray other than your own malicious intent to inflict harm.? Simple put, you owe Dr. Franta an apology because you let your anger cause you to launch a personal vendetta. Roy Herren ? Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? >Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you >magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you >magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a >situation like that is frowned on? ----- Original Message ---- From: James Salsman To: radsafelist ; Dan McCarn ; ROY HERREN ; Steven Dapra ; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 3:10:06 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish.? He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment.? For example, that answer also omits this: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm > I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse.... Ha!? You accuse me of feigned ignorance but neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer an accurate figure for the rate at which spent fuel has and is expected to enter the environment. > This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the > IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all > non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. Then why are you unable to state a number? Rainer Facius wrote: > not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Incorrect.? As Dr. Cedervall almost correctly pointed out: "A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable ... defects" http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html? (His "necessarily" part is wrong -- a mutagen is a mutagen and a teratogenic mutagen has the mechanism of action in the germ cells.) The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? Steven Dapra wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were > found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? >? it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic.? How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office.? She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. James Salsman From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 22:01:33 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 20:01:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Roy Herren wrote: > Do you recall the Golden Rule, "Do unto others > as you would have them do unto you"? Does that rule apply to people who accuse others of supporting terrorism? > You know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very > means of making a living. How would one less very senior nuclear engineer accusing people in other countries of terror crimes from his work email make a difference? > You trampled on his rights! There is no right in Canada or anywhere else to make accusations of murderous crimes from your corporate email account and not have your employer brought in to the situation. If anyone should be apologizing, Dr. Franta should. Terrorists have apparently been trying to accumulate DU as dirty bomb material years before I had become aware of the issues with uranium toxicity publications. Steven Dapra quoted: > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 5 23:03:37 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:03:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705214225.009f2250@mail.swcp.com> At 08:01 PM 7/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: [edit] >Steven Dapra quoted: > > > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally > > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic > > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] > >That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to >the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. > >James Salsman July 5 James, you are dumber than dumb. I was quoting Alexandra Miller, whose work you have been waving around as though it is the Holy Grail of anti-DU fanatics everywhere. If you have a problem with the way Miller talks about "uranium of any type," why don't you call her or send her an e-mail? Less than a month ago you were demanding that we all bow and scrape before some source material from 1954. Now, you are loftily proclaiming that something from the 1980s isn't worth the paper it's written on. Your whiny excuse that BEIR IV "was in the 80s" reminds me of Danton. Steven Dapra From brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au Sun Jul 6 05:41:36 2008 From: brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au (Brent Rogers) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 20:41:36 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003c01c8df54$dfcc6360$7400a8c0@brent28417bbe6> I had one of these types of letters sent to my CEO once. Anyone remember that Gofman disciple L.H. Ricciuti, who was always on about nuclear contamination of Niagara Falls and pretty much the whole of Western New York? I asked him once to clarify a statement he made on Radsafe and he sent an e-mail to my CEO asking why I, a public servant, had so much time on my hands that I'd be able to spend it correcting his grammar (something I didn't actually do, I just needed him to clarify!). Don't see L.H. around the traps any more. I wonder if that's one of James' early pseudonyms. Or maybe James is a pseudonym for L.H.! Now that I think about it, I've never actually seen them together... Brent Rogers Sydney Australia -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of ROY HERREN Sent: Sunday, 6 July 2008 11:06 AM To: James Salsman; radsafelist; Dan McCarn; Steven Dapra; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 James, ? ?? Why do you owe Dr. Franta an apology?? Simply because what you did was to take his?personal opinion?(free speech) from this very public forum and make it into a personal attack on his?very?livelihood.? Do you recall the Golden Rule,?"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?? ? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? I am not suggesting anything, nor am I threatening, but how would you feel if "everyone" on this mailing list who has taken exception to something that you have written over the years were to take it upon themselves to contact your employer about their many grievances with you?? I don't think your employer would appreciate such an action, and I certainly don't think?that you would enjoy the potential negative outcome.? There is nothing?"magic" about common decency!??Just ask yourself before you do something, if you would be upset if someone did to you whatever it is that you are planning.? If the answer is that you wouldn't appreciate the action, then? reconsider the action before hitting the ""Send" button.? We should all?impose self constraint in regards to our?"rights to free association and speech".? Our?rights should end when they start to trample on anothers rights.? You?know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very means of making a living.? You trampled on?his rights!? Dr. Franta didn't represent his "free speech" public opinion as being that of his employer, therefore you didn't have any need to drag his employer into the fray other than your own malicious intent to inflict harm.? Simple put, you owe Dr. Franta an apology because you let your anger cause you to launch a personal vendetta. Roy Herren ? Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? >Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you >magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you >magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? >What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a >situation like that is frowned on? ----- Original Message ---- From: James Salsman To: radsafelist ; Dan McCarn ; ROY HERREN ; Steven Dapra ; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 3:10:06 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish.? He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment.? For example, that answer also omits this: http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Plutonium-Found-Munitions.htm > I tend to believe that you offer your seeming ignorance as part of a ruse.... Ha!? You accuse me of feigned ignorance but neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer an accurate figure for the rate at which spent fuel has and is expected to enter the environment. > This was one of my IAEA projects back in the 80s in the > IAEA's Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle to characterize all > non-reactor nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the world. Then why are you unable to state a number? Rainer Facius wrote: > not a single of the references you provided addresses HERITABLE effects? Incorrect.? As Dr. Cedervall almost correctly pointed out: "A teratogen may also, but not necessarily, be a _mutagen_ and therefore could give heritable ... defects" http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html? (His "necessarily" part is wrong -- a mutagen is a mutagen and a teratogenic mutagen has the mechanism of action in the germ cells.) The Miller and McClain 2007 review clearly indicate mutations and other chromosome aberrations, and their findings have been adopted by the U.S. National Research Council: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11979&page=90 Roy Herren wrote: > Have you publicly apologized as of yet to Dr. Franta for having contacted his company's CEO? Why?? If someone accused you of trying to help terrorists, would you magically lose your right to free association and speech?? Would you magically lose your right to complain to the accuser's management? What does it say about an industry that speaking with an employer in a situation like that is frowned on? Steven Dapra wrote: > According to McDiarmid et al., so few chromosomal aberrations were > found that they couldn't perform linear regression on them. What do you think the relation is between the ability to perform linear regression and confirmation of their existence? >? it has become patently obvious to me that you *can't* read reports. Steve, three months ago you were trying to convince us that uranyl wasn't teratogenic.? How long do you intend to keep playing the fool? If you have a problem with the way Miller and McClain characterized McDairmid's results, please email or phone her at her office.? She is on Eastern time and returning from her vacation on Monday. James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From rhelbig at california.com Sun Jul 6 05:41:35 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 03:41:35 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> Salsman made the following claim " Terrorists have apparently been trying to accumulate DU as dirty bomb material years before I had become aware of the issues with uranium toxicity publications." Since DU makes very poor dirty bomb material because it is not radioactive enough, the only terrorists who would be trying to accumulate DU would be either nuts or just pretty darn dumb. The claim that FARC had DU is probably the result of someone who did not know what they were doing. There is no way that an organization that walks hundreds of miles a year in the deep jungle would be lugging DU around in a backpack. Is there anyone on this list with a Columbia connection who can verify the DU story that came out a couple of months ago. Roy, Salsman is not dumb, he is crafty; he has cost the taxpayer large sums of money with his petitions to the NRC - I am going to put up some of the 100 plus documents in the ADAMS system resulting from Salsman's petitions. The transcript of the phone hearing on one has so much brass on the phone that it alone cost $10-20K just in the salaries of the individuals on the phone plus their prep time. Roger Helbig PS .. all of his RADSAFE arguments have been presented to the NRC and found wanting in a formal 2005 decision. He does not give up -- he is waiting for someone to slip so that he can claim that someone on RADSAFE basically agreed with him. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:02 PM To: ROY HERREN Cc: radsafelist Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Roy Herren wrote: > Do you recall the Golden Rule, "Do unto others > as you would have them do unto you"? Does that rule apply to people who accuse others of supporting terrorism? > You know full well that you could have cost Dr. Franta his job, his very > means of making a living. How would one less very senior nuclear engineer accusing people in other countries of terror crimes from his work email make a difference? > You trampled on his rights! There is no right in Canada or anywhere else to make accusations of murderous crimes from your corporate email account and not have your employer brought in to the situation. If anyone should be apologizing, Dr. Franta should. Terrorists have apparently been trying to accumulate DU as dirty bomb material years before I had become aware of the issues with uranium toxicity publications. Steven Dapra quoted: > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. James Salsman _______________________________________________ From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Sun Jul 6 17:42:46 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 17:42:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs References: <5.2.1.1.1.20080628093921.009eb130@mail.swcp.com> <4866F127.8040202@peoplepc.com> <04ab01c8d991$2b5b53f0$9d8da9ac@your4dacd0ea75> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AC3@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> <081f01c8dad0$e05db730$9d8da9ac@your4dacd0ea75> <39102BB89B2E41F58E9FF7EA4C1E8C78@JohnPC> Message-ID: <0d5901c8dfb9$9ea5a9e0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> John, wouldn't you say that by definition, even when an X-Ray is formed following a nuclear reaction, it is still formed by atomic reactions in the electron shell area? If it is an X-Ray it is coming from the electron shell area, not the nucleus. If it comes from the nucleus, it is a Gamma Ray. There are no other differences between Gamma- and X- Rays. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R Johnson" To: "Geo>K0FF" ; "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" ; Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs > All > > Unless the X-Rays result from a nuclear reaction. > > John > *************** > John R Johnson, PhD > CEO, IDIAS, Inc. > 4535 West 9th Ave > 604-676-3556 > Vancouver, B. C. > V6R 2E2, Canada > idias at interchange.ubc.ca > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Geo>K0FF" > To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" ; > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:46 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs > > >> Sure Mike, I know that, but technically speaking and being precise, any >> reaction dealing with elements (atoms) are atomic by nature. Reactions >> dealing with the nucleus are nuclear. >> >> Hence, Gamma Rays are nuclear, X-Rays are atomic. >> >> >> >> Positronium is sometimes considered an atom. If it is, then sometime >> positron annihilation is nuclear, other times it is atomic. >> >> ATOMIC: Pertaining to the atoms >> >> Nuclear: Pertaining to the nucleus of an atom. >> >> from Electronics and Nucleonics Dictionary, 3rd ed. Markus, McGraw Hill. >> >> Therefore all chemical reactions are technically and correctly called >> atomic in nature. >> >> By the way, once in a while I offer a for sale item on Radsafe, this was >> pre approved by the list owner. If members don't like it, I will take >> them elsewhere and charge fair market value. my policy has always been to >> offer to the trade, especially students at a low price first. These mare >> my own personal items have been upgraded by newer or more capable >> equipment in my private lab. >> >> George Dowell >> New London Nucleonics Lab >> GEOelectronics at netscape.com >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:11 AM >> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs >> >> >> Hi, George. >> >> Speaking as someone who at one point was a qualified Weapons Officer in >> the Navy's nuclear weapons program, the way we divided up things that go >> BANG! was: (1) energy from chemical sources - conventional (2) energy >> from fission - atomic >> (3) energy from fusion (usually deuterium - tritium) - nuclear. This >> was useful because all our strategic weapons had all three components, >> and we needed to be able to discuss how they worked together. >> >> As to the Trinity test, if I remember correctly the package was the same >> as the one used in Fat Man, but it was not put into the casing suitable >> for dropping from and airplane, and the triggering system was obviously >> different, so I'd say it was a "device" rather than a "weapon", but with >> no enthusiasm for arguing the point. Based on a fair amount of reading, >> there was a great desire to test to make sure the weapons would work, >> and it was decided to test only the plutonium design because (1) there >> wasn't enough purified U235 for two weapons, and wouldn't be for some >> time, and (2) the plutonium design was much more technically >> challenging. The challenge came not from whether or not a chain >> reaction was possible in plutonium, but from whether or not the large >> number of conventional explosive charges could be detonated with the >> extreme precision necessary to make the reaction happen. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >> Behalf Of Geo>K0FF >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:38 PM >> To: Maury Siskel; Steven Dapra >> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs >> >> All these bombs are nuclear bombs., that is having to do with the >> nucleus The fusion bombs are "Hydrogen bombs". All other explosive, TNT >> etc. are atomic bombs by definition, that is having to do with atomic >> reactions outside the nucleus. >> >> George Dowell >> NLNL >> New London Nucleonics lab >> >> GEOelectronics at netscape.com >> ----- Original Message ----- >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Maury Siskel" >> To: "Steven Dapra" >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 9:19 PM >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Testing bombs >> >> >>> If memory serves (and it certainly may not) Trinity was a test of an >>> atomic explosive device, not of either Little Boy or Fat Man. The test >> >>> simply confirmed that the explosive device did in fact work. Little >>> Boy and Fat Man both were explosive devices in suitable shapes >>> suitable for release from a B-29 bomber. Little Boy weighed about 4.5 >>> tons and had an explosive yield of about 13 KT; Fat Man was larger >>> with an explosive yield of about 21 KT. Both employed nuclear >>> fission and were the only bombs completed then by the US . They were >>> transported aboard the cruiser, USS Indianapolis to Tinian and then >>> dropped first on Hiroshima and a few days later on Nagasaki. >>> >>> So called nuclear bombs were developed after the war and employed >>> nuclear fusion. These used a fission 'trigger' to start the fusion >>> process. Thus far, they have never been used in warfare -- the two >>> atomic devices were the only ones ever used in war. >>> >>> Nuclear weapons development and testing ensued for some years >>> including the largest known single weapon yield by Russia which >> exceeded 50 MT. >>> Present day testing to the best of my understanding is done by means >>> of simulations along with some destructive reliability tests of some >>> components. Concerns are related to the deterioration of some >>> components as a function of age. >>> >>> Most others, including Franz, on this List are far more capable than >>> am I of telling this story. Everyone must have begun their July 4th >> vacations. >>> Google also will quickly yield good accounts. (Pun intended) >>> Cheers, Maury&Dog >>> >>> ================== >>> Steven Dapra wrote: >>> >>>> June 28, 2008 >>>> >>>> From time to time I have read that one of the Hiroshima and >>>> Nagasaki bombs had to be tested before it was used, and that one did >>>> not --- that the engineers were so certain the latter bomb would >>>> explode that they didn't bother testing it. I also read recently >>>> that hydrogen bombs must be tested. Of these three types of bombs, >>>> which ones must be tested, and why? For the one that did not have to >> >>>> be tested, why not? (I don't have any bombs I want to test, I am >>>> merely curious.) >>>> >>>> Steven Dapra >>>> sjd at swcp.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/ >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > > From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 18:46:16 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:46:16 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Message-ID: Roger Helbig wrote: > DU makes very poor dirty bomb material because it is not radioactive enough Another former Colonel who pretends that people won't laugh when he ignores the proven mutagenicty. Martin et al (1991) "A cytogenetic study of men occupationally exposed to uranium" Br J Ind Med 48(2) 98-102. > Salsman is not dumb, he is crafty To be honest, I'm not very good at destroying soldiers' health by trying to keep a secret about stuff that was published as early as the 1950s. There are others here with championship-level skills. > he has cost the taxpayer large sums of money with his petitions A tiny fraction of the cost of treating Dr. Kang's patients. It is people such as Cols. Helbig and Cherry who are causing billions of dollars of damage to the economy by gunning for the health of their own soldiers as well as trying to shoot down a perfectly legitimate reason to start scheduling transits to Yucca Mountain first thing in the morning. A very tangled web that they have woven holding them so tight that they are unable to do a thing about spent fuel casks rated for merely eight (8) hours under water in this day of absurdly increasing carbon. There are a hell of a lot more people who can be helped by recognizing the mutagenicity of DU than can be harmed. Families. Men, women, and children in the heartland. And we have the officially sanctioned myth that Helbig spouts, telling us that there's nothing to worry about. What do we want? Viable nuclear power or soldiers with sick kids? Even if a magnitude 10 earthquake hits right under Yucca Mountain, the people of Las Vegas will be safer, healthier from communicable diseases, and better defended if the fuel was in the Yucca tunnels than in overflow casks nearly anywhere in lower 49 United States. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jul 6 18:56:14 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:56:14 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20080705214225.009f2250@mail.swcp.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080706174530.009f2770@mail.swcp.com> >At 08:01 PM 7/5/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: > >[edit] > > >>Steven Dapra quoted: >> >> > there is no evidence that uranium of any type (depleted, naturally >> > occurring, or enriched) can transform human cells to the tumorigenic >> > phenotype (1)." [Reference (1) is to BEIR IV.] >> >>That was in the 80s. And cancer is a background effect compared to >>the teratogenic mutagenicity of uranyl. >> >>James Salsman July 6 Note that above James Salsman is speaking derisively of BEIR IV. On July 4, he posted a message that consisted largely of some quotes from Miller and McClain that were supposed to prove James' point about something or other. He even quoted something Miller and McClain said about BEIR IV, to wit: "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." On one day James uses BEIR IV to make his anti-DU point ("cautions against"), yet on another day BEIR IV "was in the 80s" and hence has little or no merit. What's the matter, James? Don't you read what you post here? Or do you find it titillating to talk out of both sides of your mouth? Steven Dapra From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jul 6 19:10:37 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:10:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080706175809.009f02d0@mail.swcp.com> July 6 My comments (SD) interspersed. At 04:46 PM 7/6/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Roger Helbig wrote: > > > DU makes very poor dirty bomb material because it is not radioactive > enough > >Another former Colonel who pretends that people won't laugh when he >ignores the proven mutagenicty. Martin et al (1991) "A cytogenetic >study of men occupationally exposed to uranium" Br J Ind Med 48(2) >98-102. SD: James you're out of your mind. For a dirty bomb (or any type of bomb) to be effective it must do damage at the time it is exploded, not (possibly) 30 or 40 years in the future. > > Salsman is not dumb, he is crafty > >To be honest, I'm not very good at destroying soldiers' health by >trying to keep a secret about stuff that was published as early as the >1950s. There are others here with championship-level skills. SD: You're very good at blathering away for months on end. > > he has cost the taxpayer large sums of money with his petitions > >A tiny fraction of the cost of treating Dr. Kang's patients. > >It is people such as Cols. Helbig and Cherry who are causing billions >of dollars of damage to the economy by gunning for the health of their >own soldiers as well as trying to shoot down a perfectly legitimate >reason to start scheduling transits to Yucca Mountain first thing in >the morning. A very tangled web that they have woven holding them so >tight that they are unable to do a thing about spent fuel casks rated >for merely eight (8) hours under water in this day of absurdly >increasing carbon. SD: If you, James, want shipments to Yucca Mountain to begin, why don't you petition Sen. Reid of Nevada who is violently opposed to opening YM? Why don't you petition the no-nuke kooks who are also obstructing its opening? RADSAFErs are not opposed to opening YM, it's your fellow travelers who are. Talk to them. What do you think the likelihood is that a spent fuel cask is going to spend eight hours under water? This complaint is so silly it defies description. >There are a hell of a lot more people who can be helped by recognizing >the mutagenicity of DU than can be harmed. Families. Men, women, and >children in the heartland. And we have the officially sanctioned myth >that Helbig spouts, telling us that there's nothing to worry about. SD: Once again, Danton. (And naughty, naughty, James. You used a bad word.) >What do we want? Viable nuclear power or soldiers with sick kids? > >Even if a magnitude 10 earthquake hits right under Yucca Mountain, the >people of Las Vegas will be safer, healthier from communicable >diseases, and better defended if the fuel was in the Yucca tunnels >than in overflow casks nearly anywhere in lower 49 United States. > >James Salsman SD: Again, tell it to Sen. Reid. ----- END ----- From BenjB4 at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 00:03:06 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:03:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain Message-ID: Steven Dapra wrote: > Note that above James Salsman ... quoted something Miller and McClain > said about BEIR IV, to wit: "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... > cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." Those studies have become available, and they have gone from neutral -- no evidence of carcinogenicity -- to positive, meaning that uranyl exposure causes leukemia in animals. The teratogenicity and mutagenicity have never been in doubt since the 50s and 90s, respectively. That was in the portions of Miller and McClain that I quoted. > For a dirty bomb (or any type of bomb) to be effective it must do damage > at the time it is exploded, not (possibly) 30 or 40 years in the future. What source could you possibly have for such an absurd statement? Do you know that weapons which act off the battlefield have been against international law for almost a century? > If you, James, want shipments to Yucca Mountain to begin, why don't > you petition Sen. Reid of Nevada who is violently opposed to opening YM? Do you mean "violently" in the literal sense, or is that the sort of accusation that you think it is okay to make? Senator Reid can't do anything to stop Yucca Mountain, it has been entirely in the NRC's hands since last month's submission of the DoE's application. What we really need is an emergency petition to the NRC to modify the existing licenses of facilities with overflow spent fuel casks rated for only eight hours submerged (most all of them) to use the Yucca Mountain facility according to its existing application on a tentative basis. What we don't need is the idiots who turn their backs on the mutagenicity of U(VI) drafting it. > RADSAFErs are not opposed to opening YM You have clearly not been reading. Dr. Rabbe along with a small minority of nuclear scientists and engineers want to begin reprocessing and they think Yucca Mountain will somehow impede it. Opening Yucca Mountain to overflow cask storage will not impede the ability to reprocess spent fuel. Even if Yucca Mountain was one-way there would still be plenty of fuel to get to in non-overflow facilities. James Salsman From dfblaine at gmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:40:26 2008 From: dfblaine at gmail.com (Dave Blaine) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:40:26 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" Message-ID: Dear Dr. Cohen, I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its potential danger, then what is?" The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one million times worse for U238. Do you agree with that assessment? James Salsman From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Mon Jul 7 08:59:22 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:59:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Seeking Roentgen Kits Message-ID: <0e7c01c8e039$aa5b3180$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Seeking donations of Roentgen Kits, yellowcake samples, and other exempt quantity items for recycling as educational tools at the Advanced Technical Center. There is an immediate need of 20 units, with 50 needed for next years class. George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab GEOelectronics at netscape.com George Dowell 56791 Rivere Au Sel Pl New London MO 63459 573-221-3418 From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jul 7 10:19:36 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:19:36 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> Message-ID: <005101c8e044$df02cdc0$9d086940$@oilfield.slb.com> -----Original Message----- From: Roger Helbig Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:42 AM .... There is no way that an organization that walks hundreds of miles a year in the deep jungle would be lugging DU around in a backpack. Is there anyone on this list with a Columbia connection who can verify the DU story that came out a couple of months ago. I guess it is possible that the FARC came into possession of some DU salvaged from a downed aircraft or helicopter.... But I would think it of little utility. Other than a door stop...... ;~) Doug (personal reflection only.....) From hpsolutions at comcast.net Mon Jul 7 11:12:10 2008 From: hpsolutions at comcast.net (hpsolutions at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:12:10 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments Message-ID: <070720081612.17283.4872405A0004437C0000438322155517249D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH for use in the US in a uranium facility. Instruments include the Portable Contamination Monitor CoMo -170, the hand-foot-clothing contamination monitor with large-area, thin-layer plastic scintillation detectors, the hand-foot-clothing monitor- standard version, the W I M P 60 x 10 PC-based smear test measuring system with 10 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 8 PC-based smear test measuring system with 8 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 6 PC-based smear test measuring system with 6 x detector geometry and PD 32 and 42 internal pipe detectors. I am not familar with the S.E.A. products and was trying to see if anyone had experience with them. I would appreciate your opinions, good and bad, so that we can make a decision on using the S.E.A. products or products that are commercially available in the US. Thanks for your help. Paul Jones, CHP From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 11:23:01 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:23:01 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <005101c8e044$df02cdc0$9d086940$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <748387.90503.qm@web81607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000101c8df54$f97720c0$ec656240$@com> <005101c8e044$df02cdc0$9d086940$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <030801c8e04d$bb514bf0$31f3e3d0$@com> Hi Doug: For years, I tracked news reports about R/A materials smuggling and remember one report from India about someone who was reported to have been smuggling highly enriched uranium inside yellow cakes. After that, I gave little credence to the media. When I first went to the Former Soviet Union in 1995, I was dismayed to discover that not even nuclear professionals knew that the world price of yellowcake only amounted to about $15 per kilogram at the time. Street word was that it was worth some unimaginable price. I have previously posted some of my concerns (and usually the lack thereof) about various countries' access to sources, such as the soil moisture and density gauges that were being sold to Iran that became a news item one or two years ago when they were stopped in transit in Hungary. I imagine that the gauges were allowed to continue although no media outlet reported other than the initial concern that Iran might be acquiring nuclear materials. They obviously had never heard that the oil industry (big in Iran) has numerous, much larger sources. It is highly doubtful that anyone is in a position to verify FARCs possession of DU. All they need to do is plant the doubt in someone's mind that they might have DU or other nuclear sources (exempt or otherwise) and the media will run wild regardless of the veracity. Or simply place a kilogram of uranium ore in a container and let the media believe what they will. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:20 AM To: 'Roger Helbig'; 'Radsafe' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 -----Original Message----- From: Roger Helbig Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:42 AM .... There is no way that an organization that walks hundreds of miles a year in the deep jungle would be lugging DU around in a backpack. Is there anyone on this list with a Columbia connection who can verify the DU story that came out a couple of months ago. I guess it is possible that the FARC came into possession of some DU salvaged from a downed aircraft or helicopter.... But I would think it of little utility. Other than a door stop...... ;~) Doug (personal reflection only.....) _______________________________________________ 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 12:20:53 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:20:53 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Message-ID: <031201c8e055$d04e8d30$70eba790$@com> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. Dan ii http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrvz0Q2BcoolsBxBgT8A8sD6S-Q Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman. "The operation was completed over the weekend, on Saturday," Whitman said. The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yellowcake is a form of processed uranium ore that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors, or if further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons. Whitman said the Iraqi government asked the United States for help in selling and transferring the uranium to another country. Cameco, a Canadian company, agreed to buy the yellowcake for a reported sum in the tens of millions of dollars. The cost to the United States of transferring the uranium came to about 70 million dollars, Whitman said. He said the Iraqi government has agreed in principle to repay part of the transfer costs. The US State and Energy Departments also played roles in the operation, Whitman said. But the Defense Department took the lead in carrying out the transfer, he said. It took 110 shipping containers to carry the drums loaded with yellowcake, he said. They were transferred by convoy from Tuwaitha to a secure facility within the Green Zone, the international zone, Whitman said. Then they were flown by C-17 military transport planes to an undisclosed third country. Whitman said it took 37 planeloads to complete that portion of the transfer. "At this intermediate location the cargo was loaded onto a US-flagged cargo ship, a military sealift container ship, the USS Gopher State," he said. Whitman said the arrangements for the sale began several months ago, but the transfer itself took "weeks not months." With the transfer, no yellowcake was known to be left in Iraq, Whitman said. News of the operation broke over the weekend when Cameco acknowledged the arrival of the uranium shipment at Montreal. Lyle Khran, a Cameco spokesman, said the company had responded to a bid request made last year by the US government. "We are satisfied at having been able to remove uranium from one of the most unstable regions of the world, and to have transferred it to a stable region to produce our own electric power," he said on Sunday. He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. From radbloom at comcast.net Mon Jul 7 12:47:37 2008 From: radbloom at comcast.net (Cindy Bloom) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:47:37 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Radioactive cocktail: Blending waste won't lessen the danger" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> Chemical and radiological toxicity are both related to dose which is related to concentration. If the concentration of a "hazard" is very low (and I mean low relative to that level which has been shown to cause harm), it is likely that the risk to a cell, organ, individual or society is very low. Most of us would agree that the uranium found in our garden soils causes little or no harm (and some believe that it might even be beneficial). Regarding U-238, it's not at all clear what is meant by the phrase "about one million times worse for U238". What else was being tested? What is meant by worse? What effect do you mean? What mode of exposure do you mean - external exposure, ingestion, inhalation, injection, skin absorption? What is U-238 1,000,000 worse than - other uranium isotopes? Carbon? Nickle? Arsenic? Lead? Do you mean that the dosage to cause damage from the chemical is 1,000,000 times the dosage to cause damage from the radiation? I tend to believe that damage depends on uranium's isotopic mix (DU while mostly U-238 on mass or atomic scale includes other U isotopes) and chemical form and intake mode as well as dosage and dose, and that the numbers specified in regulations and guidance are provided as a way to control risks, and that there are levels of risk that are just too low to worry about, because worry is associated with its own risk and resources used to control reduce small risks take away from resources available to reduce large risks. Cindy At 01:40 PM 7/3/2008 -0700, Dave Blaine wrote: >Dear Dr. Cohen, > >I thought you would know the answer to your question, "If the of >concentration of radioactivity in waste is not indicative of its >potential danger, then what is?" > >The chemical toxicity, which is very often much worse, According to >Alexandria C. Miller's experiments published in 2004, about one >million times worse for U238. > >Do you agree with that assessment? > >James Salsman >_______________________________________________ >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/ From efforrer at aol.com Mon Jul 7 12:49:12 2008 From: efforrer at aol.com (efforrer at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:49:12 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Arguing With... In-Reply-To: <200807071309.95e48724db8306@rly-mf05.mx.aol.com> References: <200807071309.95e48724db8306@rly-mf05.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CAAE70E5F635FD-1174-B7E@webmail-ne15.sysops.aol.com> My dear departed Daddy always said you should never argue with a pig.? It makes you look really stupid and it annoys the pig.? May I suggest we cease arguing with those who have absolutely no interest in an intelligent conversation. Gene Forrer From frantaj at aecl.ca Mon Jul 7 13:18:35 2008 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:18:35 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Message-ID: He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. There are no "nuclear power plants" at Blind River and Port Hope -- just Cameco refineries. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From jim.dukelow at pnl.gov Mon Jul 7 13:33:28 2008 From: jim.dukelow at pnl.gov (Dukelow, James S Jr) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:33:28 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium References: <031201c8e055$d04e8d30$70eba790$@com> Message-ID: Dan McCarn and the Associated Press wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Dan W McCarn Sent: Mon 7/7/2008 10:20 AM To: 'Radsafe' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. Dan ii http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrvz0Q2BcoolsBxBgT8A8sD6S-Q Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman. "The operation was completed over the weekend, on Saturday," Whitman said. The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yellowcake is a form of processed uranium ore that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors, or if further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons. Whitman said the Iraqi government asked the United States for help in selling and transferring the uranium to another country. Cameco, a Canadian company, agreed to buy the yellowcake for a reported sum in the tens of millions of dollars. The cost to the United States of transferring the uranium came to about 70 million dollars, Whitman said. He said the Iraqi government has agreed in principle to repay part of the transfer costs. The US State and Energy Departments also played roles in the operation, Whitman said. But the Defense Department took the lead in carrying out the transfer, he said. It took 110 shipping containers to carry the drums loaded with yellowcake, he said. They were transferred by convoy from Tuwaitha to a secure facility within the Green Zone, the international zone, Whitman said. Then they were flown by C-17 military transport planes to an undisclosed third country. Whitman said it took 37 planeloads to complete that portion of the transfer. "At this intermediate location the cargo was loaded onto a US-flagged cargo ship, a military sealift container ship, the USS Gopher State," he said. ================= Dan's calculations incorporate the assumption that when AP wrote "550 metric tons of uranium" they were referring to metallic uranium. It seems more likely that, with typical media sloppiness in science/technology stories, AP's reference to "hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium" and "550 metric tons of uranium" are actually referring to the same 550 metric tons of yellowcake. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 13:56:56 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:56:56 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium In-Reply-To: References: <031201c8e055$d04e8d30$70eba790$@com> Message-ID: <032301c8e063$3c291a90$b47b4fb0$@com> Hi Jim: I agree the media is sloppy. Having worked at the IAEA for 8 years, most international reported uranium transfers as yellowcake when reported as metric tonnes is as metallic U equivalent, not U3O8, for processed yellowcake. At least that is my IAEA REDBOOK experience spanning 1980 to present. There are exceptions, but generally, that is the rule. It may in fact be U3O8 that is being reported, but coming from an international source, I'd first guess that it would be metallic U equivalent. But media reports are vague. I await Cameco's official statement on quantity. So it is either expressed as Tonnes U or pounds U3O8. The multiplier for pounds U3O8 from Tonnes U is 2600 The multiplier for pounds U3O8 from Tonnes U3O8 is 2205 The multiplier for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Dukelow, James S Jr [mailto:jim.dukelow at pnl.gov] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:33 PM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Dan McCarn and the Associated Press wrote: -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Dan W McCarn Sent: Mon 7/7/2008 10:20 AM To: 'Radsafe' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. Dan ii http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrvz0Q2BcoolsBxBgT8A8sD6S-Q Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada 54 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - At Iraq's request, the US military recently transferred hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq to Canada in a secret, weeks-long operation, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday. The 550 metric tons of uranium, which was sold to a Canadian company, was moved by truck convoy to Baghdad's "Green Zone," then flown by military aircraft to a third country where it was put on a ship for Canada, said Bryan Whitman, the spokesman. "The operation was completed over the weekend, on Saturday," Whitman said. The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Yellowcake is a form of processed uranium ore that can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors, or if further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons. Whitman said the Iraqi government asked the United States for help in selling and transferring the uranium to another country. Cameco, a Canadian company, agreed to buy the yellowcake for a reported sum in the tens of millions of dollars. The cost to the United States of transferring the uranium came to about 70 million dollars, Whitman said. He said the Iraqi government has agreed in principle to repay part of the transfer costs. The US State and Energy Departments also played roles in the operation, Whitman said. But the Defense Department took the lead in carrying out the transfer, he said. It took 110 shipping containers to carry the drums loaded with yellowcake, he said. They were transferred by convoy from Tuwaitha to a secure facility within the Green Zone, the international zone, Whitman said. Then they were flown by C-17 military transport planes to an undisclosed third country. Whitman said it took 37 planeloads to complete that portion of the transfer. "At this intermediate location the cargo was loaded onto a US-flagged cargo ship, a military sealift container ship, the USS Gopher State," he said. ================= Dan's calculations incorporate the assumption that when AP wrote "550 metric tons of uranium" they were referring to metallic uranium. It seems more likely that, with typical media sloppiness in science/technology stories, AP's reference to "hundreds of metric tons of yellowcake uranium" and "550 metric tons of uranium" are actually referring to the same 550 metric tons of yellowcake. Best regards. Jim Dukelow Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA jim.dukelow at pnl.gov These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy. From Marty.Bourquin at grace.com Mon Jul 7 13:58:41 2008 From: Marty.Bourquin at grace.com (Bourquin, Marty) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:58:41 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Mon Jul 7 14:14:43 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:14:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACF@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James: Here is your entire post I responded to: Dan, Thank you for your question: > Again, what connection do you bring between at-reactor spent fuel > storage pools and weather? Rapid loss of load caused by flooding or forest fire, leading to cooling needs beyond the scope of the facility will have people in large vehicles scrambling around everywhere and that can not be good for containment. What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities? James Salsman The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities?" By the context I took "storage facility" to mean "at-reactor spent fuel storage pools". I further assumed that the storage pools under discussion were connected with commercial reactors in the United States: the validity of the "commercial" assumption supported by your definition in another post of "load" as being an electrical load. "Current" in this context, means "now; at this moment, not the past or the future". "Rate", again in context, means "amount per unit of time (let's use day in this case)". "Seepage" means "something that seeps or leaks out". Seep means "to pass, flow, or ooze gradually through a porous substance: Water seeps through cracks in the wall." U238 is a pretty specific isotope, with well defined meaning. So, your question was "What is the amount of U238 per day passing or oozing from the at-reactor spent fuel storage pools in the United States?" The answer is, indeed, zero. First, the pools are designed with multiple redundancies to not leak, to detect any leaks, and are maintained to prevent leaks. Should a leak be detected, the liquid would be contained and the leak fixed. There is, at this moment, "currently", if you will, no indication that there are any spent fuel storage pools at any commercial reactors in the United States that are leaking. The current rate is "zero". There is also no indication that there has, in the past, been leakage that has ever reached the outside environment from any of these pools. Second, the U238 is chemically in a form that is very resistant to being dissolved in water. It is, after all expected to be very hot in very hot water, and not dissolve. The U238 is also inside of multiple layers of cladding (how many depending on the type of fuel). The cladding is very resistant to leaking, and thus prevents the U238 from being in contact with the water. So, James, I answered the question you asked, based on the words you used to ask it. If that was not the question you wanted answered, then perhaps you should have used different words that would have let people know what question you wanted answered. I acknowledge that it is possible for me to be wrong, and even foolish, however, in this case there is no indication that I am either. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:10 AM To: radsafelist; Dan McCarn; ROY HERREN; Steven Dapra; Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 Dan McCarn wrote: > Mike Brennan has sufficiently answered your question.... No, Mike's answer of "zero" is wrong and foolish. He hasn't even begun to enumerate all of the ways spent fuel has entered the environment. For example, that answer also omits this: From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 15:18:30 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:18:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. Another example of media fuzziness in reporting. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:19 PM To: Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. There are no "nuclear power plants" at Blind River and Port Hope -- just Cameco refineries. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From mrrmw1 at aol.com Mon Jul 7 15:49:43 2008 From: mrrmw1 at aol.com (mrrmw1 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:49:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Licensing Fee Audits Message-ID: <8CAAE8A1E02D90C-938-17C7@Webmail-mg13.sim.aol.com> I am trying to find out?if anyone has?experienced the NRC?review covering annual fees for fiscal years 2002 through 2007of all active small materials license. The review?uncovered administrative billing errors which have?resulted in incorrect assessment of annual fees.?? From edmond0033 at comcast.net Mon Jul 7 16:46:40 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:46:40 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium References: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> Message-ID: <002101c8e07a$f17cd0a0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Try India or Brazil!! Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bourquin, Marty" To: "radsafelist" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 _______________________________________________ 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/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Mon Jul 7 16:47:14 2008 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:47:14 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium In-Reply-To: <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> Message-ID: Here's a good source of nice, concentrated Thorium nitrate -- 3215 metric tonnes : http://www.energyfromthorium.com/images/thorium_ANWR.jpg Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Bourquin, Marty Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:59 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 _______________________________________________ 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/ From jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca Mon Jul 7 16:53:13 2008 From: jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca (Jaro) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 17:53:13 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium In-Reply-To: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> Message-ID: Actually, there's a nice short blurb on their web site -- including the part about conversion to UO2 (non-enriched) for use in CANDU reactors.... Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ http://www.cameco.com/operations/refining_conversion/blind_river/ The Blind River refinery processes uranium concentrates from Cameco's mining operations, as well as from other Canadian and foreign producers. - world's largest commercial uranium refinery - includes a uranium trioxide (UO3) processing plant, water treatment plant, power plant, nitric acid recovery system and analytical lab services - refinery produces UO3, a high-purity intermediate product, shipped to Cameco's Port Hope conversion facility for further processing - licensed production capacity of 18,000 tonnes of uranium per year - receives drums of uranium ore concentrates from mines around the world including in Canada, Australia and the United States - achieved International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 certification for environmental management systems in 2002 - shipping UO3 to Springfields, UK for toll conversion to UF6 - utilizing unused production capacity ---------------------- Cameco transports the UO3 to Port Hope where it is converted to uranium dioxide (UO2) or uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The UO3 is transported in specially designed tote bins, which carry 9.5 tonnes of product each. ================================== -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 4:19 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. Another example of media fuzziness in reporting. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:19 PM To: Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium He said the yellowcake would be used at the Blind River and Port Hope nuclear power plants north of Toronto. There are no "nuclear power plants" at Blind River and Port Hope -- just Cameco refineries. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Mon Jul 7 17:09:28 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:09:28 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain / o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10years.... / Miller and McClain, 2007 In-Reply-To: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACF@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: , <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ACF@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <48724DC8.21394.1F8FA43E@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Debating James is a singular waste of time. He's not launching his attacks from reality as we know it. He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy, no matter what factual evidence gets thrown his way. I don't know what drives him, but I have a theory. My theory is that, for some psychological reason, he needs to be a hero, and he's settled on DU as a conspiracy/cover up, with Radsafe as the ogre against which he must tilt. I think if the whole world joined him, and got every government remotely connected with DU to commit seppuku, then he *might* move on. Short of that he's never going to shut up. Nevertheless, I am sincerely grateful for every person who ever bothered to refute his DU fantasy. I dislike the idea of the Radsafe archives being browsed by some unsuspecting person, who might find, unchallenged and unexamined, assertions of widespread DU related illnesses. -Gary Isenhower From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 18:44:55 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:44:55 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium In-Reply-To: <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> References: <5.2.0.9.2.20080707125041.01fdd510@mail.comcast.net> <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111BEC3ECA@NAMDCO096.gracead.local> Message-ID: <036101c8e08b$76d3ff20$647bfd60$@com> Hi Marty: Perhaps contact parthasarathy k s [ksparth at yahoo.co.uk] in India. There is quite a bit of interest in processing the monazite beach placers for thorium and some work on a thorium fuel cycle. A company such as Molycorp also produces other rare earths from monazite sands, and are likely to have a some production capacity for thorium as well. http://www.molycorp.com/data_sheets/lanthology_m-z.pdf START OF QUOTE << The processing of monazite ores begins with gravity, electrostatic and magnetic separation to produce a monazite concentrate with a Ln oxide content of ? 60 %. Monazite can be cracked by reaction with sulfuric acid, like bastnasite, to yield a mixture of sulfates but the usual process is with alkali [3]. The concentrate is finely ground and digested with an excess of caustic soda at?150?C for several hours. (Ln,Th)Po4 + NaOH => Na3PO4 + Ln(OH)3 + Th(OH)4 The phosphate portion produces a soluble sodium tripolyphosphate while the lanthanides, along with thorium, form insoluble hydroxides (hydrated oxides) that can be recovered. The next step is hydrochloric acid attack, at ?70 ?C and pH 3-4, on the solids portion. The thorium remains insoluble and a crude thorium hydroxide can be filtered off.>> END OF QUOTE Although interest in thorium lags far behind uranium, these are the OECD (NEA) / IAEA numbers for RAR and EAR resources. RAR - Reasonably Assured Resources; EAR - Estimated Additional Resources Country RAR Th (tonnes) EAR Th (tonnes) Brazil 606,000 700,000 Turkey 380,000 500,000 India 319,000 - United States 137,000 295,000 Norway 132,000 132,000 Greenland 54,000 32,000 Canada 45,000 128,000 Australia 19,000 - South Africa 18,000 - Egypt 15,000 309,000 Other Countries 505,000 - World Total 2,230,000 2,130,000 Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Bourquin, Marty Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:59 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sources of Thorium We are a licensed facility in the US that uses thorium oxide, high surface area thorium oxide and thorium nitrate as raw materials in some our processes. Our current supplier (in France) has told us that they will no longer be supplying these materials. We are looking for alternative suppliers. China has been mentioned but our raw material vendors in China have told us that current regulations do not allow them to export these materials. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas I would love to hear them. Please feel free to contact me off list if you feel the response is not of general interest. Martin W. Bourquin Manager - EHS Radiation Safety Officer W.R. Grace & Co Chattanooga, TN 37406 423-697-8216 _______________________________________________ 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/ From sjd at swcp.com Mon Jul 7 20:54:45 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:54:45 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080707191213.009e8ec0@mail.swcp.com> July 6 My comments (SD) interspersed. At 10:03 PM 7/6/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Steven Dapra wrote: > > > Note that above James Salsman ... quoted something Miller and McClain > > said about BEIR IV, to wit: "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... > > cautions against minimizing the risk until more studies become available." > >Those studies have become available, and they have gone from neutral >-- no evidence of carcinogenicity -- to positive, meaning that uranyl >exposure causes leukemia in animals. SD: Let's all run out and warn the animals that they should not eat uranyl. Naturally James has omitted any citations for his claim. >The teratogenicity and mutagenicity have never been in doubt since the 50s >and 90s, >respectively. That was in the portions of Miller and McClain that I quoted. > > > For a dirty bomb (or any type of bomb) to be effective it must do damage > > at the time it is exploded, not (possibly) 30 or 40 years in the future. > >What source could you possibly have for such an absurd statement? Do >you know that weapons which act off the battlefield have been against >international law for almost a century? SD: James, you are soooo dumb. Can you imagine someone saying "I'm going to set off a bomb by you, but don't worry. You won't suffer any ill effects for at least 20 years (the typical latency period for hard tumors), and it may be 30 or 40 years before you see any ill effects, and you may *never* see any ill effects." What good is a bomb like that? All weapons act off the battlefield. We know that because in training exercises weapons are fired and they do damage. What is the source for your "against international law" assertion? > > If you, James, want shipments to Yucca Mountain to begin, why don't > > you petition Sen. Reid of Nevada who is violently opposed to opening YM? >Do you mean "violently" in the literal sense, or is that the sort of >accusation that you think it is okay to make? Senator Reid can't do >anything to stop Yucca Mountain, it has been entirely in the NRC's >hands since last month's submission of the DoE's application. SD: Sen Reid has been fighting Yucca Mountain for a good long while. For example: Las Vegas Review Journal December 4, 2007 http://www.lvrj.com/news/12110841.html WASHINGTON -- With Congress nearing decisions on federal spending for the coming year, Yucca Mountain critics are winding up for another swing at chopping the nuclear waste budget to crippling levels. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is seeking to cut beyond a $50 million decrease the Senate has written into its fiscal 2008 spending for energy programs, a spokesman said Monday. The goal of the Senate majority leader is to disable the Department of Energy's drive to apply, by next summer, for a construction license to build a repository at the Nevada site for thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel from power plants and for other forms of highly radioactive waste. "We are working with the House side to further cut Yucca Mountain, but I don't have a firm number just yet," Reid aide Jon Summers said Monday. "The goal always is to kill Yucca Mountain and to ensure the dump is never built." [edit] To quote something you once said to me, James, "Why were you unable to use Google" to find out about Sen. Reid's opposition to YM? (said on RADSAFE, April 5, 2007). It's not only Reid either. The entire Nevada Congressional delegation is opposed to YM. >What we really need is an emergency petition to the NRC to modify the >existing licenses of facilities with overflow spent fuel casks rated >for only eight hours submerged (most all of them) to use the Yucca >Mountain facility according to its existing application on a tentative >basis. What we don't need is the idiots who turn their backs on the >mutagenicity of U(VI) drafting it. SD: What we don't need is the idiots who are fulminating about uranyl causing leukemia in animals. > > RADSAFErs are not opposed to opening YM > >You have clearly not been reading. Dr. Rabbe along with a small >minority of nuclear scientists and engineers want to begin >reprocessing and they think Yucca Mountain will somehow impede it. >Opening Yucca Mountain to overflow cask storage will not impede the >ability to reprocess spent fuel. Even if Yucca Mountain was one-way >there would still be plenty of fuel to get to in non-overflow >facilities. SD: You haven't been reading much either, James. As far as I'm concerned Yucca Mountain isn't the most important thing on tap. I do not know what Dr. Raabe's views are on YM. He will have to speak for himself, because I'm certainly not going to believe you, James, even if on this rare occasion you somehow manage to be correct. I would merely reiterate that by and large your no-nuke fellow travelers are adamantly opposed to YM. If they find out that you support it they will probably revoke your honorary life membership in Physicians for Disease and Surrender (aka Physicians for Social Responsibility). By the way, James, when are you going to post your CV? Steven Dapra From rwhelbig at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 22:10:29 2008 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:10:29 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7f90ec870807072010p1dad0525p2d5559824bc35cbe@mail.gmail.com> This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual information despite using his MD to back it up - From: theroyprocess at cox.net Comment: Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of whistleblowers at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic blueprints of the wire they used did not match, and more! All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you want to bet your life on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will not make you less dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation. http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 ________________________________ Nuclear mortality Public Forum Letter Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions, premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children. These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these studies underestimate the causal relationship. A recent study of large numbers of people in many different countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to build more nuclear plants. Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power." Brian Moench President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment Salt Lake City for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ From Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk Tue Jul 8 04:21:22 2008 From: Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk (Arvic Harms) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:21:22 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Tritium-in-steel reference material Message-ID: Dear all, Are you aware of any currently available tritium-in-steel reference materials suitable for nuclear decommissioning work? Kind regards, Arvic Harms Dr Arvic Harms Radioactivity and Neutrons Group National Physical Laboratory Hampton Road Teddington Middlesex United Kingdom TW11 0LW ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From spencer.fisher at opg.com Tue Jul 8 06:34:29 2008 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 07:34:29 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Tue Jul 8 08:47:42 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:47:42 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: <20156255.1215524862741.JavaMail.root@viefep12> Spencer, Please pay attention, that Darn explicitely wrote U (elemental uranium) and U3O8 (tri-uranium oct-oxide). You forgot in your calculation obviously the contribution of the eight oxygen atoms. Best regards, Franz ---- FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR schrieb: > If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = > 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. > > "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at > UConcentrate at gmail.com > > By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 > having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 09:34:42 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:34:42 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> Message-ID: <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Tue Jul 8 10:08:19 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:08:19 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality Message-ID: <070820081508.12910.487382E2000ED6300000326E2215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Friday I will be touring Palo Verde with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. I hope they will let me use my Palm Rad (counter) to compare readings there with ambient in my office (~0.015mR/hr) and seat (~0.084, to give me exposure more like a denverite, from thorium welding rods under the pillow). Then I would like to confront that Utah physician with his lack of information about amount of exposure I measure at a nuclear plant and the potential benefit (hormesis) he would withhold - longevity and cancer data. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Roger Helbig" > This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect > that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual > information despite using his MD to back it up - > > From: theroyprocess at cox.net > > Comment: > Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of > whistleblowers at > Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic > blueprints of the wire they > used did not match, and more! > > All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you > want to bet your life > on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will > not make you less > dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation. > > http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 > > ________________________________ > > Nuclear mortality > Public Forum Letter > Salt Lake Tribune > > Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT > > Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that > when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel > cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of > nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are > tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions, > premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired > intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children. > These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by > Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed > at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other > debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades > after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these > studies underestimate the causal relationship. > A recent study of large numbers of people in many different > countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher > mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood > leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this > year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with > cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to > build more nuclear plants. > Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their > family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power." > > Brian Moench > President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment > Salt Lake City > > for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur > http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 10:43:58 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:43:58 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03bc01c8e111$71426750$53c735f0$@com> Hi Spencer: Yellowcake, the mine concentrate, is always represented as the weight equivalent either as pounds U3O8 or as metric Tonnes metal U. This standardized the amount of uranium in the material, regardless of chemical form. Yellowcake may come in several chemical forms, but is frequently converted into one of two commercial weights for sale: either as pounds U3O8 equivalent (even though it may not be an oxide) or as Kg or Tonnes U metal equivalent. This standardizes the actual amount of uranium that the customer is buying. Yellowcake is commonly produced as: Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 Not U3O8. This product, covered under ANSI standards, is shipped to the conversion plant to produce UO3 and eventually UF6. So, if the yellowcake has a reported equivalent assay as Tonnes metal U, the equivalent, represented as pounds U3O8 is as follows: Factor for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Factor for Tonnes to pounds is 2205 Factor for Tonnes U to pounds U3O8 is 2205/0.848 = 2600 My assumption about the Iraqi yellowcake is that since the weight was reported as Tonnes, the "weight equivalent" was probably expressed as metal U (usually the case for international trades). So I multiplied the 550 Tonnes by 2600 to express the "weight equivalent" as pounds U3O8. If the yellowcake was simply the weight of the material, and that was 550 Tonnes, then it would still have to be corrected for the equivalent U3O8 (or metal U) in the product to understand the actual U (or U3O8) equivalent content of the material. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell: ?+43-676-725-6622 HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:34 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Tue Jul 8 11:47:34 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:34 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco In-Reply-To: <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD1@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Interesting pictures. Thanks for sharing them with us, George. I suspect that the placement of the canisters on the truck/trailer was because of weight considerations, not criticality issues. I am not sure that UF6 could ever achieve a critical geometry, even if it is enriched to a fairly high level. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 11:58:34 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:58:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 12:22:16 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:22:16 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> A couple of listmembers who are familiar with these shipments correct my assumption that the spacing might have to do with neutrons, but rather they are quite heavy and are spaced out, over the axels, to distribute that weight. Thanks for the update. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo>K0FF" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:34 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco > Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far > apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together > on the truck. > > > I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes > neutron detection. > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ > > > George Dowell > NLNL > New London Nucleonics Lab > > > Message ----- > From: "Dan W McCarn" > To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium > > > Hi: > > That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind > River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From cehn at aol.com Tue Jul 8 13:07:38 2008 From: cehn at aol.com (Joel Cehn) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:07:38 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality Message-ID: <8CAAF3CA40E791B-DB8-174B@webmail-nc06.sysops.aol.com> Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. Joel I. Cehn, CHP Oakland, California From spencer.fisher at opg.com Tue Jul 8 13:31:58 2008 From: spencer.fisher at opg.com (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:31:58 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: Thank you for the good explanation. Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 -----Original Message----- From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:44 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Hi Spencer: Yellowcake, the mine concentrate, is always represented as the weight equivalent either as pounds U3O8 or as metric Tonnes metal U. This standardized the amount of uranium in the material, regardless of chemical form. Yellowcake may come in several chemical forms, but is frequently converted into one of two commercial weights for sale: either as pounds U3O8 equivalent (even though it may not be an oxide) or as Kg or Tonnes U metal equivalent. This standardizes the actual amount of uranium that the customer is buying. Yellowcake is commonly produced as: Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 Not U3O8. This product, covered under ANSI standards, is shipped to the conversion plant to produce UO3 and eventually UF6. So, if the yellowcake has a reported equivalent assay as Tonnes metal U, the equivalent, represented as pounds U3O8 is as follows: Factor for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Factor for Tonnes to pounds is 2205 Factor for Tonnes U to pounds U3O8 is 2205/0.848 = 2600 My assumption about the Iraqi yellowcake is that since the weight was reported as Tonnes, the "weight equivalent" was probably expressed as metal U (usually the case for international trades). So I multiplied the 550 Tonnes by 2600 to express the "weight equivalent" as pounds U3O8. If the yellowcake was simply the weight of the material, and that was 550 Tonnes, then it would still have to be corrected for the equivalent U3O8 (or metal U) in the product to understand the actual U (or U3O8) equivalent content of the material. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell: ?+43-676-725-6622 HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:34 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ 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/ ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. From Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com Tue Jul 8 13:32:02 2008 From: Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com (NIXON, Grant) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:32:02 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> Message-ID: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 15:56:14 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:56:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <1bc801c8e13d$11e00d90$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> I agree with Dan too. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "NIXON, Grant" To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Lee_M_Livesey at RL.gov Tue Jul 8 16:06:51 2008 From: Lee_M_Livesey at RL.gov (Livesey, Lee M) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:06:51 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Tue Jul 8 18:29:13 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:29:13 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - More nuclear power OK'd Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3A9D@gdses.corp.gds.com> Index: More nuclear power OK'd Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion ---------------------------------- More nuclear power OK'd G8 calls it an 'essential instrument' in cutting use of fossil fuels TOYAKO, Hokkaido - The Group of Eight leaders gave the green light Tuesday to expanded development of nuclear power, saying it is a vital energy source in the fight against global warming. But they warned that further development of nuclear plants must adhere to nonproliferation standards. "A growing number of countries have expressed interest in nuclear power programs as a means to addressing climate change and energy security concerns. These countries regard nuclear power as an essential instrument in reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and hence greenhouse gas emissions," the leaders said in a statement on environment and climate change. At the same time, the G8 leaders said those nations wishing to pursue atomic power must assure the international community that nuclear materials are tightly controlled and not diverted for arms. "We reiterate that safeguards (against nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security are fundamental principles for the peaceful use of nuclear energy," the statement added. Some 29 countries worldwide have indicated they wish to introduce nuclear power, while countries that currently use the energy source, especially Japan, the United States and Russia, have announced plans to expand capacity. In a separate report on global energy security principles, Japan said it plans to increase nuclear power generation to as much as 40 percent of total electricity generation by 2030. However, plans to continue to build not only conventional uranium-powered plants but also a spent fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, and to promote plutonium-burning fast-breeder reactors have long been a source of controversy within and without the G8. Antinuclear activists and environmental NGOs have dismissed G8 plans to increase reliance on nuclear power as a solution to climate change, while nonproliferation experts and many IAEA officials have expressed concerns about increased proliferation. "All this talk of a worldwide nuclear renaissance is just that. The reality is that no new plants have come on line in years, and given the huge investment and long time frame it takes to start up a nuclear power plant, it's unrealistic to think that they can help alleviate climate change anytime in the future," said Jurgen Maier, a German NGO representative. ------------ Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- A report from a State Department advisory panel says a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation poses proliferation risks, but the United States must embrace it to ensure that nuclear supplier nations build safeguards into the growing market. The report highlights division among experts about the future of civil nuclear power across the globe, the risks it poses, and the degree to which U.S. policy should support its spread. Some critics of the report say the expansion of nuclear power is not inevitable and should be resisted. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The task force, led by former Reagan and Bush I arms negotiator and government scientist C. Paul Robinson, produced their relatively brief (10 pages, with about twice that in appendices and introductory material) report in just two months earlier this year. A copy was posted recently on the State Department Web site. The report says global demand for power is likely to rise by 100 percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and natural gas and the fact that nuclear power produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil nuclear energy generation is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see that this is the case," he told United Press International. The report cites a list prepared by the State Department in 2007 of a dozen countries planning to join the nuclear power club, or "giving serious consideration" to it, within the next 10 years -- including the former Soviet Central Asian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan; Islamic giants Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey; and Poland and the Baltic states. Fifteen other nations -- including Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Malaysia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen -- have "longer-term plans or studies under way," according to the State Department list. While wealthier countries "can try to buy their way out" of the looming energy crunch, "the Third World does not have that option," and there are few real alternatives to nuclear power for many countries. "There has proved to be no silver bullet in renewable or other alternative energy sources." The report says there are currently 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with 28 new ones currently under construction. It says 222 more are being planned. "It's a pretty depressing prospect," Robinson concluded. One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. So the panel recommends the United States -- in partnership with other countries that already have the capacity to make fuel, the "supplier nations" -- volunteer to "provide reliable, economical supplies of fuel to nations undertaking new or additional nuclear energy plants" with tough safeguards to prevent them developing their own capacities. But critics challenge their premise, saying the idea that the growth of nuclear power generation is inevitable is a canard. Many of those 435 reactors currently operating are due to be retired in the next 20 to 30 years, points out Henry Sokolski, a proliferation expert who worked for Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration and currently sits alongside him on the congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel examining the threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too risky to be a commercially viable venture without government support, he told UPI. "There's a reason no one in the private sector wants to do this with their own money," Sokolski said. "Nuclear power is a hard sell, literally. ... What the (U.S.) nuclear industry is doing is asking for government handouts, in the form of tax credits, loan guarantees and insurance caps." Reprocessing is also not economically feasible without government financial support. "Working with plutonium requires special safety measures which are very expensive," Sokolski said. The idea that new technologies could help make generation or reprocessing economical is "atomic pie in the sky. The advances required are as far off as making fusion-generation practical, in terms of technology." Expansion is "not inevitable, it is contingent" on U.S. policy changes. "Maybe nuclear power won't expand. It shrank by 2 percent last year," he said. Sokolski called the report "disappointing." He said its authors "seem to be in the business of promoting the expansion of nuclear power, rather than examining the risks associated with its expansion. ... They should have explained in more detail why we should be concerned." But the report does make a bald statement, that the expansion of civil nuclear generating capacity "particularly within Third World nations, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation. What the United States must do," it concludes, "is find ways to mitigate those risks." "Something is afoot, and we can't put on blinkers and pretend it's not happening," said Robinson. ---------------- Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France PARIS (AP) July 8 - France's nuclear safety agency says liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked at a nuclear site in southern France. The agency says some of the solution ran into two rivers. Authorities are banning the consumption of well water in three nearby towns and the watering of crops from the two rivers. Swimming, water sports and fishing are also banned in the area. A spokeswoman for the nuclear safety agency says about 30,000 litres of solution containing uranium spilled at a factory at the Tricastin nuclear site. The site is about 40 kilometres from the historic city of Avignon. Another nuclear safety agency official said the liquid contained about 360 kilograms of unenriched natural uranium, which he said is toxic but only slightly radioactive. "The risk is slight," Charles-Antoine Louet said. The factory handles materials and liquids contaminated by uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants. The liquid spilled from a reservoir that overflowed. It leaked both into the ground and into two rivers, the Gaffiere and the Lauzon, the nuclear safety agency said. It said the cause of the spill was not yet known. Local authorities said the leak happened during the washing of a tank. The nuclear safety agency said uranium concentrations in the Gaffiere river were about 1,000 times the normal levels but were dropping rapidly. ------------ Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. EDMONTON (Canwest News Service ) July 8 - A nuclear power plant proposed for northern Alberta would create about 2,700 long-term jobs and $280 million in annual labour income for the area, says the company that may build the facility. The 10-year site preparation and construction period alone would generate $12 billion for the Alberta economy, and $7.3 billion for the Peace River region, according to a preliminary study commissioned by Ontario-based Bruce Power Alberta. There would be about 1,900 full-time jobs at the plant, and 800 indirect jobs in the region, it says. President Duncan Hawthorne of Ontario's Bruce Power says a new nuclear plant proposed for northern Alberta would bring good economic benefits to the region. The report is the first step toward a more thorough assessment of the social and environmental impact of the $6.2-billion plant, CEO Duncan Hawthorne said Tuesday. "While more work needs to be done, this early report paints a good picture of the economic benefits our proposal would bring to Peace Country." Earlier this year, the company filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for permission to prepare the site at Lac Cardinal, 30 kilometres west of the town, for two to four Candu reactors that would generate as much as 4,000 megawatts of electricity. The company has said nuclear power would be a greener alternative to natural gas to fuel Alberta's oilsands projects. But the proposal has faced strong criticism from provincial opposition parties and environmental groups, who say the province is producing enough power without a nuclear plant. Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said Tuesday the report is all part of the company's public relations efforts. "The public needs to realize the nuclear industry is very sophisticated at lobbying, and this is part of a lobbying and public relations campaign," he said. "It's not all milk and honey. There are very significant financial and environmental risks with nuclear power plants." Most nuclear plants receive huge public subsidies, and should be a last resort after improving energy efficiency and using more wind and hydro power, he said. "We are way behind the rest of the world in energy efficiency." A panel appointed by the province in April is examining issues associated with nuclear plants, including safety, toxic waste, health and environmental impacts. It's expected to take 10 years for the plant to get through all the regulatory and construction stages. ---------- Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile The time needed to develop a nuclear power program, however, can take 12-15 years, according to the minister. "We haven't reached the point where we need to make a decision on the potential use of nuclear energy in Chile," Tokman said after speaking at a conference on nuclear energy hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) in Santiago. "We're not yet even in a condition to make such a decision." "But it would be irresponsible to approach 2020 hoping that any one of the other policies we are using will be a magic solution," he added. Chile, meanwhile, has enough planned new capacity from hydro, coal and renewable sources to provide a safe margin between installed capacity and power demand to last until 2020. The timeframe could extend further if efficient practices are implemented. If no new major source of power is developed however, the country will begin to face a long-term power gap after 2020. By 2030, capacity demand in Chile is expected to reach 25GW, which would require an installed capacity of 35GW for an appropriate safety margin, according Tokman's presentation. The country's current installed capacity is around 12GW. TREMENDOUS EFFORTS The efforts required to implement a nuclear program, meanwhile, would be tremendous, according to the minister. "The efforts that we would need to make to implement a safe nuclear program would be equivalent to what the US had to do to put a man on the moon," Tokman said. "We can't make this decision using the prospective of our current tight power situation." FURTHER STUDIES Chile will continue with its studies of nuclear energy, as no country can rule out the power source, he said, citing some of the benefits that could be seen from the implementation of nuclear energy. The power source could cushion the country - which imports 90% of its fossil fuels - from prices shocks like the one Chile is facing. Uranium, which can be purchased from a wide variety of suppliers, does not account for a large portion of the total cost of power generated by nuclear plants. The power source also emits relatively low amounts of CO2, the minister said. "Nuclear power is competitive, reliable and safe if it's done right," Tokman said. The country will continue studying the potential use of the power source. "It's a very serious discussion and you have to have the answers beforehand," Tokman said, adding that no company would invest in a project if a large part of society were against the use of nuclear energy. ------------- South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion South Africa's power utility Eskom is going slow on regional energy projects to enable it to put in place its nuclear power option - putting a question mark over longer term regional strategies. This was the view of energy analysts at this week's Africa Energy Forum, which took place in Nice, France this week. Representatives of international and regional power utilities were surprised at the absence of Eskom at the annual gathering - some saw it as reflecting the company's embarrassment after the power blackouts that have been hitting hit SA and its neighbours since January. Eskom has been using use gas turbine plants to cope with the demand at a cost of 23.08 cents/kWh, substantially higher that 1.28 cents/kWh average cost to operate coal-fired plant. The power crisis has also meant that mining production in the first quarter declined 11.4% over 2007. Eskom's expansion plans will only bring relief by 2012. To bridge the gap, Eskom plans to double its current generation capacity, reaching 80,000MW by 2025, and is investigating options to build a conventional nuclear power 20,000MW capacity equivalent to 25% of the total projected capacity. Five sites have already been identified - Brazil and Schulpfontein on the Northern Cape west coast, Duynefontein and Bantamsklip on the Western Cape coast and Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast. Analysts quoted in the ESI Africa magazine anticipate that by 2030 some 30% of South Africa's energy mix will be nuclear. Eskom will have to bridge the gap between now and 2012 but has clearly decided to downgrade its regional projects. Since last year there has been no major progress elsewhere. The Mmamabula coal-fired power station in Botswana is expected to produce 2,400MW during its first phase but the development of the project is experiencing delays. The start of commercial operations was scheduled for early 2012, but in Nice the head of the Canadian CIC-Energy company, Gregory Kinross, said that a power purchase agreement between the company and Eskom for most of the electricity generated has not yet been signed. This means that commercial operations may have to wait another year to 2013. Meanwhile, Margaret van der Merwe, the head of the 675MW Kudu gas power station project in Namibia, complained that "Eskom's risk appetite is limited". Likewise, representatives of the Congolese SNEL electricity parastatal told SouthScan that over the last few months neither Eskom nor other South African entities had been involved in the development of the Inga III or Grand Inga projects. Other Southern African utilities have shown much more enthusiasm because they fear that in the event of a further power crunch they will come second in Eskom's supply priorities; Eskom shares power with other SADC countries. In the view of a South African-based energy consultant, Eskom, which has a good deal of control over the regional energy market, is deliberately dragging its feet, preferring to rely on costly "interim solutions" offered by diesel-powered engines in order to secure a market for its future nuclear industry. But the result could be a deterioration of Eskom's relationship with other countries in the region. The Inga dam project, for instance, is much more than just a hydro power scheme; it is projected to be the centre of a grid that will supply much of Africa and will integrate SA's industrial hub into the wider region. This is as much a political strategy as an economic one. "If Eskom tends to think less regional, we may be forced to reassess our projects under a more local scenario", a representative from another power utility in the region told SouthScan. This would be a blow to South Africa's ambition to be the locomotive of the regional energy sector. However, it indicates the extent to which the nuclear power option has become central to the SA government's strategy forthe coming decades, as exemplified in its just agreed nuclear programme. ----------------------------------- Sander C.?Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division? 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 ? +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) ? Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ ? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 8 18:38:22 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:38:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com><0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <1c5201c8e153$b8004620$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> http://www.rampac.com/DOT-SP/SP14215.pdf East Tennessee Industrial Park = K-25 site. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Oak%20Ridge%20Trip/K-25.jpg Pictures by George Dowell George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Livesey, Lee M" To: "'NIXON, Grant'" ; "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:06 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). From LCS at golden.net Tue Jul 8 19:37:15 2008 From: LCS at golden.net (Michael LaFontaine, P.Phys.) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:37:15 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] addendum to Sandy Perle's posting Message-ID: <200807090038.m690coku021320@smtp2.execulink.net> Darlington to get two new nuclear reactors Posted: June 16, 2008, 10:39 AM by Rob Roberts By Becky Rynor, Canwest News Service Two new nuclear reactors will be built at the site of the Darlington A power station near Toronto, Ontario Energy Minister Gerry Phillips announced today. "The decision to go with Darlington was made after a review of all the relevant issues," said Alan Findlay, a spokesman for the province's Ministry of Energy. Findlay said the decision to build the reactors came down to a choice between Darlington, 75 kilometres east of Toronto, and the Bruce nuclear plant in Tiverton, 223 kilometres northwest of Toronto. With the new plants going to Darlington, the Bruce facility will continue to provide approximately 6,300 megawatts of electricity, either through a refurbishing and upgrade of the Bruce B plant or by putting in new units at what would be called Bruce C, Findlay added. "Maintaining and renewing Ontario's nuclear energy fleet is an important part of the Ontario government's climate change plan and its 20-year plan to bring clean, affordable and reliable electricity to Ontarians," the minister said in an news release. The notion of a nuclear reactor as a green energy source has caused deep divisions among activists. Several prominent environmentalists, including Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, are vocal proponents. Others dismiss nuclear's environmental benefits as propaganda put forward by the industry. "You'd have to have a pretty high price on carbon for that benefit to start to show because of the large upfront costs involved in building a new nuclear plant," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a Greenpeace campaigner. Monday's announcement outlines the latest steps in the process to select and build a two-unit nuclear power plant and maintain Ontario's nuclear generation capacity at 14,000 megawatts. In the same announcement, AREVA NP, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and Westinghouse Electric Company were also identified as the three organizations invited to bid on the nuclear power plant construction project. Their bids will be evaluated on the basis of three key considerations: lifetime cost of the power; ability to meet Ontario's timetable to bring the new power supply online in 2018, and the level of investment they will bring to Ontario. The successful vendor will be chosen by the end of this year. Construction of the new plant is expected to create about 3,500 direct construction and engineering jobs between 2012 and 2018. The new plant will be operated by Ontario Power Generation. _________________ The province of Ontario, Canada currently has 20 nuclear power generating stations. From sjd at swcp.com Tue Jul 8 20:18:02 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:18:02 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality In-Reply-To: <8CAAF3CA40E791B-DB8-174B@webmail-nc06.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080708191646.009f3a20@mail.swcp.com> July 8 I did a Google search for "Atomic veterans" "mortality study" and was referred to an online book by the National Academy Press. The link below will take you to page one of the front matter. This is the material on page one: Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test Medical Follow-up Agency INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE by J. Christopher Johnson Susan Thaul William F. Page Harriet Crawford with oversight from the Institute of Medicine Committee on the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5428&page=R1 I would recommend reading the Summary, the Study Rationale, and Other Studies of the Human Health Effects of Radiation Exposure. Of course, this is only about the CROSSROADS test, however it should get you started. The first Reference is to Beebe GW and Simon AH. Ascertainment of mortality in the U.S. veteran population. American Journal of Epidemiology 89:636---643, 1969; which will doubtless give a broader picture. Steven Dapra At 02:07 PM 7/8/08 -0400, Joel Cehn wrote: >Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish >that >when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality >study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. > > >Joel I. Cehn, CHP >Oakland, California From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Tue Jul 8 22:27:23 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 05:27:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality References: <5.2.1.1.1.20080708191646.009f3a20@mail.swcp.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E01@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Steve and all: Results of a more recent and more comprehensive study are reported in another publication by the National Academy Press: Susan Thaul, William F. Page, Harriet Crawford, and Heather O'Maonaigh, Committee to Study the Mortality of Military Personnel Present at Atmospheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests NAP #9697 (2000) http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9697 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 Steven Dapra Gesendet: Mi 09.07.2008 03:18 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality July 8 I did a Google search for "Atomic veterans" "mortality study" and was referred to an online book by the National Academy Press. The link below will take you to page one of the front matter. This is the material on page one: Mortality of Veteran Participants in the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test Medical Follow-up Agency INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE by J. Christopher Johnson Susan Thaul William F. Page Harriet Crawford with oversight from the Institute of Medicine Committee on the CROSSROADS Nuclear Test NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996 http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5428&page=R1 I would recommend reading the Summary, the Study Rationale, and Other Studies of the Human Health Effects of Radiation Exposure. Of course, this is only about the CROSSROADS test, however it should get you started. The first Reference is to Beebe GW and Simon AH. Ascertainment of mortality in the U.S. veteran population. American Journal of Epidemiology 89:636---643, 1969; which will doubtless give a broader picture. Steven Dapra At 02:07 PM 7/8/08 -0400, Joel Cehn wrote: >Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish >that >when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality >study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. > > >Joel I. Cehn, CHP >Oakland, California _______________________________________________ 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/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Tue Jul 8 23:53:24 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:53:24 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco In-Reply-To: <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com> <1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75> <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <48744444.7090803@peoplepc.com> My sincere thanks also for allowing access to your website and multiple links. Not being an HP, I was especially pleased to see pictures of many tools of your work, the shipping canisters, and so on. I even enjoyed your ham radio muf charts and items that I had not used or seen for many years. Thanks very much for the pleasure, Maury&Dog (Maury Siskel maurysis at peoplepc.com) ========================== Geo>K0FF wrote: > A couple of listmembers who are familiar with these shipments correct > my assumption that the spacing might have to do with neutrons, but > rather they are quite heavy and are spaced out, over the axels, to > distribute that weight. ----------------snipped------------- From jim.talty at usu.edu Tue Jul 8 11:03:31 2008 From: jim.talty at usu.edu (James Talty) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:03:31 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality In-Reply-To: <070820081508.12910.487382E2000ED6300000326E2215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> References: <070820081508.12910.487382E2000ED6300000326E2215568884B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8795050EDD735240AA49D027F481FC760C90C9CAA2@exchg-be01.aggies.usu.edu> The physician (he is an (anesthesiologist out of LDS hospital) mentioned in the article has spoken out strongly for the past three or so years about the evils of coal fired power plants. If he had his way we would shut down all coal fired power plants because of the respiratory damage they incur. He and his group seem to have taken up another evil- radiation. In the last sentence he asks who in your family are you willing to sacrifice for clean nuclear power? If we take the road he proposes somewhere around 70% (50% coal and 20% nuclear) of the power in the US would be removed from the grid. I would like to ask him which states would he chose to go send back to the dark ages. As a physician one would expect him to appreciate the benefits provided by nuclear energy and the countless lives it has saved. I used this article yesterday in a presentation and contrasted it to an article in Science (17 Oct 2003, Vol 302) "A healthful Dab of Radiation". I told the students they must be very careful when they evaluate such articles as many have a hidden agenda. Jim Talty RSO Utah State University -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:08 AM To: Roger Helbig; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality Friday I will be touring Palo Verde with Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. I hope they will let me use my Palm Rad (counter) to compare readings there with ambient in my office (~0.015mR/hr) and seat (~0.084, to give me exposure more like a denverite, from thorium welding rods under the pillow). Then I would like to confront that Utah physician with his lack of information about amount of exposure I measure at a nuclear plant and the potential benefit (hormesis) he would withhold - longevity and cancer data. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Roger Helbig" > This has been posted to a major anti-nuclear list; I expect > that the doctor is not exactly providing 100% factual > information despite using his MD to back it up - > > From: theroyprocess at cox.net > > Comment: > Over a decade ago, I remember a local New Times newspaper expose' of > whistleblowers at > Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. They said that the schematic > blueprints of the wire they > used did not match, and more! > > All machinery breaks down in time. Nuclear power plants too. Do you > want to bet your life > on a machine? There is no escape from invisible radiation. Words will > not make you less > dead! You need a Geiger counter to reveal radiation. > > http://www.sltrib.com:80/opinion/ci_9794768 > > ________________________________ > > Nuclear mortality > Public Forum Letter > Salt Lake Tribune > > Article Last Updated:07/05/2008 11:40:45 AM MDT > > Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that > when large populations are exposed to any part of the nuclear fuel > cycle - from the mining and milling of uranium to the operation of > nuclear reactors and the ultimate storage of nuclear waste - there are > tragic health consequences: increased rates of spontaneous abortions, > premature births, low birth weight, overall infant mortality, impaired > intelligence and cancers of all types in both adults and children. > These studies repudiate the recent nuclear industry cheerleading by > Kent Johnson and Clinton Wolfe ("Fear of nuclear power" and "Dismayed > at fuss," Forum, June 28). Furthermore, many of the cancers and other > debilitating diseases caused by nuclear radiation show up decades > after exposure, or in future generations, making it likely that these > studies underestimate the causal relationship. > A recent study of large numbers of people in many different > countries who lived near 136 nuclear reactors revealed higher > mortality rates in children and specifically higher rates of childhood > leukemia. Eighty percent of cancer is environmentally caused, and this > year 12,500 children in the United States will be diagnosed with > cancer. This information alone should end the debate about whether to > build more nuclear plants. > Proponents of more nuclear plants should be asked which of their > family members they would sacrifice for "clean, safe nuclear power." > > Brian Moench > President, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment > Salt Lake City > > for more about this anesthesiologist turned entrepreneur > http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/21/in.your.face/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr Wed Jul 9 01:41:02 2008 From: nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr (BRISSON Nicolas) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:41:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Message-ID: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> Hi all, Here are some more information about the uranium leak at SOCATRI yesterday. This in only in French but I'll try to make a short summary if I get some free time during the day. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 03:52:18 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 03:52:18 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant In-Reply-To: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> References: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> Message-ID: <045b01c8e1a1$18f17240$4ad456c0$@com> France's Areva says uranium leaked into river Tue Jul 8, 2008 3:09pm EDT PARIS (Reuters) - French nuclear firm Areva said on Tuesday 30 cubic meters of a liquid containing natural uranium was accidentally poured on the ground and into a river at a site in southeastern France. The uranium, which was not enriched, was poured on the ground during the cleaning of a tank at the Socatri group, an Areva subsidiary, on the site of the Tricastin nuclear plant. "Around 30 cubic meters of a liquid containing uranium, with a concentration of 12 grams of uranium per liter, was poured on the ground," France's nuclear safety authority said in a statement, adding that it will carry out an investigation on July 10 to determine the causes of the accident. Socatri specializes in the maintenance and dismantling of nuclear material as well as managing nuclear waste. Part of the liquid soaked into the ground at the company's premises while the rest ran into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers, which flow into the Rhone. A Socatri spokesman said the firm will monitor the impact of the accident on the environment. (Reporting by Muriel Boselli) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of BRISSON Nicolas Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:41 AM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Hi all, Here are some more information about the uranium leak at SOCATRI yesterday. This in only in French but I'll try to make a short summary if I get some free time during the day. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 From hermann.jossen at suva.ch Wed Jul 9 03:37:57 2008 From: hermann.jossen at suva.ch (Jossen Hermann (JOH)) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:37:57 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] AW: radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <617aeece-be2a-4222-89c7-699bbc772fad@s991015.suvanet.ch> References: <617aeece-be2a-4222-89c7-699bbc772fad@s991015.suvanet.ch> Message-ID: <7D2CD5CF6F0BA14DAC43CED3A787E9C808796AFD32@s991017.suvanet.ch> Freundliche Gr?sse Suva Abteilung Arbeitssicherheit Luzern Bereich Physik Hermann Jossen Postfach 4358 6002 Luzern Tel: 041 419 6030 mailto: hermann.jossen at suva.ch http://www.suva.ch -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von radsafe-request at radlab.nl Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008 01:47 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 4 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: Cameco (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) 2. RE: Cameco (Dan W McCarn) 3. Re: Cameco (Geo>K0FF) 4. Nuclear mortality (Joel Cehn) 5. RE: Metric Tonne (FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR) 6. RE: RE: Cameco (NIXON, Grant) 7. Re: RE: Cameco (Geo>K0FF) 8. RE: RE: Cameco (Livesey, Lee M) 9. Nuclear News - More nuclear power OK'd (Perle, Sandy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:34 -0700 From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cameco To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD1 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Interesting pictures. Thanks for sharing them with us, George. I suspect that the placement of the canisters on the truck/trailer was because of weight considerations, not criticality issues. I am not sure that UF6 could ever achieve a critical geometry, even if it is enriched to a fairly high level. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Geo>K0FF Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:58:34 -0500 From: Dan W McCarn Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "'Radsafe \(E-mail\)'" Message-ID: <03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:22:16 -0500 From: "Geo>K0FF" Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cameco To: "Geo>K0FF" , "'Radsafe \(E-mail\)'" , "Dan W McCarn" Message-ID: <1aa101c8e11f$2d5d8ac0$cc2984ac at your4dacd0ea75> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=response A couple of listmembers who are familiar with these shipments correct my assumption that the spacing might have to do with neutrons, but rather they are quite heavy and are spaced out, over the axels, to distribute that weight. Thanks for the update. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo>K0FF" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:34 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cameco > Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are > far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close > together on the truck. > > > I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes > neutron detection. > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ > > > George Dowell > NLNL > New London Nucleonics Lab > > > Message ----- > From: "Dan W McCarn" > To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium > > > Hi: > > That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at > Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. > _______________________________________________ > 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: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:07:38 -0400 From: Joel Cehn Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear mortality To: radsafe at radlab.nl Message-ID: <8CAAF3CA40E791B-DB8-174B at webmail-nc06.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Regarding "Numerous medical studies in the last 50 years clearly establish that when large populations are exposed to..."? is anyone aware of a mortality study of "atomic veterans?"? I was asked about that the other day. Joel I. Cehn, CHP Oakland, California ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:31:58 -0400 From: "FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne To: "Dan W McCarn" , Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Thank you for the good explanation. Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 -----Original Message----- From: Dan W McCarn [mailto:hotgreenchile at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:44 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Hi Spencer: Yellowcake, the mine concentrate, is always represented as the weight equivalent either as pounds U3O8 or as metric Tonnes metal U. This standardized the amount of uranium in the material, regardless of chemical form. Yellowcake may come in several chemical forms, but is frequently converted into one of two commercial weights for sale: either as pounds U3O8 equivalent (even though it may not be an oxide) or as Kg or Tonnes U metal equivalent. This standardizes the actual amount of uranium that the customer is buying. Yellowcake is commonly produced as: Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 Not U3O8. This product, covered under ANSI standards, is shipped to the conversion plant to produce UO3 and eventually UF6. So, if the yellowcake has a reported equivalent assay as Tonnes metal U, the equivalent, represented as pounds U3O8 is as follows: Factor for U in U3O8 is 0.848 Factor for Tonnes to pounds is 2205 Factor for Tonnes U to pounds U3O8 is 2205/0.848 = 2600 My assumption about the Iraqi yellowcake is that since the weight was reported as Tonnes, the "weight equivalent" was probably expressed as metal U (usually the case for international trades). So I multiplied the 550 Tonnes by 2600 to express the "weight equivalent" as pounds U3O8. If the yellowcake was simply the weight of the material, and that was 550 Tonnes, then it would still have to be corrected for the equivalent U3O8 (or metal U) in the product to understand the actual U (or U3O8) equivalent content of the material. Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell: ?+43-676-725-6622 HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of FISHER Spencer -NUCLEAR Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:34 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne If a Metric Tonne is 1000 Kg = 2205 lb. then 550 metric tonne = 1,212,750 lb. So I do not understand the calculation below. "an W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com By my calculation, the 550 metric tonnes U amounts to 1,430,000 lbs U3O8 having a commercial value of $107,250,000 at $75 / lb U3O8. As memory serves, I think that most of this material came from byproduct phosphoric acid production from the marine phosphorites in Iraq similar to those in Israel and Syria. " Dan ii Spencer M. Fisher Generals - Authorization Training Instructor Nuclear Theory 1480 Bayly St. Pickering, Ont L1W 3T8 905-837-4274 Fax: 905-837-4270 Cell Phone: 416-508-7216 ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. _______________________________________________ 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/ ----------------------------------------- THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. Ontario Power Generation Inc. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:32:02 -0400 From: "NIXON, Grant" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "Dan W McCarn" , "Radsafe \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA at CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:56:14 -0500 From: "Geo>K0FF" Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "NIXON, Grant" , "Dan W McCarn" , "Radsafe \(E-mail\)" Message-ID: <1bc801c8e13d$11e00d90$cc2984ac at your4dacd0ea75> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original I agree with Dan too. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "NIXON, Grant" To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:06:51 -0700 From: "Livesey, Lee M" Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco To: "'NIXON, Grant'" , Dan W McCarn , "Radsafe (E-mail)" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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: 9 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:29:13 -0700 From: "Perle, Sandy" Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - More nuclear power OK'd To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3A9D at gdses.corp.gds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Index: More nuclear power OK'd Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion ---------------------------------- More nuclear power OK'd G8 calls it an 'essential instrument' in cutting use of fossil fuels TOYAKO, Hokkaido - The Group of Eight leaders gave the green light Tuesday to expanded development of nuclear power, saying it is a vital energy source in the fight against global warming. But they warned that further development of nuclear plants must adhere to nonproliferation standards. "A growing number of countries have expressed interest in nuclear power programs as a means to addressing climate change and energy security concerns. These countries regard nuclear power as an essential instrument in reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and hence greenhouse gas emissions," the leaders said in a statement on environment and climate change. At the same time, the G8 leaders said those nations wishing to pursue atomic power must assure the international community that nuclear materials are tightly controlled and not diverted for arms. "We reiterate that safeguards (against nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security are fundamental principles for the peaceful use of nuclear energy," the statement added. Some 29 countries worldwide have indicated they wish to introduce nuclear power, while countries that currently use the energy source, especially Japan, the United States and Russia, have announced plans to expand capacity. In a separate report on global energy security principles, Japan said it plans to increase nuclear power generation to as much as 40 percent of total electricity generation by 2030. However, plans to continue to build not only conventional uranium-powered plants but also a spent fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, and to promote plutonium-burning fast-breeder reactors have long been a source of controversy within and without the G8. Antinuclear activists and environmental NGOs have dismissed G8 plans to increase reliance on nuclear power as a solution to climate change, while nonproliferation experts and many IAEA officials have expressed concerns about increased proliferation. "All this talk of a worldwide nuclear renaissance is just that. The reality is that no new plants have come on line in years, and given the huge investment and long time frame it takes to start up a nuclear power plant, it's unrealistic to think that they can help alleviate climate change anytime in the future," said Jurgen Maier, a German NGO representative. ------------ Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- A report from a State Department advisory panel says a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation poses proliferation risks, but the United States must embrace it to ensure that nuclear supplier nations build safeguards into the growing market. The report highlights division among experts about the future of civil nuclear power across the globe, the risks it poses, and the degree to which U.S. policy should support its spread. Some critics of the report say the expansion of nuclear power is not inevitable and should be resisted. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The task force, led by former Reagan and Bush I arms negotiator and government scientist C. Paul Robinson, produced their relatively brief (10 pages, with about twice that in appendices and introductory material) report in just two months earlier this year. A copy was posted recently on the State Department Web site. The report says global demand for power is likely to rise by 100 percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and natural gas and the fact that nuclear power produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil nuclear energy generation is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see that this is the case," he told United Press International. The report cites a list prepared by the State Department in 2007 of a dozen countries planning to join the nuclear power club, or "giving serious consideration" to it, within the next 10 years -- including the former Soviet Central Asian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan; Islamic giants Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey; and Poland and the Baltic states. Fifteen other nations -- including Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Malaysia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen -- have "longer-term plans or studies under way," according to the State Department list. While wealthier countries "can try to buy their way out" of the looming energy crunch, "the Third World does not have that option," and there are few real alternatives to nuclear power for many countries. "There has proved to be no silver bullet in renewable or other alternative energy sources." The report says there are currently 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with 28 new ones currently under construction. It says 222 more are being planned. "It's a pretty depressing prospect," Robinson concluded. One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. So the panel recommends the United States -- in partnership with other countries that already have the capacity to make fuel, the "supplier nations" -- volunteer to "provide reliable, economical supplies of fuel to nations undertaking new or additional nuclear energy plants" with tough safeguards to prevent them developing their own capacities. But critics challenge their premise, saying the idea that the growth of nuclear power generation is inevitable is a canard. Many of those 435 reactors currently operating are due to be retired in the next 20 to 30 years, points out Henry Sokolski, a proliferation expert who worked for Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration and currently sits alongside him on the congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel examining the threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too risky to be a commercially viable venture without government support, he told UPI. "There's a reason no one in the private sector wants to do this with their own money," Sokolski said. "Nuclear power is a hard sell, literally. ... What the (U.S.) nuclear industry is doing is asking for government handouts, in the form of tax credits, loan guarantees and insurance caps." Reprocessing is also not economically feasible without government financial support. "Working with plutonium requires special safety measures which are very expensive," Sokolski said. The idea that new technologies could help make generation or reprocessing economical is "atomic pie in the sky. The advances required are as far off as making fusion-generation practical, in terms of technology." Expansion is "not inevitable, it is contingent" on U.S. policy changes. "Maybe nuclear power won't expand. It shrank by 2 percent last year," he said. Sokolski called the report "disappointing." He said its authors "seem to be in the business of promoting the expansion of nuclear power, rather than examining the risks associated with its expansion. ... They should have explained in more detail why we should be concerned." But the report does make a bald statement, that the expansion of civil nuclear generating capacity "particularly within Third World nations, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation. What the United States must do," it concludes, "is find ways to mitigate those risks." "Something is afoot, and we can't put on blinkers and pretend it's not happening," said Robinson. ---------------- Liquid with traces of uranium leaked from nuclear site in southern France PARIS (AP) July 8 - France's nuclear safety agency says liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked at a nuclear site in southern France. The agency says some of the solution ran into two rivers. Authorities are banning the consumption of well water in three nearby towns and the watering of crops from the two rivers. Swimming, water sports and fishing are also banned in the area. A spokeswoman for the nuclear safety agency says about 30,000 litres of solution containing uranium spilled at a factory at the Tricastin nuclear site. The site is about 40 kilometres from the historic city of Avignon. Another nuclear safety agency official said the liquid contained about 360 kilograms of unenriched natural uranium, which he said is toxic but only slightly radioactive. "The risk is slight," Charles-Antoine Louet said. The factory handles materials and liquids contaminated by uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants. The liquid spilled from a reservoir that overflowed. It leaked both into the ground and into two rivers, the Gaffiere and the Lauzon, the nuclear safety agency said. It said the cause of the spill was not yet known. Local authorities said the leak happened during the washing of a tank. The nuclear safety agency said uranium concentrations in the Gaffiere river were about 1,000 times the normal levels but were dropping rapidly. ------------ Alberta nuclear plant would create 2,700 jobs: report. EDMONTON (Canwest News Service ) July 8 - A nuclear power plant proposed for northern Alberta would create about 2,700 long-term jobs and $280 million in annual labour income for the area, says the company that may build the facility. The 10-year site preparation and construction period alone would generate $12 billion for the Alberta economy, and $7.3 billion for the Peace River region, according to a preliminary study commissioned by Ontario-based Bruce Power Alberta. There would be about 1,900 full-time jobs at the plant, and 800 indirect jobs in the region, it says. President Duncan Hawthorne of Ontario's Bruce Power says a new nuclear plant proposed for northern Alberta would bring good economic benefits to the region. The report is the first step toward a more thorough assessment of the social and environmental impact of the $6.2-billion plant, CEO Duncan Hawthorne said Tuesday. "While more work needs to be done, this early report paints a good picture of the economic benefits our proposal would bring to Peace Country." Earlier this year, the company filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for permission to prepare the site at Lac Cardinal, 30 kilometres west of the town, for two to four Candu reactors that would generate as much as 4,000 megawatts of electricity. The company has said nuclear power would be a greener alternative to natural gas to fuel Alberta's oilsands projects. But the proposal has faced strong criticism from provincial opposition parties and environmental groups, who say the province is producing enough power without a nuclear plant. Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said Tuesday the report is all part of the company's public relations efforts. "The public needs to realize the nuclear industry is very sophisticated at lobbying, and this is part of a lobbying and public relations campaign," he said. "It's not all milk and honey. There are very significant financial and environmental risks with nuclear power plants." Most nuclear plants receive huge public subsidies, and should be a last resort after improving energy efficiency and using more wind and hydro power, he said. "We are way behind the rest of the world in energy efficiency." A panel appointed by the province in April is examining issues associated with nuclear plants, including safety, toxic waste, health and environmental impacts. It's expected to take 10 years for the plant to get through all the regulatory and construction stages. ---------- Minister: Nuclear capacity would not be needed until 2025 - Chile The time needed to develop a nuclear power program, however, can take 12-15 years, according to the minister. "We haven't reached the point where we need to make a decision on the potential use of nuclear energy in Chile," Tokman said after speaking at a conference on nuclear energy hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM) in Santiago. "We're not yet even in a condition to make such a decision." "But it would be irresponsible to approach 2020 hoping that any one of the other policies we are using will be a magic solution," he added. Chile, meanwhile, has enough planned new capacity from hydro, coal and renewable sources to provide a safe margin between installed capacity and power demand to last until 2020. The timeframe could extend further if efficient practices are implemented. If no new major source of power is developed however, the country will begin to face a long-term power gap after 2020. By 2030, capacity demand in Chile is expected to reach 25GW, which would require an installed capacity of 35GW for an appropriate safety margin, according Tokman's presentation. The country's current installed capacity is around 12GW. TREMENDOUS EFFORTS The efforts required to implement a nuclear program, meanwhile, would be tremendous, according to the minister. "The efforts that we would need to make to implement a safe nuclear program would be equivalent to what the US had to do to put a man on the moon," Tokman said. "We can't make this decision using the prospective of our current tight power situation." FURTHER STUDIES Chile will continue with its studies of nuclear energy, as no country can rule out the power source, he said, citing some of the benefits that could be seen from the implementation of nuclear energy. The power source could cushion the country - which imports 90% of its fossil fuels - from prices shocks like the one Chile is facing. Uranium, which can be purchased from a wide variety of suppliers, does not account for a large portion of the total cost of power generated by nuclear plants. The power source also emits relatively low amounts of CO2, the minister said. "Nuclear power is competitive, reliable and safe if it's done right," Tokman said. The country will continue studying the potential use of the power source. "It's a very serious discussion and you have to have the answers beforehand," Tokman said, adding that no company would invest in a project if a large part of society were against the use of nuclear energy. ------------- South Africa: Eskom Neglects Regional Power Projects in Favour of Nuclear Expansion South Africa's power utility Eskom is going slow on regional energy projects to enable it to put in place its nuclear power option - putting a question mark over longer term regional strategies. This was the view of energy analysts at this week's Africa Energy Forum, which took place in Nice, France this week. Representatives of international and regional power utilities were surprised at the absence of Eskom at the annual gathering - some saw it as reflecting the company's embarrassment after the power blackouts that have been hitting hit SA and its neighbours since January. Eskom has been using use gas turbine plants to cope with the demand at a cost of 23.08 cents/kWh, substantially higher that 1.28 cents/kWh average cost to operate coal-fired plant. The power crisis has also meant that mining production in the first quarter declined 11.4% over 2007. Eskom's expansion plans will only bring relief by 2012. To bridge the gap, Eskom plans to double its current generation capacity, reaching 80,000MW by 2025, and is investigating options to build a conventional nuclear power 20,000MW capacity equivalent to 25% of the total projected capacity. Five sites have already been identified - Brazil and Schulpfontein on the Northern Cape west coast, Duynefontein and Bantamsklip on the Western Cape coast and Thyspunt on the Eastern Cape coast. Analysts quoted in the ESI Africa magazine anticipate that by 2030 some 30% of South Africa's energy mix will be nuclear. Eskom will have to bridge the gap between now and 2012 but has clearly decided to downgrade its regional projects. Since last year there has been no major progress elsewhere. The Mmamabula coal-fired power station in Botswana is expected to produce 2,400MW during its first phase but the development of the project is experiencing delays. The start of commercial operations was scheduled for early 2012, but in Nice the head of the Canadian CIC-Energy company, Gregory Kinross, said that a power purchase agreement between the company and Eskom for most of the electricity generated has not yet been signed. This means that commercial operations may have to wait another year to 2013. Meanwhile, Margaret van der Merwe, the head of the 675MW Kudu gas power station project in Namibia, complained that "Eskom's risk appetite is limited". Likewise, representatives of the Congolese SNEL electricity parastatal told SouthScan that over the last few months neither Eskom nor other South African entities had been involved in the development of the Inga III or Grand Inga projects. Other Southern African utilities have shown much more enthusiasm because they fear that in the event of a further power crunch they will come second in Eskom's supply priorities; Eskom shares power with other SADC countries. In the view of a South African-based energy consultant, Eskom, which has a good deal of control over the regional energy market, is deliberately dragging its feet, preferring to rely on costly "interim solutions" offered by diesel-powered engines in order to secure a market for its future nuclear industry. But the result could be a deterioration of Eskom's relationship with other countries in the region. The Inga dam project, for instance, is much more than just a hydro power scheme; it is projected to be the centre of a grid that will supply much of Africa and will integrate SA's industrial hub into the wider region. This is as much a political strategy as an economic one. "If Eskom tends to think less regional, we may be forced to reassess our projects under a more local scenario", a representative from another power utility in the region told SouthScan. This would be a blow to South Africa's ambition to be the locomotive of the regional energy sector. However, it indicates the extent to which the nuclear power option has become central to the SA government's strategy forthe coming decades, as exemplified in its just agreed nuclear programme. ----------------------------------- Sander C.?Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division? 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 ? +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) ? Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ ? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl http://lists.radlab.nl/mailman/listinfo/radsafe End of radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 4 *************************************** Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht und ihr eventuell angeh?ngte Dateien sind nur f?r den Adressaten bestimmt. Sie kann vertrauliche oder gesetzlich gesch?tzte Daten oder Informationen beinhalten. Falls Sie diese Nachricht irrt?mlich erreicht hat, bitten wir Sie h?flich, diese unter Ausschluss jeglicher Reproduktion zu l?schen und die absendende Person zu benachrichtigen. Danke f?r Ihre Hilfe. This message and any attached files are for the sole use of the recipient named above. It may contain confidential or legally protected data or information. If you have received this message in error, please delete it without making any copies whatsoever and notify the sender. Thank you for your assistance. From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Wed Jul 9 04:00:04 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:00:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant References: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F7@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E04@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> If the information in the press is correct, 30000 liters of a solution containing 360 kg (natural) Uranium, i.e. in total 288 PBq U (140 + 6.5 + 141 PBq U238, U235, U234 respectively) were released into two rivers. To appraise its health effects, the dilution factor must be guessed, which determines uptake by the 'end consumer'. Regards, Rainer ________________________________ Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von BRISSON Nicolas Gesendet: Mi 09.07.2008 08:41 An: radsafelist Betreff: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Hi all, Here are some more information about the uranium leak at SOCATRI yesterday. This in only in French but I'll try to make a short summary if I get some free time during the day. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 From nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr Wed Jul 9 04:31:22 2008 From: nicolas.brisson at irsn.fr (BRISSON Nicolas) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:31:22 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] uranium leak at SOCATRI plant Message-ID: <98387DEB21286C479D2E9D157120E3FAB266F8@vmess101.proton.intra.irsn.fr> It seems that the document didn't made to the list, so here is a translation of an information note released by IRSN. Nicolas Brisson IRSN/DEI/SIAR 31, rue de l'Ecluse 78116 LE VESINET tel : 01-30-15-42-75 por : 06-08-76-55-32 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The plant of SOCATRI, located on the site of Tricastin deals with decontamination of nuclear installation cleaning up tools and recovery of uranium. The effluents generated by the various workshops dedicated to these operations are handled by the uranium effluent treatment plant before being discharged into the canal Donz?re - Mondragon. On 7 July 2008 at 23 h 00, the overflow of a tank of this plant has caused the spill of about 30 m3 of solution containing uranium (uranium content 12 g/l). This loss of integrity of the tank led to the spillage of part of the solution in the building and in the sewage. This network joins the river "Gaffi?re" and then "Lauzon" and finally the Rhone. The first actions taken by SOCATRI to limit the consequences have been to isolate this network on the site and to drill into the ground water where the spill occured to carry out measurements in the water and, where appropriate, pump the contaminated water to limit its spread into the environment. The IRSN was alerted of the incident by local authorities; The Institute sent an expert to join the crisis management team of the Prefecture of Vaucluse and a team of first responders near the facility to carry out sampling and measurements of surface and ground water. In addition, a team of experts gathered at the crisis management center of IRSN to asses the situation. It proposed a set of actions related to the restricting measures concerning use and consumption of water already adopted by the Prefect. The first measurements of surface waters carried out by the operator showed uranium concentration exceeding the guide value recommended by WHO for water intended for the human consumption by a factor of 1000 for a short period during the peak of pollution. Some pollution having seeped into the soil, IRSN defined a monitoring plan for ground water whose results will be published on its website www.irsn.org. This information will allow the local public authorities to adapt and then lift the restricting measures already set up. Analysis of the first measurements by the IRSN show that the radiological consequences for people should be negligible. From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jul 9 05:46:24 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:46:24 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Metric Tonne Message-ID: <10156248.1215600384573.JavaMail.root@viefep12> . Dan, thank you for this sentence. I have never understood why commonly the chemical formula of yellow cake is given as U3O8 - also on RADSAFE. I know U3O8 (pitchblende) to be deep black like "pitch" (Pechblende in German) - one of the possible origins of the name. Furthermore I have very nice samples of uranium ore with the characteristic black spots of pitchblende, collected by myself at a mining site in the Great Canyon area. I brought some pieces recently to my friends in Poland, crossing two borders (Austria - Czech Republic and CzR - Poland) without being arrested. Furthermore it would not make sense to convert leached uranium into an insoluble compound. Best regards, Franz ----------------------------------------- Yellowcake is commonly produced as: > > Ammonium Diuranate (ADU) - (NH4)2U2O7 > > Not U3O8. From mojoforever at hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 07:15:22 2008 From: mojoforever at hotmail.com (Dan Glick) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:15:22 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security Message-ID: All, I would like to speak with any HP types that may work for DHS about dose rates of airport X-ray machines. Would someone be willing to forward some contact information? _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 9 08:59:57 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 06:59:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Dan, There is much data posted on the internet, such as Kodak website about dose to film, etc., from both carry-on as well as checked luggage. Typically, there is negligible dose from a carry-on x-ray. Checked luggage, depending on where you are, domestic or international, can sometimes observe dose as high as 2.5 mSv., depending on what is packed in the bag, etc. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 9 09:00:35 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75> Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html It is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to the Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) temperature had more to do with the color than the uranium content. U3O8 is also called yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, was originally real yellowcake: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/MVC-004S.JPG They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) More pictures from Grants NM: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/ The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads located in Grand Junction Colorado. On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I have discovered made so. My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. George Dowell ----- Original Message ----- From: "NIXON, Grant" To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant From Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com Wed Jul 9 10:56:49 2008 From: Grant.NIXON at mdsinc.com (NIXON, Grant) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:56:49 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco In-Reply-To: References: <034201c8e06e$a079f270$e16dd750$@com><1ee501c8e107$c4812dc0$0f24a7ac@your4dacd0ea75><03d601c8e11b$dd4b10f0$97e132d0$@com> <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65564AA@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> Message-ID: <0C0642676B1D3B468D477A7D8DDFFEF65566E4@CATOM-MDMAPUWFE.mds.mdsinc.com> I do not think that it is greater than 1% U-235 by weight. Even when the U-235 content is deemed to be greater than 0.72% by weight, but not exceeding 1.0%, it is still classified as fissile, although it is regulated as non-fissile radioactive material (excepted from packaging requirements for fissile materials). I suspect that, in this case, the yellowcake's natural abundance of U-235 exceeds the nominal value of 0.72% by weight (but I suspect it to be less than 1%) and, as such, it is classified as "enriched/fissile." As per Dan's email, the container content is yellowcake but expressed as uranium hexafluoride equivalent for trade and transportation reasons. Note that the contents only amount to about 4.5 Ci (168.3 GBq) on one of the containers. Grant -----Original Message----- From: Livesey, Lee M [mailto:Lee_M_Livesey at RL.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 5:07 PM To: NIXON, Grant; Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco If I read the UN ID number correctly from the pictures, it is UN 2977: Uranium hexafluoride, fissile (containing more than 1% (235) uranium). -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of NIXON, Grant Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: Dan W McCarn; Radsafe (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually black or brown in colour). Grant -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan W McCarn Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:59 PM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco George: I hate to bust your bubble, but I think that has nothing to do with criticality whatsoever. The loads are simply placed over the axles. I've seen this configuration frequently when quite heavy objects are loaded onto flatbeds. It significantly reduces the flex and bounce of the flatbed itself. Some truckers prefer this kind of loading arrangement. But correct me if I'm wrong! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:35 AM To: 'Radsafe (E-mail)'; Dan W McCarn Subject: Cameco Notice how the fissile material is transported, the two canisters are far apart, compared to less enriched material, which is stacked close together on the truck. I took all these pictures.Since this trip my mobile lab also includes neutron detection. http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Road%20Rad%20Finds/In%20KY/ George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'Radsafe (E-mail)'" Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Iraqi Uranium Hi: That's where Cameco processes the yellowcake into purified UO3 at Blind River and converted to UF6 at Port Hope. _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 9 12:47:58 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:47:58 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3B7A@gdses.corp.gds.com> Good starting link: http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Dan Glick Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:15 AM To: rad safe; conlrk at exeoncorp.com Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dept. Homeland security All, I would like to speak with any HP types that may work for DHS about dose rates of airport X-ray machines. Would someone be willing to forward some contact information? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Wed Jul 9 12:50:36 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:50:36 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation In-Reply-To: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> >From one of the articles Sandy posted (thank you, Sandy): "One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs." This is trotted out both by anti-nukes and by people who want to agitate against a particular country. I think the dangers are overstated in two ways: The first is that it is technically not easy to make weapons-grade material in the quantities needed for weapons. It is clearly within the technological abilities of a number of countries to make centrifuge systems that can concentrate U235, however there is a non-trivial increase in the challenge when moving from the several percent enriched needed for reactor fuel to the near isotopicly pure U235 needed for a weapon. And it takes a LOT of uranium to get the required amount of U235. If the reactor is not designed to optimize the production of Pu239 and limit production of other isotopes of plutonium, the recycled fuel from that reactor will not be very suitable for weapons. Personally, I suspect that a major part of North Korea's willingness to dismantle their nuclear weapons program in exchange for lots of wealth was that their test explosive device (it wasn't usable as a weapon; that is another level of complexity) proved that they couldn't make weapons-grade material with their system. I can't prove that, but it fits the evidence better than "they changed their position out of the goodness of their hearts." The second reason I think the proliferation risk is overstated is that EVEN IF a country is successful in making a, or even several, atomic weapons, they will find what the US and USSR found: they aren't very useful. They lack flexibility. If the other side has them, too, you can use them to kick over the game board, but you can't use them to win the game. The claim, "They are just crazy enough to do it!" is perhaps over used when the correct phrase is more like "I haven't bothered to try to figure out their reasoning." Both the US and USSR were guilty of that during the Cold War. The third reason is that, frankly, the world is safer with the "rogue nations" spending their resources on nuclear weapons research than it is with them pursuing other things, such as biological or chemical weapons. North Korea trying to make a nuclear weapon is scary; North Korea trying to resurrect small pox is terrifying. A country giving a terrorist organization a nuke is bad; a country giving a terrorist organization the same dollar-value of a top-grade nerve gas is worse. So why am I saying this? I believe that as new reactors are proposed around the world, the anti-nuke faction will take every opportunity to overstate dangers. I believe that responsible people, especially those in the rad community, should be prepared to point out the weaknesses in those arguments, especially if we are called upon by the media to comment. From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 00:09:18 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:09:18 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] 0.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To James Salesman: None of the references you posted seems relevant for my request: References that show that radiation induced damage (change in the DNA code) to a germ cell line was transferred to the next generation in such a way that some disease, malformation or other phenotypic defect could be detected in a statistically solid way. I am still interested to know if there are such references. The references you give are about effects on somatic cells but I referred only to germ cells. Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com-------------------------------------------> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 14:50:05 -0700> From: BenjB4 at gmail.com> To: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafe at radlab.nl> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] o.4 Sv extra radiation over 10 years may protect from much teratogenesis> > Dear Dr. Cedervall,> > Thank you for your request:> > > Now, I doubt that I heard of a teratogen that gave heritable _effects_ (good or bad) so please give me the reference(s).> > I just posted them here:> http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010491.html> > In particular here:> > "Martin el al (1991) reported that levels of chromosomal aberration,> sister chromatid exchange, and dicentrics measured in nuclear fuel> workers increase proportionally with uranium exposure. McDairmid et al> (2004), in their 10-year follow-up of 39 veterans exposed to DU in> friendly fire incidents during the 1991 Gulf war, reported that the> study participants exposed to the highest levels of DU showed a> statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations as> compared with low-exposure groups.> > "Pellmar et al (1999) ... the kidneys adapted to the high levels [of> DU from pellets implanted in rats' muscles] during chromic exposure.> > "Neuman and colleagues (1948) [found that] uranium has a high affinity> to bone.... young growing rats or rats deficient in dietary calcium> incorporated greater amounts of uranium than did the controls" (which> can support delayed action, as seen in 1991-1998 Iraq.)> > "The neurophysiological effect of uranium exposure has been under> investigation for many decades.... in frogs, uranyl ions potentiate> the twitch response of ... muscles.> > "Pellmar et al (1999) demonstrated that DU crosses the blood brain> barrier and accumulates in the hippocampus, causing> electrophysiological changes for up to 18 months post-exposure.> Briner and Murray (2005) tested behavioral effects and brain lipid> peroxidation.... Open-field behavior was altered [as soon as] 2 weeks> of exposure [in males] and female rats demonstrated behaviorial> changes after six months of exposure.... Barber et al (2005) ... found> that uranium content in all areas of the brain tested increased> rapidly after injection and remained elevated....> > "In exposure scenarios including exposure to DU, the observation that> the chemical toxic effects from uranium compounds ... occur at> exposure levels lower than those causing radiological toxicity effects> is thought to be true for reproductive effects as well.> > "The BEIR IV report (1988) ... cautions against minimizing the risk> until more studies become available."> > "Miller et al (1998) observed the transformation of human osteoblast> cells to a tumorigenic phenotype after exposure to uranyl chloride....> The DU-treated cells also demonstrated anchorage-independent growth,> increased levels of the of the k-ras oncogene, and decreased levels of> the Rb tumor suppressor protein... the transformed cells formed tumors> in nude mice.> > "Whereas studies using rat models showed that DU causes solid-state> induction of solid tumors.... 76% of all mice implanted with DU> pellets ... developed leukemia [in 200 days, after injection with> murine hematopoietic cells.] In contrast, only 10% of control mice> developed leukemia.> > -- the above is from Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain (2007) "A> Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In Vitro and In Vivo> Studies" Rev Environ Health 22(1) 75-89.> > James Salsman _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 00:40:34 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:40:34 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: Radsafers, I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners. I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk? This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those). Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda). _________________________________________________________________ It?s a talkathon ? but it?s not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk From rad_sci_health at comcast.net Thu Jul 10 04:02:14 2008 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Jim Muckerheide) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:02:14 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake In-Reply-To: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: See, e.g.: http://flickr.com/photos/marusia/146050780/ And http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=yellowcake&btnG=Search+Images Regards, Jim ============== on 7/9/08 10:00 AM, Geo>K0FF at GEOelectronics at netscape.com wrote: > Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html > It is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to the > Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) temperature > had more to do with the color than the uranium content. U3O8 is also called > yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically > pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. > > > This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, was > originally real yellowcake: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/M > VC-004S.JPG > > They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell > visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore > displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville > Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) > > More pictures from Grants NM: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum/ > > The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete > slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological > and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads > located in Grand Junction Colorado. > > On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium > mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical > presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose > with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ > The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some > radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I > had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in > aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is > shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I > have discovered made so. > > > > My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, > but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. > > George Dowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NIXON, Grant" > To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco > > > > I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched > isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium > concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). > No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually > black or brown in colour). > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 10 07:06:34 2008 From: Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk (Arvic Harms) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:06:34 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NPL Environmental Radioactivity Proficiency Test Exercise 2008 Message-ID: NPL ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY PROFICIENCY TEST EXERCISE 2008 Although the deadline for ordering was 1 June 2008, it is still possible to participate in this exercise. Currently we have a few spare samples from each of the samples type still available. If you are interested in participating, please send your order form to NPL as soon as possible. Further details of this exercise, previous exercises and the order form can be found on the NPL Environmental Radioactivity Proficiency Test Exercise website. http://www.npl.co.uk/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.2664 Kind regards, Arvic Harms Dr Arvic Harms Radioactivity and Neutrons Group National Physical Laboratory Hampton Road Teddington Middlesex United Kingdom TW11 0LW ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From cjb01 at health.state.ny.us Thu Jul 10 08:13:35 2008 From: cjb01 at health.state.ny.us (Clayton J Bradt) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:13:35 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Message-ID: The doses, from what I have read, are in the microSv range- truly insignificant. It's the privacy invasion that is excessive. They say that passengers are given a choice. They can go through the body scanner or be subject to a pat-down. Or, in other words: "Either let us peek through your clothes or we'll feel you up!" In the USA freedom really has become just another word for nothing left to lose. Clayton J. Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Thu Jul 10 08:30:12 2008 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:30:12 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can I get both? Don Koloff Clayton J Bradt To Sent by: radsafe at radlab.nl radsafe-bounces at r cc adlab.nl Subject [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body 07/10/2008 09:19 scanners AM Or, in other words: "Either let us peek through your clothes or we'll feel you up!" In the USA freedom really has become just another word for nothing left to lose. Clayton J. Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu Jul 10 08:57:49 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:57:49 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E04@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Bjorn, in a radsafe thread "RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow" , sent Do 11.05.2006 19:59, dealing with "new airport body scanners", Kim McMAHAN, ORNL External Dosimetry, (mcmahankl at ornl.gov), quoted a manufacturer with a dose to an individual of 30 nSv per scan which might be compared to the variability of the natural background dose rate between 70 and 100 nSv/h in our area. Notwithstanding your plea, I cannot refrain from noting that your argument depends on the premise that there is a risk associated with such an exposure. Otherwise it would be pointless. If you know reasons to assume this, please share them. Your condition "This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level" is surely met in any case. Kind 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 07:41 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Radsafers, I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners. I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk? This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those). Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda). _________________________________________________________________ It's a talkathon - but it's not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk_______________________________________________ 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/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Thu Jul 10 08:57:09 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:09 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake In-Reply-To: References: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: <005901c8e294$d9ebb700$8dc32500$@oilfield.slb.com> Interesting set of photos! Lots of "yellow".... I trolled through them and liked this one: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/a-frightened-vil lager-brings-t?mode=send I wonder if incidents like this are casually being (mis)used to boost the problems caused by DU.... Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jim Muckerheide Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:02 AM To: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake See, e.g.: http://flickr.com/photos/marusia/146050780/ And http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=yellowcake&btnG=Search+Images Regards, Jim ============== on 7/9/08 10:00 AM, Geo>K0FF at GEOelectronics at netscape.com wrote: > Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html > It is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to the > Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) temperature > had more to do with the color than the uranium content. U3O8 is also called > yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically > pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. > > > This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, was > originally real yellowcake: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum /M > VC-004S.JPG > > They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell > visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore > displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville > Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) > > More pictures from Grants NM: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20Museum / > > The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete > slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological > and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads > located in Grand Junction Colorado. > > On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium > mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical > presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose > with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ > The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some > radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I > had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in > aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is > shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I > have discovered made so. > > > > My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, > but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. > > George Dowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NIXON, Grant" > To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco > > > > I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched > isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium > concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). > No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually > black or brown in colour). > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 10 09:13:57 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:13:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3BF6@gdses.corp.gds.com> There are several factors that should be addressed. 1. Dose to the individual As far as dose, we all recognize that this is insignificant, no matter what age of the individual exposed. More dose from natural background, smoke from others containing radioactive material and any medical procedure that the individual undertakes. This is a non-issue. 2. Privacy While I personally don't have any issues with this being a privacy issue, since many have voiced privacy and modesty issues as a reason against this new technology, the methodology has been well explained. The individual viewing the screen does not see the individual, there is no identification, the viewer is in a different room, and, the images are not saved, they are deleted as soon as the scan is done and the individual is cleared. This seems workable to me. 3. Overall objective Protect the flying public. Sounds good to me. As a frequent flyer, I want as many logical and realistic security checks performed that are effective as well as being time reduced. I am tired of waiting in long lines at airports, where they don't have priority screening, to see some of the ridiculous checks that are performed, and most are ineffective, performed by over-worked staff and many not having a clue and no consistency from one airport check-point to another. I want the most technologically advanced systems in place that will protect me and my family, and oh yes, the rest of you as well. If this technology and those that are being developed will do that, then I say bring them on. There is a point where public safety and the saving of lives and/or reducing catastrophic injury must be implemented. I'm tired of those who cry that their rights are being trodden on. Answer, don't get on a plane, don't go in a building where security checks are performed. If you want to risk your life, then stick your head in the sand and maybe this will all just go away. In the meantime, I and my family are not going to suffer because of your beliefs that government should do nothing, that we continue to perform the current meaningless checks that simply waste time and don't give me any relief when I am in the air for 11 hours over some large body of water. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Thu Jul 10 09:31:25 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:25 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E1B@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Bjorn, assuming that the quoted 30 nSv is an equivalent organ dose to the skin and given the reported range of X-rays less than one cm its contribution to effective dose and hence total effective dose would be 300 pSv. Regards, Rainer -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Facius, Rainer Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 15:58 An: 'Bjorn Cedervall'; radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Bjorn, in a radsafe thread "RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow" , sent Do 11.05.2006 19:59, dealing with "new airport body scanners", Kim McMAHAN, ORNL External Dosimetry, (mcmahankl at ornl.gov), quoted a manufacturer with a dose to an individual of 30 nSv per scan which might be compared to the variability of the natural background dose rate between 70 and 100 nSv/h in our area. Notwithstanding your plea, I cannot refrain from noting that your argument depends on the premise that there is a risk associated with such an exposure. Otherwise it would be pointless. If you know reasons to assume this, please share them. Your condition "This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level" is surely met in any case. Kind 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 07:41 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Radsafers, I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners. I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk? This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those). Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion. My personal reflection only, Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda). _________________________________________________________________ It's a talkathon - but it's not just talk. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk_______________________________________________ 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/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 10 11:13:39 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake In-Reply-To: <005901c8e294$d9ebb700$8dc32500$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <025d01c8e1cc$2c7b8690$6b63a2ac@your4dacd0ea75>, , <005901c8e294$d9ebb700$8dc32500$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <4875EEE3.9651.1BDA60F@garyi.trinityphysics.com> My kids went to camp this summer and came back with a touch of rash, as well as some peeling skin on their toes. Obviously, that camp is contaminated with DU, or yellowcake, but perhaps both. They must have walked on it, and absorbed the deadly radiation right thru their shoes. While I wait to hear back from my lawyer, I'll work on the title of my BSNBC exposee. "Are Your Kids Mutating?" "Camp Big Glow" "A Father's Agony" "The Atomic Family" Let me know if you think of something better. Thanks, -Gary On 10 Jul 2008 at 8:57, Doug Aitken wrote: [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] Interesting set of photos! Lots of "yellow".... I trolled through them and liked this one: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/a-frighten ed-vil lager-brings-t?mode=send I wonder if incidents like this are casually being (mis)used to boost the problems caused by DU.... Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Jim Muckerheide Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:02 AM To: radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE tellowcake See, e.g.: http://flickr.com/photos/marusia/146050780/ And http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=yellowcake&btnG=Search+Images Regards, Jim ============== on 7/9/08 10:00 AM, Geo>K0FF at GEOelectronics at netscape.com wrote: > Yellowcake can be yellow, green, orange or other colors > http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/yellowcake.html It > is a mixture of uranium oxides and other chemicals. My inquiries to > the Uranium section of NRC disclosed that the firing (dehydration) > temperature had more to do with the color than the uranium content. > U3O8 is also called > yellowcake and it is pretty much black to my eyes. It is supplied chemically > pure. I have samples of yellow, orange and black. > > > This display at the Uranium Mining Museum at Grants New Mexico USA, > was originally real yellowcake: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20 Museum /M > VC-004S.JPG > > They were asked to substitute another chemical after 9/11 ( so they tell > visitors). There is a LOT of radon in the museum, from the ore > displays. Same at the National Mining Hall of Fame Museum at Leadville > Colorado USA. ( search: Walker Field, Calibration Pads) > > More pictures from Grants NM: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Grants%20NM%20Field%20Trip/Uranium%20Mining%20 Museum / > > The file inside that link marked DOE TEST PADS are some radioactive concrete > slabs maintained by the US Government for periodic calibration of geological > and other gamma spectroscopy equipment. There are other, larger pads > located in Grand Junction Colorado. > > On the subject of mining museums, the one in Colorado Springs had a uranium > mining exhibit this last March (2008) as well as a very nice theatrical > presentation of Madame Curie's life. After the play, I had the actress pose > with one of my PM1703M pocket ratemeters: > http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Field%20Trip%20March%202008/ > The link also shows pictures of various aircraft museums and some > radioactive finds in them. Pictures of the wing weights are NOT DU, but I > had them posed for a picture to illustrate the need for counterweights in > aircraft control surfaces. In another picture, a helicopter jet engine is > shown to contain high amounts of thorium alloy, one of the few jet engines I > have discovered made so. > > > > My area of expertise is nucleonics, that is, detectors and instrumentation, > but naturally I have an interest in other radiation related areas. > > George Dowell > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NIXON, Grant" > To: "Dan W McCarn" ; "Radsafe (E-mail)" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:32 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Cameco > > > > I agree with Dan. This is not enriched uranium (i.e., enriched > isotopically with U-235) but, rather, processed ore / uranium > concentrate that preserves the natural abundance of U-235 (0.71% by wt). > No critical mass would be possible with yellow cake (which is actually > black or brown in colour). > > Grant > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From garyi at trinityphysics.com Thu Jul 10 11:59:39 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:39 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation In-Reply-To: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: , <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com>, <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Mike, You make some excellent points, but I must say that any culture that embraces suicide bombing, using their own children as carriers, definitely falls into the category of "They are just crazy enough to do it!" Remember, I am not talking about having their children taken from them by force. No, I am talking about parents who have a celebration prior to the bombing. Just think about that for a second. What would they do if they had a nuclear weapon? North Korea is one thing, but Islamic terrorism is entirely different. But I do agree with you that biological or chemical agents are the more serious threat. If there were a button that would make every non-muslim head in the world suddenly explode, I promise you that we would find quite a few people who would fight each other to be able to push it first. And that is your happy thought for the day. :) -Gary Isenhower On 9 Jul 2008 at 10:50, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote: ------snip-------------- The second reason I think the proliferation risk is overstated is that EVEN IF a country is successful in making a, or even several, atomic weapons, they will find what the US and USSR found: they aren't very useful. They lack flexibility. If the other side has them, too, you can use them to kick over the game board, but you can't use them to win the game. The claim, "They are just crazy enough to do it!" is perhaps over used when the correct phrase is more like "I haven't bothered to try to figure out their reasoning." Both the US and USSR were guilty of that during the Cold War. The third reason is that, frankly, the world is safer with the "rogue nations" spending their resources on nuclear weapons research than it is with them pursuing other things, such as biological or chemical weapons. North Korea trying to make a nuclear weapon is scary; North Korea trying to resurrect small pox is terrifying. A country giving a terrorist organization a nuke is bad; a country giving a terrorist organization the same dollar-value of a top-grade nerve gas is worse. So why am I saying this? I believe that as new reactors are proposed around the world, the anti-nuke faction will take every opportunity to overstate dangers. I believe that responsible people, especially those in the rad community, should be prepared to point out the weaknesses in those arguments, especially if we are called upon by the media to comment. From MARIO.D.MUDEK at saic.com Thu Jul 10 12:47:43 2008 From: MARIO.D.MUDEK at saic.com (Mudek, Mario D.) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:47:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RSO Position for SAIC in Baghdad Iraq In-Reply-To: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301@garyi.trinityphysics.com> References: , <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com>, <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AD5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Message-ID: <666945B294F3BB4D8D12C1F106E60CFE039E62A0@0004-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> Please apply online and feel free to send your resume and any questions you may have directly to me or give me a call. https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/0AJ9J50 A9S082AM2OCCI4H6WEH8397XYZTD3XOH7JGXOYYYMRADRV1FNYA0PYG7GHOFY4SVSXM3FANS D61RMZB5P4DHW7KHPXYRTYFOIM6W3ZB75NWR10MTAUCY928BI7399UA9SOIQGYS18Y87UPSR 19278R1927WESXH7WR10SBLSOTPA2GZL0EZT94HA4VEHNB1G5JI3YUMK6ELXUMGOW The Security and Transport Technology Business Unit currently has an opening for a RADIATION SAFETY OFFICER in Iraq. Job Description: This position requires the individual to perform all necessary radiation safety duties as assigned by the RSO (or customer's RSO) in support of specific goals and objectives relative to the applicable radiation safety program and license. Perform routine duties without supervision, including, but not limited to: performing/documenting/tracking/maintaining surveys, issuing/retrieving dosimetry, issuing/tracking instrument calibration/repair, receiving/tracking radioactive material, tracking supplies/equipment, obtaining/tracking radiation machine registration, maintaining license records, preparing audit files, performing training and preparing training packages and recording results etc. Education: Bachelor of Science Degree and 7 years experience, or equivalent training and experience Required Skills: Able to apply basic radiation safety and math fundamental concepts, practices and procedures. Familiar with Regulatory requirements for radioactive material possession, use, storage, receipt and transport. Familiar with standard survey methods and instruments. Familiar with data base entry and searches. Familiar with word, adobe acrobat, excel, etc. Good oral and written communication skills. Able to audit and document audit results for a variety of program areas. Able to provide training in radiation safety areas to individuals not technically advanced in the subject. Desired Skills: Basic project and record management experience/skills. Mario D. Mudek, RRPT ARSO, Health Physicist Specialist SAIC Radiation Safety Office 2985 Scott Street Vista, CA 92081 Office Direct - 858-826-9284 BlackBerry - 858-205-8135 Fax - 858-826-9540 Notice: The information in this email may be confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This email is intended only for the individual or organization named above, and not necessarily the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or disseminate this email, its attachments, or the information contained herein. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 10 16:02:07 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:02:07 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3C85@gdses.corp.gds.com> Index: Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants Hundreds meet on second Mo. county nuclear reactor The nuclear cycle and the hostility cycle EU still reliant on nuclear power Nuclear power still an option - Australian Libs Medical supply firm sues Canada's nuclear agency Nuclear deal to fuel BHEL expansion Nuclear power is the key to resolving three global crises - food, global warming, and resource distribution Uranium levels fall after nuclear leak in France CT scanner might cut costs and radiation exposure ----------------------------------- Leader at E.ON urges Germany to keep nuclear plants BERLIN: With Germany committed to reducing global warming gases while struggling to deal with soaring fuel costs, one of the giant energy companies in the country said Thursday that Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition could only deal with both issues by extending the working life of the country's nuclear plants. Wulf Bernotat, chairman of the European energy powerhouse E.ON, said during an interview here that it was "questionable" whether Merkel's government of conservatives and Social Democrats could realize its environmental ambitions without reversing its policy on nuclear energy, which provides power with only minimal atmospheric contributions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. The government has vowed to increase the amount of power generated by renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, to 30 percent by 2020 from 14 percent. At the same time, it has promised to reduce Germany's carbon dioxide emission levels in 2020 by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels. That timetable coincides with the planned shutdown of all but one of Germany's 17 nuclear power plants, a policy that was part of an agreement negotiated between the energy companies and a coalition led by the Social Democrats and Greens in 2000. Related Articles EDF battles to keep its nuclear secrets Today in Business with Reuters Washington struggles to avoid a federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie MacOPEC warns against military conflict with IranDow Chemical buying a rival, Rohm & Haas, for $15.3 billion Merkel, sworn in as conservative Chancellor in November 2005 and a supporter of nuclear power, nonetheless agreed to continue that policy as the price for establishing a coalition with the Social Democrats. But Bernotat, who represents a part of the German energy sector that strongly defends the continuation of nuclear energy, said Merkel's government, particularly her Social Democratic partners could not have it both ways by wanting to reduce CO2 gases while ending the use of nuclear plants. Nuclear energy makes up 12 percent of Germany's primary supply and over a quarter of electricity generation. The International Energy Agency in Paris, in a recent report on Germany, also questioned the cost to Germany's energy security, energy efficiency and environmental sustainability if the nuclear plants are closed. Bernotat said the Social Democrats "will have to decide what they really want," as the attitudes of governments in Asia and Europe were shifting in favor of using more nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is free of CO2 gases, it is independent of resources, it would lead to dramatic fall in prices and subsidies, and it is protected from price volatility," Bernotat told a group of foreign correspondents based in Berlin. Merkel has publicly adhered to the coalition accord, fearing any backtracking would be exploited by the Social Democrats and the opposition Greens and Left Party, which are all vehemently against continuing nuclear power. When she attended the Group of 8 summit meeting of the leading industrialized countries this week in Japan, Merkel refrained from supporting calls to increase the use of nuclear energy as a means of curbing energy prices and tackling climate change. She echoed the position of several energy experts, including Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, arguing that nuclear power amounted to a short-term fix that did little to prepare for the long-term need to rely increasingly on renewable energy. That is a position she has publicly championed since taking office. Still, it does not entirely reflect her own views. Merkel told top party officials last month that the decision originally made by her Social Democrat predecessor, Gerhard Schr?der, "was absolutely wrong." Had she spoken out in favor of nuclear energy, she would have been criticized at home for reneging on the coalition accord. As a result, Merkel found herself "isolated" at the summit meeting because of her stance on nuclear power, the German media reported. Annette Schavan, the conservative technology minister, has taken the lead in the government in defending the continued use of nuclear power. "We need to exit the exit solution," Schavan told Bild am Sonntag last week. "We urgently need the life-span expansion as a contribution to global climate protection and for a more lasting energy policy." She countered accusations from the Greens that Merkel's conservatives want to build new power stations. "In Germany today, the issue is not about building new nuclear power plants but who can say whether that will still apply in 10 years," she added. ---------- Hundreds meet on second Mo. county nuclear reactor FULTON, Mo. (AP) -- Hundreds of supporters and opponents packed a Westminster College auditorium for the first public glimpse of a proposed second nuclear reactor at AmerenUE's Callaway plant. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission hosted the Wednesday night session, which the agency called a public outreach forum, not a formal hearing. The St. Louis-based utility has yet to submit its application for a new reactor. It says it plans to seek a construction and operating license so it can decide by 2010 whether to move forward in time to have a new reactor on line by 2018. After a brief overview by NRC officials of the licensing process, a succession of speakers largely praised the pending project, calling Ameren a good corporate neighbor with a proven safety record in the 23 years since the 1,190-megawatt power plant opened. "It's unreal what this is going to do for this community," said April Bergeron, a union mechanic who lives near the Callaway plant and has worked at the facility. "They're the safest place there is. You can eat off the floor." Reactor opponents offered a drastically different assessment. In a news conference held before the public event, they called on Ameren Corp., the utility's corporate parent, to more aggressively pursue alternative and renewable energy options. "Nuclear power is a phenomenally expensive, dead-end technology," said Mark Haim of Missourians for Safe Energy, an anti-nuclear group. "It has failed the test of the marketplace. Its much touted revival is only conceivable with enormous subsidies right now from all taxpayers, and huge bills not far down the pike for Missouri ratepayers." The company then known as Union Electric initially planned a second nuclear reactor at the Callaway County site. That plan was scrapped after a grass-roots effort opposing the Callaway project led Missouri voters in 1976 to decisively approve a law prohibiting state utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built. Persuading state lawmakers to overturn that restriction is a top priority for Ameren in the next legislative session. Should that fail, the company likely won't build a second reactor -- which would require two cooling towers beside the current one -- but instead pursue more costly natural gas generators. Ameren expects the new reactor to cost at least $6 billion, or $9 billion with financing -- roughly the entire value of the parent corporation. Opponents suggest that a new reactor will cost even more, with the utility passing on those costs to consumers. Ameren has enlisted UniStar Nuclear of Baltimore to assist with its construction and licensing application. The company is a joint venture between Constellation Energy Group Inc. and the state-owned Areva Group of France. Approval of the Ameren application, once submitted, is contingent upon the federal agency also approving a new Areva reactor now in use in parts of Europe. ----------- The nuclear cycle and the hostility cycle WASHINGTON, July 10 (UPI) -- The recommendation of a State Department advisory panel that the United States band together with other existing nuclear powers to build safeguards into the growing market for reactor capacity risks fanning nationalistic hostility in the Third World to global anti-proliferation regimes, say some critics. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The report says the United States must embrace a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation -- despite the proliferation risks it poses -- to ensure that nuclear supplier nations work together to build tough new safeguards into the growing market. But critics charge this kind of thinking only exacerbates suspicion about the role of the United States and its First World allies among less developed aspirant nuclear powers. The suggestion that existing nuclear powers should monopolize production to stop the proliferation of fuel processing technologies that also can be used to make weapons material "causes nostrils to flair in the Third World," said Brian Finlay of the Stimson Center. Finlay, a proliferation expert who has worked with Third World governments on proliferation issues, said there was "a longstanding sensitivity (among aspirant nuclear nations) to any policy that appears to be trying to restrict technology transfer." Finlay's main criticism of the advisory panel's report is that it "fails to create a pathway we can move down towards ending this adversarial relationship with the Third World." He called for "out-of-the-box and innovative thinking about the regulation of nuclear technology" to break what he called "the cycle of hostility" of non-nuclear but aspirant nations toward their perceived "big brothers" who already have the technology to process and reprocess nuclear fuel. The tough restrictions to which the report recommends aspirant nuclear nations must sign up as the quid pro quo for getting guaranteed fuel and technology could "provoke something of a backlash" among them, Finlay added. But the former U.S. nuclear negotiator and government scientist who led the task force that wrote the report told United Press International the real cycle was one of fear -- bred by the prospect of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. "Iran is saying, 'You can't infringe on our sovereign rights as a nation'" to develop nuclear power and fuel production, said C. Paul Robinson. But its neighbors have rights, too. "They are worried. They're saying, 'If they have the right (to a nuclear program), we have the right to defend ourselves'" and develop their own nuclear programs. "Somebody has to do something, or they (the neighbors) are going to take matters into their own hands," Robinson concluded. "The world seems headed in a very bad set of directions," acknowledged Robinson. He added a lot of work is still required to implement the kind of safeguards regimen the report recommends. For starters, most of the supplier nations have no equivalent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Robinson said, which reviews and must approve all exports of nuclear technology by U.S. firms. Supplier nations need "some mechanism that would bind their (commercial) nuclear suppliers to their national policies. ... There's got to be national enforcement" of any deals among supplier nations. "There are no easy solutions," said Robinson, but he added he is still "sanguine about the prospects" for success. Henry Sokolski, an expert who heads the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, disputes that view and the recommendations of the task force: "If you cannot trust a country not to break its pledges not to make bombs, you ultimately have no way of ensuring that they won't." -------- EU still reliant on nuclear power BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Europe draws nearly a third of its energy from nuclear power and just 15 percent from renewable sources such as hydroelectric dams and windmills, according to European Union figures released Thursday. Seeking to cut its reliance on imported oil and natural gas, the European Union is trying to reduce energy consumption and develop more homegrown sources of power -- such as renewables -- that would also limit its output of greenhouse gases. But the most recent EU statistics on energy use, from 2006, show that Europeans have been using more power and buying in more imports over the past decade. Energy use rose 7 percent from 1997 to 2006. As oil and gas from the North Sea run out, Europe is also importing far more energy, up 29 percent over the same period. Most of that energy comes from fossil fuels such as crude oil and natural gas, which are usually imported. Russia has emerged as a major supplier. In 2006, it provided a third of Europe's oil imports and 40 percent of the natural gas Europe bought. A fifth of Europe's energy came from natural gas -- which is often burned to produce electricity -- and 14 percent from oil used as transport fuel. Another 22 percent comes from coal and wood. Nuclear energy is the biggest source of power for the 27-nation bloc at 29 percent although the technology is highly controversial. France, a major advocate, champions it as a low-carbon emission fuel source that produces most of the nation's electricity. But Germany and many eastern European countries plan to shut down older atomic power stations over safety concerns. This wave of plant closures has already seen one country, Lithuania, cut its power production by just over a tenth as a Soviet-era plant was closed four years ago because it was unsafe. --------- Nuclear power still an option - Australian Libs THE Federal Opposition has not given up hope of nuclear power coming to Australia as part of the quest for low-emission electricity. Liberal senator Helen Coonan said if efforts to clean up coal failed, nuclear power could become an option. "What you need to do is to keep an open mind about alternatives to coal, and if you can't clean up coal ... you've got to look at other options, you can't just go down one track," she told ABC Television's Q and A program tonight. "We believe that (nuclear power) should be one of the options but it has to be bipartisan, and it has to be economically viable." Senator Coonan said nuclear power was increasingly becoming an option in other countries. For Australia, cleaning up coal was the best option and renewables were also important, she said, but nuclear power was still an option. The federal government's Small Business Minister Craig Emerson said Labor did not support nuclear power for Australia. Greens senator Christine Milne said renewable energy held the key to cleaning up Australia's electricity. ----------- Medical supply firm sues Canada's nuclear agency OTTAWA (AFP) - A Canadian company that supplies radioactive materials for medical tests worldwide on Wednesday sued the government and its nuclear agency for shelving two reactors crucial for its supply of isotopes. In a statement, MDS Inc. said the two cancelled Maple reactors would have produced 40 years of medical isotopes for patients worldwide. By nixing the project, the company claims the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) breached its contractual obligations, and it is now seeking 1.6 billion dollars in damages from the agency and the government of Canada. "We have had to resort to taking these steps to protect the interests of patients, the nuclear medicine community, our shareholders and our customers," said Stephen DeFalco, president and CEO of MDS. "We are disappointed that AECL and the government decided to abandon the Maple project without establishing a clear plan for the long-term supply of critical medical isotopes," he added. In a statement, AECL said it had met its obligations to MDS and planned to "vigorously defend" itself in court. A spokeswoman for Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn echoed AECL and told AFP the project had been mismanaged by a previous administration, "leaving it crippled with technical and economic problems for years." In 1996, MDS had entered into an agreement with AECL for the design, development and construction of the two new nuclear reactors and a processing facility. The so-called Maple project was intended to replace AECL's aging National Research Universal (NRU) reactor, which produces about half of the world's medical isotopes, and was to be completed by the year 2000 at a planned cost to MDS of 145 million dollars. But by 2005, the project was not yet completed and costs had more than doubled, with MDS's investment exceeding 350 million dollars. In May, the government pulled the plug on the project, citing soaring costs and delays. To meet the demand for medical isotopes, AECL said it would keep its 50-year-old NRU reactor operational, however its license is up in October 2011. A temporary maintenance shutdown of the aging NRU reactor last year sparked a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes, and led to the firing of Canada's nuclear safety chief. According to reports, thousands of medical tests were postponed in Canada, the United States and other countries because of the isotopes shortage. Medical isotopes are radioactive materials which are injected into patients to allow molecular imaging equipment to produce detailed scans for diagnosing cancer and other diseases. MDS has an exclusive contract to supply AECL medical isotopes to hospitals and clinics around the world for molecular imaging, radiotherapeutics, and analytical instruments. ------------- Nuclear deal to fuel BHEL expansion State-run Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) is eyeing a goldmine of contracts, courtesy the much-delayed nuclear deal that now appears close to execution. The company is hoping to get high-value orders from the world's leading atomic energy equipment makers that are looking to sell reactors and projects here once the nuclear deal comes into force, enabling India to access the global market for nuclear fuel and technology. "We have the capability of making critical components required in a nuclear power reactor and we are looking at countries that produce nuclear power," a senior BHEL official said on the condition of anonymity. "We expect our orders to come from developed countries like US, France and Canada." He declined to put any estimate on the value of the contracts. Once the nuclear deal comes into force, it "would boost sentiments for power and allied capital goods sector," said Puneet Bambha, analyst, Angel Broking. "Though difficult to quantify the materiality and the timeline of the benefits at this juncture, few companies including BHEL, L&T, and NTPC, would tend to be the key beneficiaries." More than 400 nuclear power plants are operating across 30 countries and about 16 per cent of the world energy is generated from nuclear sources. BHEL is tapping both the replacement as well as the planned new nuclear plants worldwide. The company operates a plant in Tiruchy that can manufacture reactor components comprising four steam generators and reactor heads each for a 500-mw nuclear power plant. It can also make nuclear turbines at its plant in Bhopal. "We are looking for a technology collaborator to step up the manufacturing facility of steam generators and reactor heads to cater to over 1,200 mw nuclear power plants," the official said. BHEL already supplies atomic power components to Bhaba Atomic Research Centre and Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited - the sole agency to design, construct, commission and operate nuclear power plants in the country. ------------ Nuclear power is the key to resolving three global crises - food, global warming, and resource distribution Sergei Kirienko guardian.co.uk, - All the major issues that were on the G8 agenda - the food crisis, global warming and uneven distribution of development resources among countries - are closely interlinked, first and foremost, to a shortage of energy and resulting price hikes. Previous forecasts regarding the growth of energy consumption and the development of new energy technologies have not come true. Consumption is growing at a much faster pace, while new energy sources will not become commercially viable before 2030. Oil prices have risen, but even the $130-$140 per barrel will not fund new fields capable of satisfying the world economy. Alternative energy sources are currently unable to provide the necessary scale. And their costs confirm the maxim that energy is never cheap: witness the price of ethanol. Nuclear power is not the only means of overcoming the crises, but it is undoubtedly a major instrument in resolving the three problems on the G8 agenda. Nuclear power plants in Europe help prevent the annual emission of 700m tonnes of CO2, and in Japan the figure is 270m tonnes. In Russia the share of nuclear power is set to grow from 16% to 20-25% by 2030, which means that new nuclear power plants in our country will reduce greenhouse gas emission by between 10-15%. That is not a mere declaration, but a decision based on concrete sources of financing. Until now, the development of nuclear power focused on increased single-unit reactor capacity and thus unfortunately denied the benefits of atomic power to countries with under-developed energy networks, mainly on the African continent. However, today the nuclear power industry is ready to offer to the market small and medium-yield reactors, which may open-up prospects for a larger number of countries. Another major benefit of nuclear power is its capability to simultaneously desalinate water. This will help alleviate the food crisis in two ways. African countries lack fresh water to develop agriculture, and fresh water may become a major casualty of the food crisis. Access to reliable and cheap sources of energy is a major condition for sustainable economic development of any country. A growing number of industrialised countries and emerging economies realise the necessity to begin developing on their territories' peaceful atomic power technologies. Up to 600 new nuclear reactors are planned worldwide by 2030. This increases the importance of enhanced restrictions on the use of atomic power. It is the right of any country to enjoy the benefits of peaceful atomic energy. But it is the right of the world community to demand unconditional compliance with security norms and non-proliferation guarantees. Russia is both initiating the creation of a new security system for the development of nuclear power and working to launch enhanced mechanisms to guarantee nuclear non-proliferation. We have already initiated the creation of an infrastructure of international centres to provide nuclear fuel services, granting equal access to atomic energy to all the interested parties while ensuring strict compliance with non-proliferation requirements under International Atomic Energy Agency control. As an example, an international uranium enrichment centre has been created and is operating in the Russian city of Angarsk. Angarsk will have a guaranteed reserve of low-enriched uranium, managed by the IAEA board of governors, guaranteeing fuel supplies to any country of the world regardless of any political reasons. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has said, opposition to nuclear power was a mistake and it is now a major means to counter global warming. The disappearance of old stereotypes on the political level will accelerate the development of nuclear power. That will help quickly lift non-market barriers in Europe and America, imposed to protect domestic producers, but which is a hindrance when the market faces shortages. A clear political signal will also guide the banking community, which is currently reluctant to get involved in nuclear power plant investment projects, due to a few radical pressure groups. We need broad international cooperation to solve the crises the world faces. We will continue to propose such an approach to our colleagues in the other G8 countries, especially when it comes to the peaceful use of atomic power. --------- Uranium levels fall after nuclear leak in France PARIS - Tests show that uranium levels are diminishing but have not vanished from rivers in southern France after a leak from a nuclear site, regional authorities said Wednesday. Anti-nuclear groups, meanwhile, questioned the handling of the incident at the Tricastin nuclear site near Avignon, noting inconsistent official statements about when it occurred and about how much unenriched uranium was leaked. France's nuclear safety agency said liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a factory at the site, and that uranium concentrations in the Gaffiere river were initially about 1,000 times the normal levels. The agency said the uranium is only slightly radioactive although toxic. Initially the agency said the accident occurred Tuesday morning, but later said it occurred Monday night. On Wednesday, Tricastin authorities revised downward the amount of liquid that leaked. Authorities in the Vaucluse region maintained a ban Wednesday on the consumption of well water in three nearby towns and the watering of crops from the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. Swimming, water sports and fishing also remain banned. A series of tests Tuesday showed that "uranium levels (in surface water) remained well above normal but strongly diminished through dilution throughout the day," the regional administration said in a statement. The tests found no uranium in groundwater. Tricastin authorities changed the amount that had leaked from 7,900 gallons (30,000 liters) to 4,760 gallons (18,000 liters), according to another statement from the Vaucluse regional administration. It said the liquid contained 493 pounds (224 kilograms) of natural unenriched uranium, instead of 794 pounds (360 kilograms) announced earlier. The factory handles materials and liquids contaminated by uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants. The liquid spilled from a reservoir that overflowed during the washing of a tank. The Commission for Independent Radioactivity Research and Information said the leak led to the release of radioactive material 100 times that which the site is allowed to release in a year. Greenpeace said the leaked waste was more than 130 times the permitted level. ------------ Japanese nuclear fuel plant worker exposed to radiation Tokyo - A Japanese nuclear fuel company said Thursday that one of its workers was exposed to minor levels of radiation. Global Nuclear Fuel-Japan Co said a worker at a nuclear fuel producing plant in the central Japanese city of Yokosuka had inhaled a small amount of uranium on Wednesday. Some 8 grams of uranium scattered from a machine that produces uranium dioxide pellets, and the worker, who was in the same room, was exposed to 1.12 millisieverts of radiation. There had been no harm to his health, the agency said. The incident occurred because an inspection point in a pipe that supplies powder to the pressing unit was left open when the machine was activated, it said. No radioactive material leaked outside the plant, the company said. The Japanese trade ministry's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency issued a warning against the company because reports were filed with the agency six hours after the incident. The company is jointly owned by General Electric Co, Toshiba Corp and Hitachi Ltd. -------- CT scanner might cut costs and radiation exposure Orange County Register July 10 - Toshiba's experts in high-tech medicine have created a powerful new CT scanning machine that they believe will save the lives of thousands of heart patients and stroke victims, if it survives the steely-eyed scrutiny of health insurers. The new Aquilion One scanner will cut costs while it saves lives, its advocates say, but they can't prove it. At least not yet. That's a crucial omission, because the machine costs $2.5 million. Even previous-generation models such as the GE Light Speed scanner that Hoag Hospital is installing in Newport Beach cost $1.3 million to $2 million. The question of CT costs is a sensitive subject right now, because Medicare is fretting about escalating expenses for CT scans - and worrying about the radiation that CT scanners expose patients to. Medicare's decisions about CT scans are doubly important, because private health insurers typically follow the lead of the government agency. CT scans, or Computed Tomography scans, let doctors look quickly inside a patient's body for signs of blocked arteries, stroke, cancer and other diseases. In the process, patients can be exposed to as much radiation as hundreds of X-ray exams. Each year, Americans have more than about 62 million CT scans costing an estimated $500 to $1,000 each. In December, Medicare threatened to stop paying for many such CT scans, saying it wasn't convinced that using a CT machine to diagnose heart disease was "reasonable and necessary" except in cases such as patients experiencing chest pains. After loud protests from doctors, medical societies and manufacturers, Medicare relaxed that position. In March, the agency agreed to keep paying for CT scans while medical researchers evaluate the diagnostic power of CT equipment. The research will test whether CT scans are good enough to replace other costly procedures, such as inserting a catheter into a patient's arteries so a doctor can see blockages. "We need to prove it," says Doug Ryan, senior director of the CT business unit at Toshiba American Medical Systems in Irvine. "But we wouldn't put the Aquilion One on the market if we didn't believe it would help patients." RADIATION A CT scanner takes a series of X-rays of the patient's body, then uses its computing power to piece them together into a composite picture of the patient's insides. In an Aquilion One, the computer compiles data from 320 rows of X-ray sensors, so it's termed a 320-slice CT scanner. That array is wide enough to capture the image of the entire heart between two heart beats. In the process, a patient can receive about 15 millisieverts of radiation exposure - 100 to 500 times the amount of a chest X-ray. Medicare estimates that the radiation from a single CT scan may increase a patient's risk of cancer by 0.05 percent, or 1 chance in 2,000. That's a slight addition to Americans' lifetime average 20 percent risk, which is equivalent to one person in five diagnosed with fatal cancer. "This small increase in radiation-associated cancer risk for an individual can become a public health concern if large numbers of the population undergo increased numbers of CT screening procedures of uncertain benefit," the agency said. CT scans with "uncertain benefit" number about 20 million each year in the United States out of 62 million total, says biophysicist David Brenner of Columbia University. In an article last fall in the New England Journal of Medicine, Brenner estimated that radiation from CT scans might be the cause of 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of all cancers in the United States. That estimate is disputed by Dr. Michael Brant-Zawadzki, former medical director for radiology at Hoag Hospital. The basic reason for the disagreement: Scientists have not been able to determine whether very low doses of radiation are harmful, says Brant-Zawadzki, who is now Hoag's executive director of neurosciences. Everyone is subjected to background radiation, and it's possible that below a certain threshold low-level exposures might cause no damage, he says. Low-dose radiation might even help protect against cancer, because the body responds to it by continually repairing its genes. Estimates such as Brenner's and Medicare's are based on the plausible, but unproven, hypothesis that there is no threshold below which radiation doesn't cause cancer-causing mutations, Brant-Zawadzki says. "We should be cautious, but not alarmist, about radiation and CT scans," he says. After all, people aren't fearful of background radiation, even at high altitudes where residents have less atmosphere above them to absorb cosmic radiation. "Living for two years in Denver is like getting a basic routine diagnostic CT scan," Brant-Zawadzki says. COSTS Toshiba has a prescription for cutting radiation exposure, following the same prescription it suggests for cutting costs by spending $2.5 million for its new CT scanner. In each case, a hospital would install an Aquilion One and use it for gathering the information that's currently collected through a series of common radiology tests. For heart patients, Ryan says, the CT scanner would eliminate the need for a nuclear-medicine examination, which includes a radioactive tracer that's injected into the blood stream. He says the new scanner would also let doctors omit a cardiac catheter examination, which often involves injection of a radioactive liquid. A typical battery of coronary tests costs $3,500 to $4,500, exposing the patient to about 42 millisieverts of radiation, Ryan says. With an Aquilion One, the cost of the evaluation would be under $1,000 and the radiation exposure would be 15 millisieverts or less, he says. That estimated saving of $2,500 to $3,500 per patient allows Toshiba to predict that a 300- to 400-bed hospital could recoup the price of buying an Aquilion One within five years by saving $3 million on diagnosing and treating cardiac and stroke patients. Those savings - and the proposed changes in clinical procedures that they're based on - are what Toshiba knows it needs to test and prove in the real world, not just on paper, if it is to realize its hopes for the Aquilion One. The machine is already in use, or about to be installed, at six medical research centers ranging from Boston and Baltimore to Nevada, Ryan says. They will study its diagnostic prowess. A similar study for earlier 64-slice CT scanners such as those at Hoag Hospital has already been completed and is awaiting publication in a peer-reviewed journal. In an advance look at its findings, a Johns Hopkins University press release stated that, because of CT scanners, "as much as 25 percent of the 1.3 million cardiac catheterizations performed each year in the United States may be unnecessary." The issue of cost savings will be tackled in studies that Toshiba will underwrite at mainstream hospitals that install the Aquilion One after it goes into full commercial release in September, Ryan says. The greatest dispute over CT scanners is whether it's a good idea routinely to use them to screen symptom-free patients. That's an increasingly common use of CT machines, but many doctors argue that the risk of repeated radiation exposure outweighs the potential benefit of finding an undiscovered ailment. For a patient suffering from chest pains, the risk calculation is much different. Medicare agrees that a CT scan in that situation is "reasonable and necessary." In that case, as Ryan puts it, "The risk of cancer is small compared to the risk of a wrong diagnosis." ----------------------------------- Sander C.?Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division? 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 ? +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) ? Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ ? PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From hpsolutions at comcast.net Thu Jul 10 18:32:31 2008 From: hpsolutions at comcast.net (hpsolutions at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:32:31 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments Message-ID: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> I didn't get any responses last time, so I thought I might try again. I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH for use in the US in a uranium facility. Instruments include the Portable Contamination Monitor CoMo-170, the hand-foot-clothing contamination monitor with large-area, thin-layer plastic scintillation detectors, the hand-foot-clothing monitor- standard version, the W I M P 60 x 10 PC-based smear test measuring system with 10 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 8 PC-based smear test measuring system with 8 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 6 PC-based smear test measuring system with 6 x detector geometry and PD 32 and 42 internal pipe detectors. I am not familiar with the S.E.A. products and was trying to see if anyone had experience with them. I would appreciate your opinions, good and bad, so that we can make a decision on using the S.E.A. products or products that are commercially available in the US. Thanks for your help. Paul Jones, CHP From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Thu Jul 10 21:09:01 2008 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:09:01 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments In-Reply-To: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> References: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <44CAA86B-39A6-4835-ACC2-84FE46B06ADD@comcast.net> On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, hpsolutions at comcast.net wrote: > I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH Are you saying that you have been asked to evaluate instruments for which the manufacturer is unable to provide sufficient technical information for a technical evaluation? From BLHamrick at aol.com Thu Jul 10 22:38:27 2008 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:38:27 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners Message-ID: Oh, Clayton, you just gave up your age with that reference, but I'm right there with you on the assessment, and the reference also belongs to my-my-my generation. Barbara In a message dated 7/10/2008 6:18:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cjb01 at health.state.ny.us writes: In the USA freedom really has become just another word for nothing left to lose. Clayton J. Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 10 23:13:56 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:13:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Universe Is More Transparent To High-energy Radiation Than Previously Assumed Message-ID: <438405.33748.qm@web81601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709212745.htm ? Universe Is More Transparent To High-energy Radiation Than Previously Assumed ScienceDaily (July 10, 2008) ? Measurements by the MAGIC Telescope (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescope) on La Palma have shown that the universe is more transparent to high-energy radiation than previously assumed. A new publication in Science with ETH Zurich participation describes how measurements of high-energy gamma radiation from 5.3 billion light years away are yielding new knowledge about the nature of the universe. Astronomers assume that our universe is approximately 14 billion years old. During this time it has changed greatly, for example through the formation of new galaxies that emit electromagnetic waves including light that can be perceived visually. A small fraction of the latter is absorbed, but the majority is retained in the universe. In this respect the universe can also be imagined as a background of invisible electromagnetic radiation. Since high-energy rays interact with low-energy ones, astronomers assumed for a long time that because of this enormous universal background radiation, only high-energy rays from very close active galaxies would be detectable on Earth ? the remainder would be absorbed. However, a publication that appeared recently in Science by scientists belonging to the MAGIC Collaboration reaches a different conclusion. The team was the first to succeed in detecting on Earth high-energy gamma radiation originating from the quasar 3C 279, which is more than 5 billion light-years distant. A quasar is an active galaxy in which an enormous black hole more than a billion times the mass of the sun radiates gigantic amounts of energy in various wavelength regions. According to Adrian Biland from the Institute for Particle Physics (IPP) of ETH Zurich: ?The results show that the radiation background in the universe is distinctly less dense than expected.? Together with seven other ETH Zurich physicists he is a member of the MAGIC Collaboration who are the authors of the publication. According to calculations by the scientists, the density of the background radiation in the universe corresponds approximately to the expected radiation intensity of all the heavenly bodies known from astrophysics. This finding could disprove the theory that the universe also contains light from objects that are still entirely unknown and which could have existed in the early universe. According to Biland: ?This means that if heavenly bodies of types at present unknown to us really did once exist, they must have been of a quite different nature to the stars we know today. Otherwise their light would still be detectable in today?s radiation background.? High-energy physics with potential Biland and the MAGIC Collaboration work in the relatively young field of astro-particle physics and study ?very high-energy? (VHE) gamma radiation. The original energy of this radiation lies in the range between 50 giga-electron volts and several tera-electron volts, i.e. radiation with a wavelength more than a billion times shorter than sunlight. (VHE) gamma radiation is measured by the MAGIC telescope on the island of La Palma in the Canaries. This telescope makes the measurements by using the Cherenkov effect, which put simply is the optical equivalent of a supersonic bang. However the velocity of the particles causes a flash of light instead of a bang. In other words charged particles can pass through the atmosphere faster than the associated electromagnetic radiation can propagate. As a result the polarisation of the atoms, which is normally symmetrical, can no longer balance out, and this leads to the emission of what is known as Cherenkov radiation. When a VHE photon penetrates into the atmosphere it generates a so-called Air Shower of thousands of electrons and positrons, all of which emit Cherenkov radiation. These mini-lightning flashes are collected by the 934 aluminium mirrors of the MAGIC telescope positioned in the cone of this ?shower? and are recorded by a high-performance camera taking two billion images per second, of which about 1000 are ultimately selected. The main problem is that in addition to the very rare VHE photons, similar air showers are also generated by cosmic ray particles, which are more than 10,000 times as frequent, and the actual measured signal needs to be found and interpreted against this background. VHE gamma radiation is not an exceptional phenomenon According to Biland, measurements in the VHE gamma radiation region provide astronomers with a unique opportunity to verify the laws of astronomy in new areas of energy. Thus the publication in Science was able to disprove the Blazar Sequence model, which says that the most energetic objects are also the brightest. Another opinion prevalent among astronomers until now was that VHE gamma rays are exceptional astronomical phenomena. As the data set grew steadily, it became possible within a few years to identify a whole series of different classes of active galaxies as well as various supernova remnants in the Milky Way as sources of VHE gamma rays. Biland says ?We even observed sources that had not been discovered by conventional measurements in any other wavelength region. This means that objects emitting radiation only in the VHE gamma region also seem to exist ? a phenomenon whose cause is still unknown at the present time.? The potential of astro-particle physics, especially in the (VHE) gamma region, is recognized by scientists and research institutions all over the world. A second MAGIC telescope that will enable stereoscopic observations and thus more exact measurements will be commissioned on La Palma in September this year. Other similar installations exist in Namibia (H.E.S.S.), Australia (CANGAROO) and the USA (VERITAS). In addition the planning procedure is currently underway for the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) project, in which more than 40 European research institutes are collaborating and which plans to bring into operation about 100 Cherenkov telescopes. Biland is convinced that ?An installation of this kind allows us an entirely new window into the universe.? Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov (MAGIC) MAGIC is the world?s biggest gamma radiation telescope and is operated by a major collaboration involving more than 150 researchers from the whole of Europe. The telescope was commissioned in 2003 on the Roque de los Muchachos (?Rock of the Boys?), the highest mountain on La Palmas (2500 metres). The telescope, which has a diameter of 17 metres and a mirror surface area of 236 square metres, makes measurements only at night but is looked after round the clock by a team of scientists on the spot. ________________________________ Journal reference: 1. The MAGIC Collaboration et al. Very-High-Energy Gamma-Rays from a Distant Quasar: How transparent ist the Universe? Science, 27 June 2008; 320: 1752-1754 DOI: 10.1126/science.1157087 Adapted from materials provided by ETH Zurich/Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA MLA ETH Zurich/Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (2008, July 10). Universe Is More Transparent To High-energy Radiation Than Previously Assumed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com?/releases/2008/07/080709212745.htm From BenjB4 at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 02:08:51 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:08:51 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. Message-ID: Mike Brennan errs: > The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage > from the storage facilities?" ... So, your question was "What is the amount > of U238 per day...." I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time. Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero. Gary Isenhower gets it a third-right: > James is ... not launching his attacks from reality as we know it. Everyone who has been told as they have been time and time again, by the IAEA, 10 CFR 20, and the militaries of the world, that insoluble forms of uranium are more hazardous than soluble forms has been the victim of a lie. Those are the ones whose ability to make rational decisions have been attacked by the lies -- six orders of magnitude -- impeding their ability to make clear and correct safety and policy decisions. Time is not going to change this. > He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by negligence. Steven Dapra has an interesting view: > All weapons act off the battlefield. Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not convenient enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself. Bjorn Cedervall revises his question: > my request: References that show that radiation induced damage > to a germ cell line was transferred to the next generation.... Radiation induced? Because Miller's unchallenged evidence that the chemical mutagenicity and teratogenicity from one of the few ions used by microscopists to stain DNA is a million times worse would just make too much work for the health physics industry if they had to believe it? Sadly, Dr. Cedervall is as bad as all the rest when it comes to telling the truth: > I referred only to germ cells. -- http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010594.html See for yourself: > Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! -- http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html If health physicists want to make the world safe for nuclear power, they have to start with the veracity of the person in the mirror. James Salsman From laura.gonzales at ga.com Thu Jul 10 19:11:11 2008 From: laura.gonzales at ga.com (Laura Gonzales) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:11:11 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments In-Reply-To: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> References: <071020082332.25626.48769C0F0003D9910000641A22165579969D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> Message-ID: unsubscribe -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of hpsolutions at comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:33 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments I didn't get any responses last time, so I thought I might try again. I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH for use in the US in a uranium facility. Instruments include the Portable Contamination Monitor CoMo-170, the hand-foot-clothing contamination monitor with large-area, thin-layer plastic scintillation detectors, the hand-foot-clothing monitor- standard version, the W I M P 60 x 10 PC-based smear test measuring system with 10 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 8 PC-based smear test measuring system with 8 x detector geometry, the W I M P 60 x 6 PC-based smear test measuring system with 6 x detector geometry and PD 32 and 42 internal pipe detectors. I am not familiar with the S.E.A. products and was trying to see if anyone had experience with them. I would appreciate your opinions, good and bad, so that we can make a decision on using the S.E.A. products or products that are commercially available in the US. Thanks for your help. Paul Jones, CHP _______________________________________________ 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/ From mrrmw1 at aol.com Fri Jul 11 07:21:05 2008 From: mrrmw1 at aol.com (mrrmw1 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:21:05 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Licensing Fee Audits Message-ID: <8CAB167B9B479D6-474-2767@webmail-dd12.sysops.aol.com> I would still like to hear from anyone who has experienced the NRC review covering annual fees for the fiscal?years 2002-2007 of all small materials licenses. Interested to find out how many companies were affected by this review. You can respond to me directly mrrmw1 at aol.com.?? From sjd at swcp.com Fri Jul 11 09:58:42 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:58:42 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080711083907.009f35a0@mail.swcp.com> July 10 A few comments interspersed from Steven Dapra (SD). At 12:08 AM 7/11/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Mike Brennan errs: > > > The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage > from the storage facilities?" ... So, your question was "What is the amount > > of U238 per day...." SD: James, your initial question was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage from the storage facilities?" The leak has to occur over some period of time. Why are you getting huffy about Mike answering at a per day rate? If you don't like the rate of seepage per day, specify a period of time that is more to your liking. Per second, per century, per gazillion years --- what do you want? You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate." You asked for the "current rate." Why don't you try reading your own requests? You appear to expect us to read them . . . . >I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time. >Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero. SD: Since you know so much about it, James, what is the "mean expected rate" if it is not zero and what makes you think you are correct? [edit] >Steven Dapra has an interesting view: > > > All weapons act off the battlefield. > >Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything >that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not >convenient enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself. SD: Although it is true that with God all things are possible, that has nothing to do with the *fact* that weapons act off the battlefield. I didn't make anything up. You probably made up this hokum about international banning weapons that act off the battlefield. The plain unvarnished truth is not convenient for the rhetorical bed you have made for yourself. If you have a citation to your alleged "international law" let's have it. Permit me to remind you, James, that you still have not posted your CV. Do you have one or don't you? I'm betting you don't -- at least not in any of the hard sciences. Steven Dapra From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Fri Jul 11 11:03:57 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:03:57 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101ADC@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. I didn't put it in there; you did. Current, as I pointed out, means now. Not "expected". If the question you wanted to ask is "What is the mean expected rate of U238 seeping from the spent fuel storage pools at reactor facilities in undisclosed locations over some undisclosed time period?" I would have told you that the question is almost meaningless, but that if we are talking about commercial facilities in the United States and the last, say, 40 years, the rate is zero out to several decimal places. If you have evidence of U238 seeping from storage pools, present it. I do not thing that you do. You're repeated attempts to change the question because you don't like the answer does not make you appear to be right: it simply demonstrates you are wrong in greater detail. -----Original Message----- From: jsalsman at gmail.com [mailto:jsalsman at gmail.com] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:09 AM To: radsafelist; bcradsafers at hotmail.com; Steven Dapra; garyi at trinityphysics.com; Brennan, Mike (DOH) Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. Mike Brennan errs: > The question I answered was "What is the current rate of U238 seepage > from the storage facilities?" ... So, your question was "What is the > amount of U238 per day...." I asked nothing about "per day" or any other denomination of time. Even if I had, the mean expected rate is not zero. Gary Isenhower gets it a third-right: > James is ... not launching his attacks from reality as we know it. Everyone who has been told as they have been time and time again, by the IAEA, 10 CFR 20, and the militaries of the world, that insoluble forms of uranium are more hazardous than soluble forms has been the victim of a lie. Those are the ones whose ability to make rational decisions have been attacked by the lies -- six orders of magnitude -- impeding their ability to make clear and correct safety and policy decisions. Time is not going to change this. > He's coming from a reality in which DU is a kind of evil conspiracy Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by negligence. Steven Dapra has an interesting view: > All weapons act off the battlefield. Dapra believes, "with God all things are possible" -- including anything that Dapra wants to make up because international law is not convenient enough for the rhetorical bed that he has made for himself. Bjorn Cedervall revises his question: > my request: References that show that radiation induced damage to a > germ cell line was transferred to the next generation.... Radiation induced? Because Miller's unchallenged evidence that the chemical mutagenicity and teratogenicity from one of the few ions used by microscopists to stain DNA is a million times worse would just make too much work for the health physics industry if they had to believe it? Sadly, Dr. Cedervall is as bad as all the rest when it comes to telling the truth: > I referred only to germ cells. -- > http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010594.html See for yourself: > Teratogenesis is about somatic cells - not germ cells! -- > http://lists.radlab.nl/pipermail/radsafe/2008-July/010513.html If health physicists want to make the world safe for nuclear power, they have to start with the veracity of the person in the mirror. James Salsman From KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com Fri Jul 11 12:03:36 2008 From: KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com (Peterson, Ken) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:03:36 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F93@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Gary, Your posting shows the influence of media propaganda. While the US Government and the media would like you to think that all Muslims are sword waving terrorists, it's just not true. While I abhor the circumstances in which children are used by some of these groups, the Mullahs encouraging these types of acts are shunned by the majority of Muslims and do not have the resources or finances to develop or use a nuclear device. Iran talks a good game, but they aren't in a position to do anything, it's just posturing. Don't make the mistake of judging whole countries by the actions of a few fanatics - even in the USA we have prominent, powerful people who believe that the earth was created 5,000 years ago and others who state AIDS was developed by the US government to eradicate the black community. I would hope the rest of the world does not judge the US people on the actions or statements of Jerry Falwell and his ilk. And while the Koran is not exactly a text endorsing peace and tolerance, neither is the Old Testament. I share your horror in using women and children as suicide bombers, but I do realize it's an emotional response - I can confess to some old fashioned Neanderthal dismay when I hear of the US military using more and more women in combat related roles (even ones for which they are not suited) in pursuit of political correctness. I used to have the strong, maybe blind belief that my country could do no wrong and was the shining light of freedom and democracy for the world. I have become much more cynical over the past ten years. I remember being young and watching the Deer Hunter and being horrified at how helpless prisoners were treated - fast forward 30 years to Abu Graib and water boarding at Guantanamo. For every person lining up to push a button destroying all non-Muslims, rest assured there are 3 or 4 here who would fight to push a button killing all non-Christians... Ken Peterson Message: 8 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:39 -0500 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation To: "rad safe" , "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Message-ID: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301 at garyi.trinityphysics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Mike, You make some excellent points, but I must say that any culture that embraces suicide bombing, using their own children as carriers, definitely falls into the category of "They are just crazy enough to do it!" Remember, I am not talking about having their children taken from them by force. No, I am talking about parents who have a celebration prior to the bombing. Just think about that for a second. What would they do if they had a nuclear weapon? North Korea is one thing, but Islamic terrorism is entirely different. But I do agree with you that biological or chemical agents are the more serious threat. If there were a button that would make every non-muslim head in the world suddenly explode, I promise you that we would find quite a few people who would fight each other to be able to push it first. And that is your happy thought for the day. :) -Gary Isenhower ********************************************************************* Export Controls and Restrictions: Information including any attachments contained in this electronic submission may contain information or technology the export or re-export of which is restricted by U.S. export laws and regulations. By viewing this e-mail and any attachments, the recipient agrees to the following: (1) the recipient's use of this e-mail and any attachments shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including, without limitation, U.S. export laws and regulations, and (2) the recipient may not transfer or otherwise export or re-export any information or technology contained in this e-mail or any attachment except in full compliance with the export controls administered by the U.S. From garyi at trinityphysics.com Fri Jul 11 14:26:54 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:26:54 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F93@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> References: , <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F93@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Message-ID: <48776DAE.14836.4710EE@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Ken, You have said quite a lot in your message, but please focus for a minute on the main thrust of my post. I said, or tried to say, that there are some people who want nuclear weapons so they can kill non-muslims, and that these people can not be reasoned with. This was in response to a comment about the cold war relationship between the US and the USSR, in which MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented either side from using its nuclear weapons. That is, both sides had rational self-interest at work to prevent cataclysmic war. Islamic terrorism does not have rational self-interest at work, unless you are willing to concede that rewards in heaven are part of your self-interest inventory. In my post I pointed to suicide bombers and the culture that celebrates them as evidence of this. If islamic terrorists get a nuclear weapon, they will strive to use it in the most effectively destructive manner possible. Therefore, we (non-muslims and non-terrorist muslims) would be smart (as in, alive or surviving) to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me wrong. You could show that with any of the following: = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan Rather fabrication. = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from the gene pool. = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of international good will. = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like infidels (maybe as pets). = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than theirs. Or, best of all, why don't you hop on a plane and go reason with them? That would prove me wrong. Remember that guy who got his head cut off on TV? I bet you could have talked them into putting down the knives and changing their lives. Maybe going back to school, right? A new career would solve their problems - maybe flight school. -Gary Isenhower On 11 Jul 2008 at 12:03, Peterson, Ken wrote: Gary, Your posting shows the influence of media propaganda. While the US Government and the media would like you to think that all Muslims are sword waving terrorists, it's just not true. While I abhor the circumstances in which children are used by some of these groups, the Mullahs encouraging these types of acts are shunned by the majority of Muslims and do not have the resources or finances to develop or use a nuclear device. Iran talks a good game, but they aren't in a position to do anything, it's just posturing. Don't make the mistake of judging whole countries by the actions of a few fanatics - even in the USA we have prominent, powerful people who believe that the earth was created 5,000 years ago and others who state AIDS was developed by the US government to eradicate the black community. I would hope the rest of the world does not judge the US people on the actions or statements of Jerry Falwell and his ilk. And while the Koran is not exactly a text endorsing peace and tolerance, neither is the Old Testament. I share your horror in using women and children as suicide bombers, but I do realize it's an emotional response - I can confess to some old fashioned Neanderthal dismay when I hear of the US military using more and more women in combat related roles (even ones for which they are not suited) in pursuit of political correctness. I used to have the strong, maybe blind belief that my country could do no wrong and was the shining light of freedom and democracy for the world. I have become much more cynical over the past ten years. I remember being young and watching the Deer Hunter and being horrified at how helpless prisoners were treated - fast forward 30 years to Abu Graib and water boarding at Guantanamo. For every person lining up to push a button destroying all non-Muslims, rest assured there are 3 or 4 here who would fight to push a button killing all non-Christians... Ken Peterson Message: 8 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:39 -0500 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation To: "rad safe" , "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Message-ID: <4875F9AB.11329.1E7C301 at garyi.trinityphysics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Mike, You make some excellent points, but I must say that any culture that embraces suicide bombing, using their own children as carriers, definitely falls into the category of "They are just crazy enough to do it!" Remember, I am not talking about having their children taken from them by force. No, I am talking about parents who have a celebration prior to the bombing. Just think about that for a second. What would they do if they had a nuclear weapon? North Korea is one thing, but Islamic terrorism is entirely different. But I do agree with you that biological or chemical agents are the more serious threat. If there were a button that would make every non-muslim head in the world suddenly explode, I promise you that we would find quite a few people who would fight each other to be able to push it first. And that is your happy thought for the day. :) -Gary Isenhower From hpsolutions at comcast.net Fri Jul 11 15:42:25 2008 From: hpsolutions at comcast.net (hpsolutions at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:42:25 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments Message-ID: <071120082042.5893.4877C5B1000084040000170522155786749D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> No, I am saying that we have been asked to look at these instruments for purchase. I have the technical manuals. Unfortunately, technical manuals only tell you what the manufacturer wants you to know. They don't tell you that the instruments break down every two weeks, or that they can't be calibrated by anyone but the manufacturer. I believe that one of the original tenets of RADSAFE was for HPs to share ideas and information. I am merely asking if anyone has any experience with these instruments, and if they are willing to share that information. The type of information that I am trying to get is not found in technical manuals, but in the minds of our friends and colleagues who we rely on to help us with everyday issues that may not be everyday issues to us. If anyone has any information to share about these instruments, I would appreciate your input. -- Paul Jones, CHP -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "J. Marshall Reber" > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, hpsolutions at comcast.net wrote: > > > I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH > > Are you saying that you have been asked to evaluate instruments for > which the manufacturer is unable to provide sufficient technical > information for a technical evaluation? > From KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com Fri Jul 11 16:48:25 2008 From: KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com (Peterson, Ken) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:48:25 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: radsafe Digest, Vol 154, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Hi Gary, All I wanted to do was make the point that most Muslims do not consider killing infidels something to aspire to. Not to extend this off-topic thread too much further, but I can follow your rebuttal suggestion #1. (non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers): Suicide bombing and guerilla warfare have been the standard tools when battling a superior occupying force for a long time - from the LTTE to the Vietnamese to the IRA to the French Resistance. No religious ideology required. Ken Peterson Message: 11 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:26:54 -0500 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation To: Message-ID: <48776DAE.14836.4710EE at garyi.trinityphysics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Ken, You have said quite a lot in your message, but please focus for a minute on the main thrust of my post. I said, or tried to say, that there are some people who want nuclear weapons so they can kill non-muslims, and that these people can not be reasoned with. This was in response to a comment about the cold war relationship between the US and the USSR, in which MAD (mutually assured destruction) prevented either side from using its nuclear weapons. That is, both sides had rational self-interest at work to prevent cataclysmic war. Islamic terrorism does not have rational self-interest at work, unless you are willing to concede that rewards in heaven are part of your self-interest inventory. In my post I pointed to suicide bombers and the culture that celebrates them as evidence of this. If islamic terrorists get a nuclear weapon, they will strive to use it in the most effectively destructive manner possible. Therefore, we (non-muslims and non-terrorist muslims) would be smart (as in, alive or surviving) to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me wrong. You could show that with any of the following: = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan Rather fabrication. = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from the gene pool. = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of international good will. = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like infidels (maybe as pets). = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than theirs. Or, best of all, why don't you hop on a plane and go reason with them? That would prove me wrong. Remember that guy who got his head cut off on TV? I bet you could have talked them into putting down the knives and changing their lives. Maybe going back to school, right? A new career would solve their problems - maybe flight school. -Gary Isenhower ********************************************************************* Export Controls and Restrictions: Information including any attachments contained in this electronic submission may contain information or technology the export or re-export of which is restricted by U.S. export laws and regulations. By viewing this e-mail and any attachments, the recipient agrees to the following: (1) the recipient's use of this e-mail and any attachments shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including, without limitation, U.S. export laws and regulations, and (2) the recipient may not transfer or otherwise export or re-export any information or technology contained in this e-mail or any attachment except in full compliance with the export controls administered by the U.S. From csingleton at ucsd.edu Fri Jul 11 17:28:29 2008 From: csingleton at ucsd.edu (Singleton, Corey) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:28:29 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HP Positions at UCSD In-Reply-To: <20080711205451.87BKspp00E8BP@mailbox2.ucsd.edu> References: <20080711205451.87BKspp00E8BP@mailbox2.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <86831BFCC966FF4CB1DA5B80E7DC9DBD02718923@ehsmib.AD.UCSD.EDU> The University of California, San Diego has a Sr. Health Physicist and a Health Physicist position available. Please check out this website for more information. Sr. HP http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?job_id=46397 HP http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?job_id=44580 Thanks, Corey Singleton, CHP Radiation Safety Officer Environment Health and Safety University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Dr. #0089 La Jolla, CA 92093-0089 c 858-583-3268 w 858-822-4045 f 858-822-7763 www-ehs.ucsd.edu From BLHamrick at aol.com Fri Jul 11 20:34:42 2008 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:34:42 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation Message-ID: Gary, I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I think that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so years to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded with similar fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever has an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the threat of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we have something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference). To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult. One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a health and safety impact. We are hurting ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the difference. That's insulting to the profession of health physics and insulting to the public, in my opinion. I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. Barbara L. Hamrick "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt In a message dated 7/11/2008 12:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me wrong. You could show that with any of the following: = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan Rather fabrication. = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from the gene pool. = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of international good will. = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like infidels (maybe as pets). = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than theirs. **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) From BLHamrick at aol.com Fri Jul 11 20:45:37 2008 From: BLHamrick at aol.com (BLHamrick at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:45:37 EDT Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation Message-ID: Correcting the Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin In a message dated 7/11/2008 6:41:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, BLHamrick at aol.com writes: Gary, I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I think that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so years to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded with similar fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever has an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the threat of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we have something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference). To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult. One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a health and safety impact. We are hurting ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the difference. That's insulting to the profession of health physics and insulting to the public, in my opinion. I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. Barbara L. Hamrick "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) From garyi at trinityphysics.com Sat Jul 12 01:18:32 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (Gary Isenhower) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:18:32 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Barbara, Points taken. I went overboard when Ken made me out to be brainwashed by propaganda, bigoted against Muslims, and blindly patriotic. Ken, sorry for overreacting. Barbara, I agree with nearly everything you said, especially the Kamikaze stuff. That war ended with nuclear weapons (or atomic, whatever), largely because of the Bushido Code, which has some striking parallels with radical Islam. Basically, I'm only saying that the current conflict with terrorism ain't the cold war, not by a long shot. And I strongly agree with your comments about RDDs and political expediency. That's on the national level, but I am commenting more on the international situation. But I don't see anybody here cowering in fear, except maybe fear of rising oil prices. And, I could be wrong, but I think that Franklin at least was urging the nation to gird for war with England in the quotes you cite. Yes? Just to be extra clear: I thought Mike Brennan's post was good, but I wanted to point out that the current conflict with terrorism is categorically different from what the US and USSR endured. Much more like Kamikaze pilots, except that they are loyal to an ideology instead of an emperor or a nation. -Gary Isenhower On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:34 PM, wrote: > Gary, > > I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I think > that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so > years to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a > misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded > with similar fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of > these type of attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. > > I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever has > an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the threat > of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a > predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the Communists, or > the Timothy McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long > as we have something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not > how we ensure we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, > in the face of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which > made this country great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our > checks and balances, and our tolerance of difference). > > To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country > has spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon > (i.e., an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the > aftermath of a potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we > have done this, because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, > while finding an actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is > difficult. One of the reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is > because it is politically expedient to act as though one is protecting the > public by "picking the low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, > in the end, we aren't really adding anything to the public health and > safety; in fact, we are diverting resources from issues that do have a > health and safety impact. We are hurting ourselves in the name of > protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the public never knows the > difference. That's insulting to the profession of health physics and > insulting to the public, in my opinion. > > I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to > fear, and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. > > Barbara L. Hamrick > > *"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin* > ** > *"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt* > ** > > > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 12:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > garyi at trinityphysics.com writes: > > If you wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me > wrong. You could > show that with any of the following: > = non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers. > = there are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan > Rather fabrication. > = suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is quickly being removed from > the gene pool. > = strapping a bomb to your child is really an expression of > international good will. > = if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that they really like > infidels (maybe as pets). > = its ok for jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than > theirs. > > > > > ------------------------------ > Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in > your area - Check out TourTracker.com > ! > From radmail at cox.net Sat Jul 12 11:25:33 2008 From: radmail at cox.net (Roy Parker) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:25:33 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation References: Message-ID: <005a01c8e43b$e8ebccb0$0200a8c0@OFFICE> Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!! Roy A. Parker, Ph.D. Radiation Physicist ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation > Correcting the Franklin quote: > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, > deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin > > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 6:41:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > BLHamrick at aol.com writes: > > Gary, > > I don't think the choices you outline below are the only choices. I > think > that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the last 10 or so > years > to be something unique in the history of mankind. I think this is a > misperception. I think the Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded > with similar > fear and disbelief. I expect one would find a repetition of these type > of > attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look. > > I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment. Whoever > has > an advantage in this world will always be a target. Whether it's the > threat > of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear weapons, and whether from a > predominantly Muslim community, or Japanese community, or the > Communists, > or the Timothy > McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we > have > something of value. The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we > ensure > we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in the > face > of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made this > country > great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and > balances, > and our tolerance of difference). > > To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country > has > spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon > (i.e., > an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath > of a > > potentially significant event (i.e., an IND). I believe we have done > this, > because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding > an > actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult. One > of > the > reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is > politically > expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking the > low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs). By doing this, in the end, we > aren't > really > adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we are > diverting > resources from issues that do have a health and safety impact. We are > hurting > ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and apparently hoping the > public never knows the difference. That's insulting to the profession > of > health > physics and insulting to the public, in my opinion. > > I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to > fear, > and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening. > > Barbara L. Hamrick > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, > deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin > > "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin Roosevelt > > > > > **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live > music > scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! > (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112) > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Sat Jul 12 12:07:43 2008 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:07:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation In-Reply-To: <005a01c8e43b$e8ebccb0$0200a8c0@OFFICE> References: <005a01c8e43b$e8ebccb0$0200a8c0@OFFICE> Message-ID: <274681EF-D342-4886-A75D-B6CB2308BFA1@comcast.net> Here! Here! On Jul 12, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Roy Parker wrote: > Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!! > > Roy A. Parker, Ph.D. > Radiation Physicist > > ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: ; ; > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:45 PM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation > J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From sperle at mirion.com Sat Jul 12 14:39:21 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:39:21 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Proliferation Message-ID: <001f01c8e457$1c1f3d9a$0901800a@corp.gds.com> On Franklin, depends on what is "temporary", and the times we live in today are just a "bit" diofferent than the 1700's. Sandy Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; ; Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation > Correcting the Franklin quote: > > "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety, > deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From BenjB4 at gmail.com Sat Jul 12 19:24:26 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:24:26 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities) Message-ID: Steven, Thank you for your concern: > what do you want? Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble forms. > You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate." You asked for the "current rate." Correct. Mike Brennan wrote: > James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. The current rate has three components: (1) First, the past rate. It is an established fact from statics that there is nothing anyone can do to change the past. This includes values for which the certainty is not absolute. (2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero. The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the current rate. Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate decreases with proximity. (3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected rate. According to chaos theory and various interpretations of quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring. The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly measuring expected events. For example, if the extent of the likely hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either unnaturally raised or lowered. Another example is Yucca Mountain. The longer we leave old reactor cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to bomb one of them. James Salsman From sjd at swcp.com Sat Jul 12 21:49:48 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:49:48 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080712203235.009f03d0@mail.swcp.com> Some comments below (SD). At 05:24 PM 7/12/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >Steven, > >Thank you for your concern: > > > what do you want? > >Recognition in 10 CFR 20 that hexavalent uranium is worse than insoluble >forms. SD: Why don't you file an emergency petition with the NRC? > > You also didn't ask for a "mean expected rate." You asked for the > "current rate." > >Correct. SD: Then why didn't you accept the proffered current rate? Why did you start whining about the "mean expected rate"? >Mike Brennan wrote: > > > James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. > >The current rate has three components: > >(1) First, the past rate. It is an established fact from statics that >there is nothing anyone can do to change the past. This includes >values for which the certainty is not absolute. > >(2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero. >The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over >time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in >the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the >current rate. Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate >decreases with proximity. > >(3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected >rate. According to chaos theory and various interpretations of >quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on >expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the >noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of >which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling >from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring. > >The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly >measuring expected events. For example, if the extent of the likely >hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured >correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either >unnaturally raised or lowered. SD: The preceding two paragraphs are a bunch of pretentious nonsense. From what did you copy them, James? My "Minkowski metric causality cone" tells me the "chaos" is between your ears, James, and that's no theory either. >Another example is Yucca Mountain. The longer we leave old reactor >cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to >bomb one of them. > >James Salsman SD: What do you think the relation is between someone trying to bomb one of the old reactor cores, and the possibility of a magnitude ten earthquake shaking them up a little? From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 13:34:18 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:34:18 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Underground water in Varanasi Message-ID: <00ba01c8e517$10c53fb0$324fbf10$@com> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com Hi - Perhaps Parthasarathy can comment on this: Is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for uranium really only 1.5 ug/L in India? If so, this is certainly not in line with EU or US EPA values. Dan ii http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200807131554.htm The Hindu Sunday, July 13, 2008 : 1600 Hrs ????? 'Underground water in Varanasi contaminated with Uranium' Varanasi (PTI): In an alarming development, a group of scientists has revealed that underground water in Varanasi and adjoining areas is contaminated with Uranium but the Centre and the state government are unaware of the fact. The study conducted by G C Chowdhary, former Professor at the Geology Department of Banaras Hindu University and S K Agarwal, also a professor of Geology, has shown that the drinking water in the University premises some other places in the city contains radioactive Uranium more than the recommended limit. Samples for the study were collected from 11 tubewells tapping deep aquifers (more than 100 meters deep). The Uranium content varied from 2 to 11 ppb (parts per billion) while the permissible limit is only 1.5 ppb. Chowdhary said the underground water also contains heavy metals such as Chromium, Manganese, Nickel, Ferrous, Copper, Zinc and Lead. He said they had also published their first research paper in this regard in the Hydrology Journal of Indian Association of Hydrology in 1990s, clearly predicting health hazardous of water contaminated with these elements beyond the permissible limit. Member Secretary of the UP Pollution Control Board, CS Bhatt, told PTI on phone that he had not come across any report, which suggests that the underground water in Varanasi is contaminated with any sort of radioactive element. There is no facility with the board to investigate any such occurrences even if it comes to its knowledge, he said. From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Sun Jul 13 15:22:15 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:22:15 +0000 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners In-Reply-To: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E1B@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> References: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C054F3ABF@gdses.corp.gds.com> <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02A27E1B@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Message-ID: First, thank you all who provided numbers and perspective. I apologize for not responding earlier - I am in the French countryside (flew here by the way, driving and taking other risks...) and had almost no Internet access over the four days. Obviously the doses are trivial and of course Sandy's point no. 3 - the overall objective is sound. Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:31:25 +0200> From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de> To: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafe at radlab.nl> > Bjorn,> > assuming that the quoted 30 nSv is an equivalent organ dose to the skin and given the reported range of X-rays less than one cm its contribution to effective dose and hence total effective dose would be 300 pSv.> > Regards, Rainer > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: Facius, Rainer > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 15:58> An: 'Bjorn Cedervall'; radsafe at radlab.nl> Betreff: AW: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners> > Bjorn,> > in a radsafe thread > > "RE: [ RadSafe ] airport scanners at Heathrow" , sent Do 11.05.2006 19:59,> > dealing with "new airport body scanners", Kim McMAHAN, ORNL External Dosimetry, (mcmahankl at ornl.gov), quoted a manufacturer with a dose to an individual of 30 nSv per scan which might be compared to the variability of the natural background dose rate between 70 and 100 nSv/h in our area.> > Notwithstanding your plea, I cannot refrain from noting that your argument depends on the premise that there is a risk associated with such an exposure. Otherwise it would be pointless. If you know reasons to assume this, please share them. > > Your condition "This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level" is surely met in any case.> > Kind 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> > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Bjorn Cedervall> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2008 07:41> An: radsafe at radlab.nl> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Airport X-ray body scanners> > > Radsafers,> > I wonder if anyone could comment the dose to skin as well as effective dose from the new airport scanners.> > I understand that the doses are low but I reflect over the exposure of a large number of people (each one receiving a very small risk) to a dose they didn't ask for - in particular children and pregnant women. I see a parallel with being passively exposed to smoking - the extra risk is very low but it is an ethical issue -what right does someone have to expose someone else to a small extra cancer risk?> > This risk must reasonably be so low that it would be far below any statistical detection level and we could of course never even know how small that risk can be expected to be (I do not mean to start up another LNT debate which we already had dozens of at Radsafers so please save us from another one of those).> > Another side of the issue is of course the much larger risk of some statistical terrorist action but this is my topic above is not about that which is a separate discussion.> > My personal reflection only,> > Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com> > The major attention seems to be about "revealing body parts" etc (one of our Swedish sensational newspapers recently had a headline saying something like "the nudity scanner" which is along with their general entertainment agenda).> > _________________________________________________________________> It's a talkathon - but it's not just talk.> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk_______________________________________________> 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace From BenjB4 at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 00:26:46 2008 From: BenjB4 at gmail.com (James Salsman) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:26:46 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC Message-ID: 9 July 2008 R. William Borchardt Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dear Mr. Borchardt, I request an emergency proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.202 to modify the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. I ask that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application filed June, 2008 be approved for construction on a tentative basis. If the Yucca Mountain application is still under review when the facility is ready, I ask that the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged be allowed to transport their spent fuel to the Yucca Mountain on a tentative basis in accordance with the Department of Energy's application for Yucca Mountain. The following facts form the basis of this request: 1. Uranium is a mutagen and a teratogen. Soluble uranium entering drinking water supplies causes birth defects, leukemia, and immune system disorders. (Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain, 2007 and earlier National Research Council reviews.) 2. Dry cask storage uses casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. Many have been rated at less than 10 hours submerged. (10 CFR 54.19 applications and other NRC publications) 3. Flood risk is increasing at a greater basis than when current cask storage and the procedure for approving national storage facilities were designed. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html 4. Recent events, such as the tunnel fires, have shown that the design specifications of the spent fuel storage cask may be typically overcome by real-world conditions. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the United States and the Commission to immediately approve construction of the Yucca Mountain national storage facility on a tentative basis. Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman From john at ird.gov.br Mon Jul 14 02:07:21 2008 From: john at ird.gov.br (John G. Hunt) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:07:21 -0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Instruments In-Reply-To: <071120082042.5893.4877C5B1000084040000170522155786749D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> References: <071120082042.5893.4877C5B1000084040000170522155786749D069C0A020106089F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20080714065704.M81629@ird.gov.br> Hi Paul, As it happens, we have been evaluating portable scintillation-based-surface- contamination equipment, and the CoMo 170 was one of the equipment evaluated. http://www.sea-duelmen.de/Deutsch/INFO-Material/PDF/CoMo170.pdf It's light, the price reasonable, has a good response for alphas and betas - one of the best in Bq/cm^2 per cps, especially for the alphas. On the down side, it seems that CoMo 170 has sacrificed sturdiness for weight, and the shield for electro-magnetic fields and entrance of light is not very strong. If the equipment has to be opened, this shield can be damaged. We use this equipment, but we will also buy equipment from another supplier. Hope this is helpful, John Hunt. ---------- Original Message ----------- From: hpsolutions at comcast.net To: "J. Marshall Reber" Cc: Radsafe Sent: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:42:25 +0000 Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Instruments > No, > > I am saying that we have been asked to look at these instruments for > purchase. I have the technical manuals. Unfortunately, technical > manuals only tell you what the manufacturer wants you to know. They > don't tell you that the instruments break down every two weeks, or > that they can't be calibrated by anyone but the manufacturer. I > believe that one of the original tenets of RADSAFE was for HPs to > share ideas and information. I am merely asking if anyone has any > experience with these instruments, and if they are willing to share > that information. The type of information that I am trying to get > is not found in technical manuals, but in the minds of our friends > and colleagues who we rely on to help us with everyday issues that > may not be everyday issues to us. > > If anyone has any information to share about these instruments, I > would appreciate your input. > > -- > Paul Jones, CHP > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "J. Marshall Reber" > > > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 7:32 PM, hpsolutions at comcast.net wrote: > > > > > I have been asked to look at instruments from S.E.A GmbH > > > > Are you saying that you have been asked to evaluate instruments for > > which the manufacturer is unable to provide sufficient technical > > information for a technical evaluation? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ ------- End of Original Message ------- From garyi at trinityphysics.com Mon Jul 14 11:53:40 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:53:40 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> References: , <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> Message-ID: <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Ken, You wrote: > All I wanted to do was make the point that most Muslims do not consider > killing infidels something to aspire to. That's a great point to make. I did not get into that because it wasn't relevant to the topic of proliferation that I was originally addressing. You wrote: > Suicide bombing and guerilla warfare have been the standard tools > when battling a superior occupying force for a long time - from the > LTTE to the Vietnamese to the IRA to the French Resistance. No > religious ideology required. Good job. You one-upped me there. I deserve that because I got annoyed and shot off ill- considered remarks. However, can you see that I was wrong to say that suggestion #1 would rebut my point? I ought to have phrased suggestion #1 more explicitly as "suicide attacks against civilians and/or countries not currently occupying the attackers homeland and directed by or under the authority of a large and well organized terrorist network." That's the kind of suicide bombing that I am talking about. You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. If that's true, it should be a short and simple trick to conclude that people like that should not have nuclear weapons. I hope you can see how indisputable that conclusion is. -Gary Isenhower On 11 Jul 2008 at 16:48, Peterson, Ken wrote: Hi Gary, All I wanted to do was make the point that most Muslims do not consider killing infidels something to aspire to. Not to extend this off-topic thread too much further, but I can follow your rebuttal suggestion #1. (non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers): Suicide bombing and guerilla warfare have been the standard tools when battling a superior occupying force for a long time - from the LTTE to the Vietnamese to the IRA to the French Resistance. No religious ideology required. Ken Peterson From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Mon Jul 14 12:30:18 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:30:18 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Yucca Mountain, etc. (includes Proliferation -- of vulnerabilities) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AE0@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> James: You don't actually get to redefine words just to keep from having to admit to being wrong. The definition of "current", from American Heritage Dictionary is: adj. 1. a. Belonging to the present time: current events; current leaders. b. Being in progress now: current negotiations. 2. Passing from one to another; circulating: current bills and coins. 3. Prevalent, especially at the present time: current fashions. See Synonyms at prevailing. 4. Running; flowing. n. 1. A steady, smooth onward movement: a current of air from a fan; a current of spoken words. See Synonyms at flow. 2. The part of a body of liquid or gas that has a continuous onward movement: rowed out into the river's swift current. 3. A general tendency, movement, or course. See Synonyms at tendency. 4. Symbol i, I Electricity a. A flow of electric charge. b. The amount of electric charge flowing past a specified circuit point per unit time. If you want to cite an equally authorative source for definitions, feel free. But, if you look, I think you will find that no where in those definitions is there anything that implies that current includes the past and the future. The closest one might come is defining a period, such as the current year, where upon phrases like, "so far in this current year" or "before the current year is over" would clearly mean pieces of the past and future that, at some point, you intend to treat as part of a whole that includes the now. James, if you think you are going to intimidate, or even impress, me by throwing "chaos theory", "quantum mechanics" and "general relativity" around, think again. I've had 400 level classes on the subjects. I have read extensively on them. There was a period (several, actually) in which I did relativity calculations recreationally, to try to work it into a war game I was designing. I am confident I know more about it than you do, and it doesn't apply. >The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly measuring expected events. No. The risk of hazardous event can be based on expected events, but the rate of events is how many are happening per unit time. I have not a clue as how one goes about "properly measuring expected events". The closest I can come up with is predicting a rate based on a model, then comparing the prediction to what actually occurs after a given amount of time has passed. And, BE THAT AS IT MAY, the current rate at which U238 is leaking out of storage pools at US commercial reactor facilities is zero, the expected rate is zero, and you have yet to demonstrate that the past rate is not zero. And, if there was a situation in which it was leaking out, there would be other isotopes of much greater concern. Life is easier, James, once you admit that you can be wrong. As you are in this case. Mike Brennan wrote: > James, READ YOUR OWN QUESTION! The word "current" is in there. The current rate has three components: (1) First, the past rate. It is an established fact from statics that there is nothing anyone can do to change the past. This includes values for which the certainty is not absolute. (2) In the middle, and small, is the present rate, which can be zero. The present rate is sometimes considered the same as some rate over time, which can be zero, but when there is no denomination of time in the rate, then the present rate is not necessarily the same as the current rate. Sadly, the amount anyone can influence the present rate decreases with proximity. (3) On the other hand, the current rate also includes the expected rate. According to chaos theory and various interpretations of quantum mechanics, everyone who is still alive has some influence on expected rates within the Minkowski metric causality cone on the noneuclidian Riemann field of general relativity, the boundaries of which expand at the speed of light when there are photons traveling from the centroid of the cone to some external event worth measuring. The current rate of hazardous events can be influenced by properly measuring expected events. For example, if the extent of the likely hazard from one substance relative to another is not measured correctly, then the likelihood of hazardous events is either unnaturally raised or lowered. Another example is Yucca Mountain. The longer we leave old reactor cores out in the open, the more likely it is someone's going to try to bomb one of them. James Salsman From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Mon Jul 14 12:47:34 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:47:34 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> References: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com> <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Message-ID: <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> This (political?) discussion is way of the brief of RADSAFE, but I just want to make a slight correction to the statement below> Is it not true that one of the principal causes for the formation of Al-Qaeda the existence of American forces in Saudi Arabia? And an interesting article/interview on the general topic is at: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Now, let's get back to radiation issues! Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: . garyi at trinityphysics.com ...... You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. From garyi at trinityphysics.com Mon Jul 14 14:51:19 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:51:19 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> References: , <487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com>, <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <487B67E7.32643.16E992E@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Doug, As it happens, the article you cite is written by Robert Pape. Listen to his critics before you decide to believe him. Turn it around, Doug. Do you want to bomb any Mid-east countries because there are Muslims in the US? Lots of them, in fact. Anybody whose mere existence and proximity can drive you to murder men, women, and children, by the thousands? US troops in Saudi Arabia were there with the consent of the legitimate government. Nothing can justify the 911 attacks, certainly not that. So please keep your correction. My conclusion stands: Islamic terrorists should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. -Gary Isenhower On 14 Jul 2008 at 12:47, Doug Aitken wrote: Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:47:34 -0500 From: Doug Aitken Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation To: garyi at trinityphysics.com, radsafe at radlab.nl, "'Peterson, Ken'" This (political?) discussion is way of the brief of RADSAFE, but I just want to make a slight correction to the statement below> Is it not true that one of the principal causes for the formation of Al-Qaeda the existence of American forces in Saudi Arabia? And an interesting article/interview on the general topic is at: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Now, let's get back to radiation issues! Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: . garyi at trinityphysics.com ...... You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. From sjd at swcp.com Mon Jul 14 18:18:46 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:18:46 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080714171642.009f0380@mail.swcp.com> July 14 This is a big of a crock as the casks are (especially No. 1). (I am referring to the volume of the casks.) Steven Dapra At 10:26 PM 7/13/08 -0700, James Salsman wrote: >9 July 2008 > >R. William Borchardt >Executive Director for Operations >U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission > >Dear Mr. Borchardt, > >I request an emergency proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.202 to >modify the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with >dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. > >I ask that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application filed >June, 2008 be approved for construction on a tentative basis. If the >Yucca Mountain application is still under review when the facility is >ready, I ask that the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage >facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged be >allowed to transport their spent fuel to the Yucca Mountain on a >tentative basis in accordance with the Department of Energy's >application for Yucca Mountain. The following facts form the basis of >this request: > >1. Uranium is a mutagen and a teratogen. Soluble uranium entering >drinking water supplies causes birth defects, leukemia, and immune >system disorders. (Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain, 2007 and >earlier National Research Council reviews.) > >2. Dry cask storage uses casks rated for less than 72 hours >submerged. Many have been rated at less than 10 hours submerged. (10 >CFR 54.19 applications and other NRC publications) > >3. Flood risk is increasing at a greater basis than when current cask >storage and the procedure for approving national storage facilities >were designed. >http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html > >4. Recent events, such as the tunnel fires, have shown that the design >specifications of the spent fuel storage cask may be typically >overcome by real-world conditions. >http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ > >Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the United >States and the Commission to immediately approve construction of the >Yucca Mountain national storage facility on a tentative basis. > >Thank you. > >Sincerely, > >James Salsman From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Mon Jul 14 18:59:22 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:59:22 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101AE5@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Um, James; you DO know what is in the dry cask storage at commercial reactor facilities, don't you? And what the casks are like? How, exactly, do you think that uranium is going to be released if a cask is submerged? As for your letter getting Yucca Mountain opened; good luck with that. Personally, I think Yucca Mountain would be a great central location to hold spent fuel at until we get around to reprocessing it. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 10:27 PM To: radsafelist Subject: [ RadSafe ] emergency petition with the NRC 9 July 2008 R. William Borchardt Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dear Mr. Borchardt, I request an emergency proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR section 2.202 to modify the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. I ask that the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain application filed June, 2008 be approved for construction on a tentative basis. If the Yucca Mountain application is still under review when the facility is ready, I ask that the licenses of all dry cask spent fuel storage facilities with dry casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged be allowed to transport their spent fuel to the Yucca Mountain on a tentative basis in accordance with the Department of Energy's application for Yucca Mountain. The following facts form the basis of this request: 1. Uranium is a mutagen and a teratogen. Soluble uranium entering drinking water supplies causes birth defects, leukemia, and immune system disorders. (Alexandria C. Miller and David McClain, 2007 and earlier National Research Council reviews.) 2. Dry cask storage uses casks rated for less than 72 hours submerged. Many have been rated at less than 10 hours submerged. (10 CFR 54.19 applications and other NRC publications) 3. Flood risk is increasing at a greater basis than when current cask storage and the procedure for approving national storage facilities were designed. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html 4. Recent events, such as the tunnel fires, have shown that the design specifications of the spent fuel storage cask may be typically overcome by real-world conditions. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6886/ Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people of the United States and the Commission to immediately approve construction of the Yucca Mountain national storage facility on a tentative basis. Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman _______________________________________________ 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/ From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 15 01:26:53 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Party laser 'blinds' Russian ravers Message-ID: <789527.48803.qm@web81603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Party laser 'blinds' Russian ravers * 15:03 14 July 2008 * NewScientist.com news service * Reuters and New Scientist staff ? Dozens of partygoers at an outdoor rave near Moscow have been partially blinded after a laser light show burned their retinas, say Russian health officials. Moscow city health department officials say that 12 cases of laser blindness were recorded at the Central Ophthalmological Clinic in the city. The daily newspaper Kommersant reports that another 17 victims have registered at another hospital in the centre of the capital. Ravers at the Aquamarine Open Air Festival in Kirzhach, 80 kilometres northeast of Moscow, began seeking medical help days after the show, complaining of eye and vision problems. "They all have retinal burns, scarring is visible on them. Loss of vision in individual cases is as high as 80%, and regaining it is already impossible," Kommersant quoted a treating ophthalmologist as saying. Forced indoors Partygoers say heavy rains forced organisers to erect massive tents for the all-night dance party. The damage seems to have been caused when laser beams that were intended for outdoor use to illuminate the sky, were somehow turned or reflected onto the crowd. "I immediately had a spot like when you stare into the sun," attendee Dmitry told Kommersant. "After three days I decided to go to the hospital. They examined me, asked if I had been at Open Air, and then put me straight in the hospital. I didn't even get to go home and get my stuff," he said. Cosmic Connection, promoters of the Aquamarine rave, were unreachable for comment and did not list contact numbers on their website. 'Illiterate technicians' Powerful lasers can cause eye damage instantly by burning the delicate light sensitive cells in the retina or by heating the fluid in the eye, causing a small steam explosion. Laser weapons that are intended to blind their victims were banned in 1998 by the United Nations but weapons that dazzle have so far escaped censure. The owner of a Moscow laser rental company, Valentin Vasiliev, says the accidental blindings were due to "illiteracy on the part of technicians". "It was partly the rain, but also partly the size of the laser. Somebody set up an extremely powerful laser for such a small space," he says, adding that his company did not provide the lasers at the Aquamarine event. From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Tue Jul 15 02:40:53 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:40:53 +0200 Subject: THREAD CLOSED: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation In-Reply-To: <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> References: <600E5496DB46664F80804783D985FD2501449F98@mmgex001.mmg.marinegroup.com><487B3E44.17619.CBF2A1@garyi.trinityphysics.com> <008101c8e5d9$b37c7080$1a755180$@oilfield.slb.com> Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6720@SRV502.tudelft.net> Dear RadSafers, The following thread is closed: Proliferation With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Doug Aitken Sent: maandag 14 juli 2008 19:48 To: garyi at trinityphysics.com; radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Peterson, Ken' Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation This (political?) discussion is way of the brief of RADSAFE, but I just want to make a slight correction to the statement below> Is it not true that one of the principal causes for the formation of Al-Qaeda the existence of American forces in Saudi Arabia? And an interesting article/interview on the general topic is at: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html Now, let's get back to radiation issues! Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: . garyi at trinityphysics.com ...... You see, 911 didn't happened because the US was occupying a country. I hope that we can agree that the 911 terrorists killed all those Americans (and themselves) because they hate us, not because we were occupying anybody's country. _______________________________________________ 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/ From mmiller at sandia.gov Tue Jul 15 15:29:50 2008 From: mmiller at sandia.gov (Miller, Mark L) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:29:50 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Tue Jul 15 16:07:15 2008 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:07:15 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website In-Reply-To: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> References: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> Message-ID: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Miller, Mark L Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. _______________________________________________ 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/ From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Tue Jul 15 18:57:58 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:57:58 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <071520082357.10210.487D39860007FB67000027E22215575474B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> (Sent to that excellent rad info site) To persuade the public, as with sunshine (ultraviolet wave-length radiation) needed for vitamin D, we must inform about ionizing radiation BENEFIT (hormesis), to motivate - not only absence of harm. Put anti-nucs on the defensive for withholding benefit from the public, harming the public by depriving of an "essential trace energy" (Cameron), like depriving of sunshine and vitamin D. . Thousands of studies support greater longevity (RR 0.76 in NSWS ? Cameron) and much less cancer (RR < 0.20 Taiwan apt. study, Chen, Luan et al). See www.ddponline.org, www.oism.org etc. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Michael, Joey L" > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > From lanka at umdnj.edu Tue Jul 15 19:08:51 2008 From: lanka at umdnj.edu (Venkata Lanka) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:08:51 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: radsafe Digest, Vol 155, Issue 1 (Offsite at Meeting - Out of Office) Message-ID: I will be out of the office from July 14 - July 18, 2008. I am away at the Health Physics Society Meeting in Pittsburgh, PA. I am expected to return to the office on Monday, July 21. Any questions pertaining to technical/radioactive materials, please contact the office at 973.972.5305. If you have questions pertaining to my calendar schedule, please contact Corisa Mobley, Administrative Assistant at 973.972.5305. Thank you. From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 16 00:41:03 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <816819.8100.qm@web81606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Web address: ?????http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715093737.htm Possible Link Found Between X-rays And Prostate Cancer ScienceDaily (July 15, 2008) ? Researchers at The University of Nottingham have shown an association between certain past diagnostic radiation procedures and an increased risk of young-onset prostate cancer ? a rare form of prostate cancer which affects about 10 per cent of all men diagnosed with the disease. The study, the first of its kind to report the relationship between low dose ionising radiation from diagnostic procedures and the risk of prostate cancer, was funded by the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation (PCRF) and is part of the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS).The study showed that men who had a hip or pelvic X-ray or barium enema 10 years previously were two and a half times more likely to develop prostate cancer than the general population. And the link appeared to be stronger in men who had a family history of the disease. The research was led by Professor Kenneth Muir, from the Division of Epidemiology and Public Health at The University of Nottingham, in association with Dr Rosalind Eeles at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Professor Muir said: ?Although these results show some increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who had previously had certain radiological medical tests we want to reassure men that the absolute risks are small and there is no proof that the radiological tests actually caused any of the cancers.? Four hundred and thirty one men, diagnosed with young onset prostate cancer ? men diagnosed with the disease before the age of 60 ? took part in the study.? The exposure to radiation was part of normal medical procedures which were performed 5, 10 or 20 years before diagnosis. Procedures included hip and leg X-rays, for example taken after an accident, and barium meals and enemas which are used to diagnose problems with the digestive system. At this stage the evidence linking diagnostic radiation procedures and prostate cancer is still weak. This research suggests that further investigation into this link should be undertaken. X-ray procedures used for diagnostic purposes deliver very small amounts of radiation per procedure. Their use is minimised in current medical practice. For most people X-rays do not increase the risk of developing cancer. The results of the study have been published online in the British Journal of Cancer. ________________________________ Adapted from materials provided by University of Nottingham. Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA MLA University of Nottingham (2008, July 15). Possible Link Found Between X-rays And Prostate Cancer. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com?/releases/2008/07/080715093737.htm ?----- Original Message ---- From: "HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net" To: "Michael, Joey L" ; radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:57:58 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website (Sent to that excellent rad info site) To persuade the public, as with sunshine (ultraviolet wave-length radiation) needed for vitamin D, we must inform about ionizing radiation BENEFIT (hormesis), to motivate - not only absence of harm. Put anti-nucs on the defensive for withholding benefit from the public, harming the public by depriving of an "essential trace energy" (Cameron), like depriving of sunshine and vitamin D. . Thousands of studies support? greater longevity (RR 0.76 in NSWS ? Cameron) and much less cancer (RR < 0.20 Taiwan apt. study, Chen, Luan et al). See www.ddponline.org, www.oism.org etc. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Michael, Joey L" > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > _______________________________________________ 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/ From peter.bossew at jrc.it Wed Jul 16 02:45:37 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:45:37 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website In-Reply-To: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> References: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <487DA721.9030200@jrc.it> Nicely made, but not usable outside U.S. -- everything in rem and Ci... :-( (who should trust information given in obsolete units) pb Michael, Joey L wrote: > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From wlipton at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 16 07:43:45 2008 From: wlipton at sbcglobal.net (WILLIAM LIPTON) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Message-ID: <52570.3860.qm@web80805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> US regulations still use rad, rem, and Ci. However, I've always said that 0.0283 kg of prevention is worth 0.454 kg of cure. Bill Lipton It's not about dose, it's about trust. Perception is reality. ----- Original Message ---- From: Peter Bossew To: radsafe at radlab.nl Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:45:37 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website Nicely made, but not usable outside U.S. -- everything in rem and Ci... ? :-( (who should trust information given in obsolete units) pb Michael, Joey L wrote: > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe.? The information > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites".? It has some good, simple > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > >? -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY ? Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ ? "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." _______________________________________________ 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/ From lists at richardhess.com Wed Jul 16 11:06:30 2008 From: lists at richardhess.com (Richard L. Hess) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:06:30 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website In-Reply-To: <487DA721.9030200@jrc.it> References: <93829F68A9B95344A2E48D7BA8FE19C0023B79E4A6@ES01SNLNT.srn.sandia.gov> <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCCC@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> <487DA721.9030200@jrc.it> Message-ID: At the top right of at least some of the pages is a switch between U.S. and SI units, labelled "rem" and "sv". There is a formatting problem for the "sv" setting on at least the Myths page which I've drawn their attention to. They note on the website that they are required by U.S. law to use the "obsolete" units rather than the SI units, just like the U.S. and Burma and perhaps one other are the only countries not to have officially adopted the SI system. Having spent most of my life in the U.S., but now living in Canada, I don't see the big deal about switching to metric, and I wished the U.S. had in the 1970s. I was gung-ho for the change, and even my employer at the time, a major U.S. television network, handed out metric conversion cardboard slide rules to help us all with the change, which then fizzled. But here in Canada, you can generally find measurements in both systems, just like you can find text in both official languages. Cheers, Richard At 03:45 AM 2008-07-16, Peter Bossew wrote: >Nicely made, but not usable outside U.S. -- everything in rem and Ci... :-( >(who should trust information given in obsolete units) > >pb > >>http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper Richard L. Hess richard at richardhess.com Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.richardhess.com/ Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm From willis.219 at osu.edu Wed Jul 16 12:31:58 2008 From: willis.219 at osu.edu (Carl Willis) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:31:58 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please do not feed the trolls... Message-ID: <573B986EAF3245538C381EDC0022F5B2@Linac.local> RADSAFE is a great technical resource, and on the occasions that I have participated here I have been rewarded with well-informed, helpful responses. However, the list has a real problem with focus--evidenced most clearly by an inability to deal with trolls. These tend to be "policy trolls" who want to bicker about the political issues relating in some way to radiation. Actually, the problem is not so much the trolls themselves but the few loudmouths who feel they are duty-bound to engage the provocations. I appreciate Marcel's attempts to shut down low-information / off-topic threads. Nonetheless, our signal-to-noise ratio has been abysmal! The rules say the list is "open to all points of view on radiation protection issues." That's as it should be, of course. Nonetheless, I think we ought to have a statement right on top declaring the focus of RADSAFE to be the objective and technical aspects of radiation protection and discouraging the political repartee. On this forum, the political stuff tends to be low-information and flagrantly trollish. No doubt policy is important, but I think there are other venues more appropriate. If the policy trolls think they've got cogent, well-informed arguments, I'd suggest they write diaries on one of the major political blogs, where this stuff is in its element and can be better judged on its merits. -Carl Willis ___________________ Carl Willis Nuclear Engineering Program The Ohio State University (505) 412-3277 willis.219 at osu.edu From DNorth at Lifespan.org Wed Jul 16 12:31:26 2008 From: DNorth at Lifespan.org (North, David) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:31:26 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please do not feed the trolls... In-Reply-To: <573B986EAF3245538C381EDC0022F5B2@Linac.local> Message-ID: <4AFD287104F71D48A958EFCB1DCC118402FFED20@LSRIEXCH1.lsmaster.lifespan.org> I think that limiting posts from any one contributor to a few per day (2 > 4?) would be a good idea. David L. North, Sc.M., DABR Associate Physicist Medical Physics Main Bldg. Rm 317 Rhode Island Hospital 593 Eddy St. Providence, RI 02903 (401)444-5961 fax: (401)444-4446 dnorth at lifespan.org > ---------- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Carl Willis > Reply To: Carl Willis > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 13:31 > To: radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Please do not feed the trolls... > > RADSAFE is a great technical resource, and on the occasions that I have participated here I have been rewarded with well-informed, helpful responses. > > However, the list has a real problem with focus--evidenced most clearly by an inability to deal with trolls. These tend to be "policy trolls" who want to bicker about the political issues relating in some way to radiation. Actually, the problem is not so much the trolls themselves but the few loudmouths who feel they are duty-bound to engage the provocations. I appreciate Marcel's attempts to shut down low-information / off-topic threads. Nonetheless, our signal-to-noise ratio has been abysmal! > > The rules say the list is "open to all points of view on radiation protection issues." That's as it should be, of course. Nonetheless, I think we ought to have a statement right on top declaring the focus of RADSAFE to be the objective and technical aspects of radiation protection and discouraging the political repartee. On this forum, the political stuff tends to be low-information and flagrantly trollish. No doubt policy is important, but I think there are other venues more appropriate. If the policy trolls think they've got cogent, well-informed arguments, I'd suggest they write diaries on one of the major political blogs, where this stuff is in its element and can be better judged on its merits. > > -Carl Willis > > ___________________ > > Carl Willis > Nuclear Engineering Program > The Ohio State University > (505) 412-3277 > willis.219 at osu.edu > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Wed Jul 16 12:38:12 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:38:12 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dx X ray and Early Prostate Cancer (veg lack) Message-ID: <071620081738.24096.487E3204000B92FC00005E202216554886B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Thanks, Roy. Next to the Nottingham article is this: Broccoli and Other Vegetables Linked with Decreased Risk of Aggressive Prostate Cancer Indeed, my injury-prone biker, hang glider and other risk sport friends and patients are those least likely to eat their cabbage family veggies - a common cause (vs cause-effect) for the "injury and digestive problem X-rays" associated with early prostate cancer. My palmRad readings are: Pleasanton CA office 0.014 mR/hr My chair (thoriated welding rods) 0.0.45 Phoenix Hilton room 0.020 " granite sink 0.025 Palo Verde site fence (in bus) 0.014 " " lecture hall 0.012 '' " passing spent fuel casks 0.011 " " " reactor #3 (in bus) 0.012 "Denver (read somewhere) 0.065" I'd like my prostate to get more radiation, like Denver with low cancer rate. Howard Long -------------- Original message -------------- From: ROY HERREN > Web address: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715093737.htm > Possible Link Found Between X-rays And Prostate Cancer > ScienceDaily (July 15, 2008) ? Researchers at The University of Nottingham have > shown an association between certain past diagnostic radiation procedures and an > increased risk of young-onset prostate cancer ? a rare form of prostate cancer > which affects about 10 per cent of all men diagnosed with the disease. > The study, the first of its kind to report the relationship between low dose > ionising radiation from diagnostic procedures and the risk of prostate cancer, > was funded by the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation (PCRF) and is part of the > UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS).The study showed that men who had a > hip or pelvic X-ray or barium enema 10 years previously were two and a half > times more likely to develop prostate cancer than the general population. And > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net" > To: "Michael, Joey L" ; radsafe at radlab.nl > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:57:58 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > (Sent to that excellent rad info site) > > To persuade the public, as with sunshine (ultraviolet wave-length radiation) > needed for vitamin D, we must inform about ionizing radiation BENEFIT > (hormesis), to motivate (not only absence of harm). > Put anti-nucs on the defensive for withholding benefit from the public,harming > the public by depriving of an "essential trace energy" (Cameron), like depriving of > sunshine and vitamin D. . > > Thousands of studies support greater longevity (RR 0.76 in NSWS ? Cameron) and > much less cancer (RR < 0.20 Taiwan apt. study, Chen, Luan et al). > > See www.ddponline.org, www.oism.org etc. > > Howard Long > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: "Michael, Joey L" > > > This may be the best item ever posted to radsafe. The information > > contains the three C's - complete, concise, and coherent. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > > Behalf Of Miller, Mark L > > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:30 PM > > To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl' > > Subject: [ RadSafe ] HPS "Radiation Answers" Website > > > > > > http://www.radiationanswers.org/#looper > > > > Put this link on your browser's "favorites". It has some good, simple > > information that is useful for all of us at a moment's notice. From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jul 17 04:14:34 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:14:34 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium Message-ID: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium. Roger Helbig --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: From: upsilquitch Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo Hawaii, too To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis For the attention of: David Bigelow 8 July 2008 I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. Conclusion in lay terms The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. Technical aspects of the analysis For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in Hawaii. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the publications entitled : Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. 127-138. Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory `B' of the following website: http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm Sincerely, Professor Randall Parrish NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory British Geological Survey rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Thu Jul 17 13:16:26 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:16:26 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6728@SRV502.tudelft.net> Dear RadSafers, Since about 21.00 h (Amsterdam time) last Wednesday (July 16) there was a technical problem with the RadSafe mailinglist software. The RadSafe list page on the server was because of this not reachable and no messages were processed or forwarded to subscribers. The problem has been caused by an attack through the internet in which mallformed messages were used to bombard the server causing the mailinglist software to crash. Around 17.00 (Amsterdam time) today the problem was fixed and RadSafe works normal again. However, all messages that were send to the list during the malfunction are unfortunately lost and could not be recovered. The sending of digest messages was also interrupted and the numbering of the digests will have been reset. Hope this message gave enough information to RadSafe subscribers about the recent and hopefully temporary problems. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl From ddpalmer at duf6.com Thu Jul 17 13:27:11 2008 From: ddpalmer at duf6.com (Dan D. Palmer) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:27:11 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium Message-ID: U236 can indicate the presence of DU rather than or in addition to natural uranium. U236 is formed by U235 absorbing a neutron, which occurs mainly in a reactor. Since some enrichment plants at some times were feed uranium recovered from spent fuel, the plants were contaminated with U236 (along with many other isotopes) which would end up in the resulting DU. But the presence of U236 and the ratio of U236:U238 would depend on what enrichment plant and at what time the DU was withdrawn from the system. Therefore the presence of U236 is an indicator of the presence of DU, but the absence of U236 does not mean an absence of DU. And the amount of U236 can't be used to quantify the amount of Depleted U versus Natural U. "It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium. " __________________________________________________ This message and any attachments are solely for the use of the intended recipients. Unofficial or personal messages do not reflect the views or position of UDS, LLC; the Department of Energy or the federal government. This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, attorney work product or other information protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachments from your systems. Thank you for your cooperation. From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Thu Jul 17 14:06:00 2008 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:06:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist In-Reply-To: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6728@SRV502.tudelft.net> References: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B6728@SRV502.tudelft.net> Message-ID: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDA@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Marcel, Thanks for your hard work and effort in keeping radsafe going. I am wondering though, if radsafe should move to a web-discussion type of technology? I think the idea has been brought up in the past. I'm not technically savy enough to set it up, but I have subscribed to some (sports related) discussion sites. I did a google search on discussion group software and noticed there is some free code out there for this. Is there someone out there on radsafe that could do this? The other discussion groups that I have subscribed to have had the ability for multiple moderators. Could this be done as a student project? Or by a student HPS group? --Joey -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Marcel Schouwenburg Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:16 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist Dear RadSafers, Since about 21.00 h (Amsterdam time) last Wednesday (July 16) there was a technical problem with the RadSafe mailinglist software. The RadSafe list page on the server was because of this not reachable and no messages were processed or forwarded to subscribers. The problem has been caused by an attack through the internet in which mallformed messages were used to bombard the server causing the mailinglist software to crash. Around 17.00 (Amsterdam time) today the problem was fixed and RadSafe works normal again. However, all messages that were send to the list during the malfunction are unfortunately lost and could not be recovered. The sending of digest messages was also interrupted and the numbering of the digests will have been reset. Hope this message gave enough information to RadSafe subscribers about the recent and hopefully temporary problems. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl _______________________________________________ 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/ From Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Thu Jul 17 14:12:31 2008 From: Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:12:31 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation Message-ID: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F2F85@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation Reuters Health Information 2008. ? 2008 Reuters Ltd. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. By Scott Anderson TORONTO (Reuters) Jul 09 - MDS Inc said on Wednesday it has filed a C$1.6 billion ($1.58 billion) claim against Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and the Canadian government for scrapping a reactor project that would have supplied the company with medical isotopes. MDS, a medical services company, said its claim follows a May decision by the government and AECL to scuttle the Maple nuclear reactor project without giving the company prior notice or offering consultation. MDS sells medical radioisotopes, used in cancer treatment, to hospitals and other health-care providers. Mississauga, Ontario-based MDS, which also specializes in analytical instruments, molecular imaging and contract research, said it is seeking an order to compel AECL, a government agency with responsibility for nuclear products, to fulfill its 2006 contract to provide a 40-year supply of the isotopes. If not, MDS said it would seek the damages. "It was our last resort after trying as best we could with conversations to get a resolution here that made some sense," Stephen DeFalco, MDS president and chief executive, said in an interview. "But we need them to honor their commitment to finish these reactors and to provide 40 years worth of supply. It's very important for our patients and it's very important for our business." Maher Yaghi, an analyst at Desjardins Securities in Montreal, said the company had to take legal action now to address long-term supply of the isotopes. "They have to do what they have to do. This is something that you can't wait a long time before you start because you know how the court system works, especially if you are suing the government," Yaghi said. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said the government would defend itself and AECL against the claim. "Neither the government nor AECL accept the allegations made in the statement of claim, accordingly we will be taking steps to defend AECL and the (government)," Lunn said in a statement. In a surprise move in mid-May, AECL said it was halting work on the Maple reactor in Eastern Ontario because of huge cost overruns and other problems. Maple had been designed to replace an aging reactor at Chalk River in Ontario that now supplies isotopes. The Maple project was to be completed by the year 2000 at a planned cost to MDS of C$145 million. By 2006, the project was still not finished and costs had more than doubled, with MDS's investment exceeding C$350 million. The two sides reached a new agreement in 2006 stipulating that AECL would bring the reactors into service by October 2008 and supply 40 years of the isotopes. "AECL is a commercial entity. AECL signed a commercial contract and that contract has certain rights and obligations as part of that and this is something for the courts to sort out," DeFalco said. Worldwide, there are only four commercial producers of the isotopes, with MDS's Nordion division supplying the most. DeFalco said the company could obtain quantities of the product through backup agreements with these producers. Yaghi said it's possible the company may be able to write down the costs it incurred on the Maple project, but it would probably wait until the outcome of the legal battle is clear before it does so. ($1=$1.01 Canadian) (Additional reporting by Louise Egan in Ottawa; Editing by Peter Galloway) --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. From bollingje at Ports.USEC.com Thu Jul 17 15:05:27 2008 From: bollingje at Ports.USEC.com (Bolling, Jason E) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:05:27 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU In-Reply-To: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> References: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> Message-ID: <46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> Given that the process of uranium enrichment is the separation of lighter isotopes of uranium from the heavier isotopes of uranium, I would expect there to be less U-236 in DU because U-236 is preferentially concentrated in the U-235 product stream and separated from the U-238 which is, of course, what the DU is. While it is true that there are some stores of uranium hexafluoride available from when the US still practiced fuel reprocessing where the concentration of U-236 is higher than natural, these stores are at approximately natural enrichement and, as far as I can tell, wouldn't be associated with DU. So, based on my experience in the uranium enrichment industry, U-236 and DU have nothing to do with each other. If anything, the DU should have less U-236 than natural U. -Jason Bolling -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 AM To: Radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted Uranium It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted uranium. Roger Helbig --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: From: upsilquitch Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo Hawaii, too To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis For the attention of: David Bigelow 8 July 2008 I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. Conclusion in lay terms The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. Technical aspects of the analysis For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in Hawaii. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the publications entitled : Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. 127-138. Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory `B' of the following website: http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm Sincerely, Professor Randall Parrish NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory British Geological Survey rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 17 17:02:30 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:02:30 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list In-Reply-To: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDA@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C05607DFD@gdses.corp.gds.com> Joey, Prior to Marcel graciously accepting the transition of Radsafe from Vanderbilt University (Mike Stabin), there was discussion regarding establishing an internet based Radsafe. Having been a member on various groups, it is my recommendation as long as there is a host system, such as Delft University, that we should not make any changes to the current set-up. Marcel runs a great system, moderates when appropriate, and lets the system run. As often stated, if it's not broken, don't try to fix it! Regards, Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Michael, Joey L Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:06 PM To: Marcel Schouwenburg; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailinglist Marcel, Thanks for your hard work and effort in keeping radsafe going. I am wondering though, if radsafe should move to a web-discussion type of technology? I think the idea has been brought up in the past. I'm not technically savy enough to set it up, but I have subscribed to some (sports related) discussion sites. I did a google search on discussion group software and noticed there is some free code out there for this. Is there someone out there on radsafe that could do this? The other discussion groups that I have subscribed to have had the ability for multiple moderators. Could this be done as a student project? Or by a student HPS group? --Joey PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jul 17 18:12:37 2008 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:12:37 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation In-Reply-To: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F2F85@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> References: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F2F85@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Message-ID: <6DF4BBE5C3BC4219B2D865E7CB4CC8D3@JohnPC> Colette This ex AECL'er thanks you for this update. When I was at AECL/CRL, CRL was called CRNL and the Maple reactors were "in the future". John *************** John R Johnson, PhD CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 4535 West 9th Ave 604-676-3556 Vancouver, B. C. V6R 2E2, Canada idias at interchange.ubc.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colette Tremblay" To: Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:12 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation MDS Sues AECL, Canada Over Reactor Cancellation Reuters Health Information 2008. ? 2008 Reuters Ltd. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. By Scott Anderson TORONTO (Reuters) Jul 09 - MDS Inc said on Wednesday it has filed a C$1.6 billion ($1.58 billion) claim against Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and the Canadian government for scrapping a reactor project that would have supplied the company with medical isotopes. MDS, a medical services company, said its claim follows a May decision by the government and AECL to scuttle the Maple nuclear reactor project without giving the company prior notice or offering consultation. MDS sells medical radioisotopes, used in cancer treatment, to hospitals and other health-care providers. Mississauga, Ontario-based MDS, which also specializes in analytical instruments, molecular imaging and contract research, said it is seeking an order to compel AECL, a government agency with responsibility for nuclear products, to fulfill its 2006 contract to provide a 40-year supply of the isotopes. If not, MDS said it would seek the damages. "It was our last resort after trying as best we could with conversations to get a resolution here that made some sense," Stephen DeFalco, MDS president and chief executive, said in an interview. "But we need them to honor their commitment to finish these reactors and to provide 40 years worth of supply. It's very important for our patients and it's very important for our business." Maher Yaghi, an analyst at Desjardins Securities in Montreal, said the company had to take legal action now to address long-term supply of the isotopes. "They have to do what they have to do. This is something that you can't wait a long time before you start because you know how the court system works, especially if you are suing the government," Yaghi said. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said the government would defend itself and AECL against the claim. "Neither the government nor AECL accept the allegations made in the statement of claim, accordingly we will be taking steps to defend AECL and the (government)," Lunn said in a statement. In a surprise move in mid-May, AECL said it was halting work on the Maple reactor in Eastern Ontario because of huge cost overruns and other problems. Maple had been designed to replace an aging reactor at Chalk River in Ontario that now supplies isotopes. The Maple project was to be completed by the year 2000 at a planned cost to MDS of C$145 million. By 2006, the project was still not finished and costs had more than doubled, with MDS's investment exceeding C$350 million. The two sides reached a new agreement in 2006 stipulating that AECL would bring the reactors into service by October 2008 and supply 40 years of the isotopes. "AECL is a commercial entity. AECL signed a commercial contract and that contract has certain rights and obligations as part of that and this is something for the courts to sort out," DeFalco said. Worldwide, there are only four commercial producers of the isotopes, with MDS's Nordion division supplying the most. DeFalco said the company could obtain quantities of the product through backup agreements with these producers. Yaghi said it's possible the company may be able to write down the costs it incurred on the Maple project, but it would probably wait until the outcome of the legal battle is clear before it does so. ($1=$1.01 Canadian) (Additional reporting by Louise Egan in Ottawa; Editing by Peter Galloway) --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. _______________________________________________ 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/ From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 18 01:25:45 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:25:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Underground water in Varanasi the U guideline followed in India is 60 microgramme per litre Message-ID: <182394.73713.qm@web23106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Dan, I am sorry I missed your message. I get too many messages as I am a freelance science writer contributing regularly to the science & technology columns of a few newspapers and news agencies. Generally I do not miss RADSAFE messages; responding to them is my first priority. In India, we follow a guideline of 60microgramme per liter for uranium in drinking water. There is a possibility that we may also accept the USEPA guideline of 30 microgramme per litre. I understand that up to 2006, some EU countries have not prescribed a limit for uranium in drinking water . They may use the WHO guideline of 15 microgramme per litre The news story you referred to has a bit of a drama and comedy about it! It is a typical case of a report getting top billing as the reporter has "spiced" it with radioactivity. It was based on some work carried out by two professors of the Banaras Hindu University over 18 years ago. A reporter interviewed one of the authors who retired from the University.Among the work hecarried out was also measurements of uranium and heavy elements in tubewell water samples carried out in 1990 with one of his colleagues (who died a few years ago). They have published it in the Indian Journal of Hydrology. The reporter asked the member secretary of the State PollutionControl Board. He said he was not aware of the report. It was not surprising as the report appeared in an obscure journal. The reporter got excited! rest is history. Since I do not know the origin of 2ppb as the limit, I spoke to the professor; he claimed that he got the value from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). You may recall that in the absence of enough scientific evidence ,WHO gave a value of 2 microgramme per litre as the guideline in 1998. In fact the shifting stance of WHO over the years was creating some problems. I understand that uranium content in water is a live issue in USA and countries such as Finland. Any useful inputs from RADSAFE members from various countries may be useful to me. I was a member of an expert group set up by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board in 2004. We recommended 60 microgramme per litre. This limit is likely to be revised. I have issued a press release in response to the news story on uranium in well water samples in Varnasi ( Banaras in English). I did it because the item appeared in some leading news papers. I have assured the readers that the levels are neither alarming nor abnormal. I gave the typical values from a number of publications. Data are available from 1976! I shall send the text of the press release, if any "RADSAFER" is interested. "Uranium" is now an important component of news in India for various reasons. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan W McCarn To: radsafelist Cc: parthasarathy k s Sent: Monday, 14 July, 2008 12:04:18 AM Subject: Underground water in Varanasi Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com mccarn at unileoben.ac.at UConcentrate at gmail.com Hi - Perhaps Parthasarathy can comment on this: Is the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for uranium really only 1.5 ug/L in India? If so, this is certainly not in line with EU or US EPA values. Dan ii http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200807131554.htm The Hindu Sunday, July 13, 2008 : 1600 Hrs 'Underground water in Varanasi contaminated with Uranium' Varanasi (PTI): In an alarming development, a group of scientists has revealed that underground water in Varanasi and adjoining areas is contaminated with Uranium but the Centre and the state government are unaware of the fact. The study conducted by G C Chowdhary, former Professor at the Geology Department of Banaras Hindu University and S K Agarwal, also a professor of Geology, has shown that the drinking water in the University premises some other places in the city contains radioactive Uranium more than the recommended limit. Samples for the study were collected from 11 tubewells tapping deep aquifers (more than 100 meters deep). The Uranium content varied from 2 to 11 ppb (parts per billion) while the permissible limit is only 1.5 ppb. Chowdhary said the underground water also contains heavy metals such as Chromium, Manganese, Nickel, Ferrous, Copper, Zinc and Lead. He said they had also published their first research paper in this regard in the Hydrology Journal of Indian Association of Hydrology in 1990s, clearly predicting health hazardous of water contaminated with these elements beyond the permissible limit. Member Secretary of the UP Pollution Control Board, CS Bhatt, told PTI on phone that he had not come across any report, which suggests that the underground water in Varanasi is contaminated with any sort of radioactive element. There is no facility with the board to investigate any such occurrences even if it comes to its knowledge, he said. __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Fri Jul 18 02:58:09 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 9:58:09 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Message-ID: <30305669.1216367889503.JavaMail.root@viefep12> Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz ---- "Perle schrieb: > Joey, > > Prior to Marcel graciously accepting the transition of Radsafe from > Vanderbilt University (Mike Stabin), there was discussion regarding > establishing an internet based Radsafe. Having been a member on various > groups, it is my recommendation as long as there is a host system, such > as Delft University, that we should not make any changes to the current > set-up. Marcel runs a great system, moderates when appropriate, and lets > the system run. As often stated, if it's not broken, don't try to fix > it! > > Regards, > > Sander C. Perle > President > Mirion Technologies > Dosimetry Services Division > 2652 McGaw Avenue > Irvine, CA 92614 > +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) > +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) > > Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Michael, Joey L > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:06 PM > To: Marcel Schouwenburg; radsafe at radlab.nl > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe > mailinglist > > Marcel, > > Thanks for your hard work and effort in keeping radsafe going. I am > wondering though, if radsafe should move to a web-discussion type of > technology? I think the idea has been brought up in the past. I'm not > technically savy enough to set it up, but I have subscribed to some > (sports related) discussion sites. I did a google search on discussion > group software and noticed there is some free code out there for this. > > Is there someone out there on radsafe that could do this? > > The other discussion groups that I have subscribed to have had the > ability for multiple moderators. > > Could this be done as a student project? Or by a student HPS group? > > --Joey > > > > PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From peter.bossew at jrc.it Fri Jul 18 06:19:57 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:19:57 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU In-Reply-To: <46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> References: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com> <46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> Message-ID: <48807C5D.1050209@jrc.it> Some data: 1) In the UNEP BiH report of 2003 some figures on 236U, 239+240Pu and 237Np in DU ammunition samples are given. For 236U, typically 0.003 % m/m were found, some 10^1 Bq/kg 239/240Pu and some Bq/kg 237Np. (pages 16, 33 and 215ff (Annex H)) UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Post-conflict environmental Assessment. Report 2003. Similar: UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro. Post-conflict environmental Assessment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Report 2002. Annex K, pp.152 ff UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Kosovo. Post-conflict environmental Assessment . Report 2001. Annex VII, pp. 157 ff These UNEP reports used to be available for free on the UNEP website, but not any more. I have them as pdf (~20 MB, unfortunately). 2) WISE Uranium fact sheet, P. Diehl: http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/durepe.pdf Acc. this document, 236U and transuranics almost do not contribute to dose. 3) Trueman E. R., Black S. and Read D. (2004): Characterisation of depleted uranium (DU) from an unfired CHARM-3 penetrator. Sci. Tot Env. 327, 337 - 340. Has data also on 238Pu, 241, 243Am and 99Tc. 4) Salbu B. et al. (2005): Oxidation state of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait. JER 78, 125 - 135. In the analysed DU samples, 236/238U ratios 3-4 o.m. higher than in nat. U ore (Table 2) 5) McLaughlin J. P. et al. (2003): Actinide analysis of a depleted uranium penetrator from a 1999 target site in southern Serbia. JER 64, 155 -156. 236U, 239+240, 238Pu found. 6) Jia et al. (2004): Concentration, distribution and characteristics of depleted uranium (DU) in the Kosovo ecosystem: A comparison with the uranium behaviour in the environment uncontaminated by DU. J. Radioanalyt. Nucl. Chem. 260 (3), 481 - 494. typically 0.003 % m/m 236U Similar in Jia et al. (2006): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in biological and water samples collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina. JER 89, 172 - 187. Jia et al. (2005): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in water, air and biological samples collected in Serbia and Montenegro. ARI 63, 381 - 399 pb. Bolling, Jason E wrote: > Given that the process of uranium enrichment is the separation of > lighter isotopes of uranium from the heavier isotopes of uranium, I > would expect there to be less U-236 in DU because U-236 is > preferentially concentrated in the U-235 product stream and separated > from the U-238 which is, of course, what the DU is. > > While it is true that there are some stores of uranium hexafluoride > available from when the US still practiced fuel reprocessing where the > concentration of U-236 is higher than natural, these stores are at > approximately natural enrichement and, as far as I can tell, wouldn't be > associated with DU. > > So, based on my experience in the uranium enrichment industry, U-236 and > DU have nothing to do with each other. If anything, the DU should have > less U-236 than natural U. > > -Jason Bolling > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Roger Helbig > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 AM > To: Radsafe > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted > Uranium > > > It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the > so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or > experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from > Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted > uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample > the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do > you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted > uranium. > > > > Roger Helbig > > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: > > From: upsilquitch > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo > Hawaii, too > To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM > > Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis > For the attention of: > David Bigelow > 8 July 2008 > I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a > uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. > Conclusion in lay terms > The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium > as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the > dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks > that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is > overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. > Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural > uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more > radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. > As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by > natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if > present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal > variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger > than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. > Technical aspects of the analysis > For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate > portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was > 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value > is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to > be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it > contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the > isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is > also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest > being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also > contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in > a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured > in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in > other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both > measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they > are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which > is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration > of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, > which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in > Hawaii. > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact > me. > 1 > The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the > publications entitled : > Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., > Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation > exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health > assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total > Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and > Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., > Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, > 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- > ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. > 127-138. > Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory > `B' of the following website: > http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm > Sincerely, > Professor Randall Parrish > NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory > British Geological Survey > rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From jkrueger at kruegerassociates.com Fri Jul 18 07:11:05 2008 From: jkrueger at kruegerassociates.com (JKrueger) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:41:05 +0430 Subject: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU In-Reply-To: <48807C5D.1050209@jrc.it> References: <000501c8e7ed$935166b0$b9f43410$@com><46F04EE1D5CB244D81429C51F11FD7FC03028163@hqexchange.hq.corp.usec.com> <48807C5D.1050209@jrc.it> Message-ID: Actually, the reports are still available in English pdf for free at this link: http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications.php?prog=du John L. Krueger -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Peter Bossew Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 3:50 PM To: Radsafe Cc: Bolling, Jason E Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] U-236 in DU Some data: 1) In the UNEP BiH report of 2003 some figures on 236U, 239+240Pu and 237Np in DU ammunition samples are given. For 236U, typically 0.003 % m/m were found, some 10^1 Bq/kg 239/240Pu and some Bq/kg 237Np. (pages 16, 33 and 215ff (Annex H)) UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Post-conflict environmental Assessment. Report 2003. Similar: UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro. Post-conflict environmental Assessment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Report 2002. Annex K, pp.152 ff UNEP: Depleted Uranium in Kosovo. Post-conflict environmental Assessment . Report 2001. Annex VII, pp. 157 ff These UNEP reports used to be available for free on the UNEP website, but not any more. I have them as pdf (~20 MB, unfortunately). 2) WISE Uranium fact sheet, P. Diehl: http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/durepe.pdf Acc. this document, 236U and transuranics almost do not contribute to dose. 3) Trueman E. R., Black S. and Read D. (2004): Characterisation of depleted uranium (DU) from an unfired CHARM-3 penetrator. Sci. Tot Env. 327, 337 - 340. Has data also on 238Pu, 241, 243Am and 99Tc. 4) Salbu B. et al. (2005): Oxidation state of uranium in depleted uranium particles from Kuwait. JER 78, 125 - 135. In the analysed DU samples, 236/238U ratios 3-4 o.m. higher than in nat. U ore (Table 2) 5) McLaughlin J. P. et al. (2003): Actinide analysis of a depleted uranium penetrator from a 1999 target site in southern Serbia. JER 64, 155 -156. 236U, 239+240, 238Pu found. 6) Jia et al. (2004): Concentration, distribution and characteristics of depleted uranium (DU) in the Kosovo ecosystem: A comparison with the uranium behaviour in the environment uncontaminated by DU. J. Radioanalyt. Nucl. Chem. 260 (3), 481 - 494. typically 0.003 % m/m 236U Similar in Jia et al. (2006): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in biological and water samples collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina. JER 89, 172 - 187. Jia et al. (2005): Concentration and characteristics of depleted uranium in water, air and biological samples collected in Serbia and Montenegro. ARI 63, 381 - 399 pb. Bolling, Jason E wrote: > Given that the process of uranium enrichment is the separation of > lighter isotopes of uranium from the heavier isotopes of uranium, I > would expect there to be less U-236 in DU because U-236 is > preferentially concentrated in the U-235 product stream and separated > from the U-238 which is, of course, what the DU is. > > While it is true that there are some stores of uranium hexafluoride > available from when the US still practiced fuel reprocessing where the > concentration of U-236 is higher than natural, these stores are at > approximately natural enrichement and, as far as I can tell, wouldn't be > associated with DU. > > So, based on my experience in the uranium enrichment industry, U-236 and > DU have nothing to do with each other. If anything, the DU should have > less U-236 than natural U. > > -Jason Bolling > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf Of Roger Helbig > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 AM > To: Radsafe > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Analysis of Hawaiian Soil Sample for Depleted > Uranium > > > It is interesting that upsilquitch (believed to be Ted Weymann of the > so-called Uranium Medical Research Centre, with no known education or > experience in either uranium or medicine) belittles this report from > Professor Randall Parrish, who normally sides with the anti-depleted > uranium crusaders, such as his being invited to Colonie, NY to sample > the area around the closed National Lead Foundry FUSRAP site. What do > you say about Parrishes presumption that U236 is indicative of depleted > uranium. > > > > Roger Helbig > > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, upsilquitch wrote: > > From: upsilquitch > Subject: [DU-WATCH] Randy Parrish (MOD lap dog) lies to people fo > Hawaii, too > To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 9:50 AM > > Report on Uranium Isotope Analysis > For the attention of: > David Bigelow > 8 July 2008 > I apologise for any delay, but I am pleased to now provide you with a > uranium isotope analysis and concentration of the sample you submitted. > Conclusion in lay terms > The analysis of dust submitted contains a maximum of 1% Depleted Uranium > as a proportion of the total uranium in the sample. The uranium in the > dust is less than 1 part per million, a value that is typical for rocks > that would occur in Hawaii. The uranium contained in the dust sample is > overwhelmingly or entirely dominated by this natural uranium component. > Any DU, if present at all, is in fact less radioactive than the natural > uranium in the sample by virtue of its being `depleted' in the more > radioactive isotopes 234U and 235U. > As such the radioactivity of the sample is virtually dominated by > natural background radioactivity, and any additional component if > present adds a negligible additional amount to this. In fact the normal > variation in amount of background radioactivity in rocks is far larger > than the maximum additional component, if any, of DU in the sample. > Technical aspects of the analysis > For your dust sample, the 4M HNO3 leach dissolved all but the silicate > portion of your samples and the ratio of 238U/235U was > 138.92 with an uncertainty on the measurement of 1.01. The normal value > is 137.88. Your measurement with its uncertainty band can be argued to > be sufficiently close to the natural value as to conclude that it > contains no DU. On the other hand it is slightly elevated and given the > isotopic composition of depleted uranium munitions, a value of 138.9 is > also consistent with 1% of the uranium in the dust being DU and the rest > being natural. When DU makes a contribution to uranium, it also > contributes the rare isotope 236U. A 1% DU contribution would result in > a 236U/238U value of ~3.0 x 10-7. The value of this quantity we measured > in your sample was 5 x 10-7 but with an uncertainty of 5 x 10-7, in > other words this measurement is just at our detection limit. While both > measurements can be regarded as failing to prove the presence of DU they > are also consistent with a 1% DU contribution to the dust uranium which > is effectively the lowest contribution we can measure. The concentration > of uranium in the dissolved dust material is 0.68 parts per million, > which is quite normal for volcanic rocks like those that are common in > Hawaii. > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact > me. > 1 > The methodology of the test is similar to that described in the > publications entitled : > Parrish, R. R., Arneson, J.Brewer, T., Chenery, S., Lloyd, N., > Carpenter, D. 2008. Depleted uranium contamination by inhalation > exposure and its detection after >25 years: implications for health > assessment. Science of the Total Environment, Science of the Total > Environment v. 390, 58-68; doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.044. and > Parrish, RR, Thirlwall, M, Pickford, C, Horstwood, MSA, Gerdes, A., > Anderson, J., and Coggan, D., 2006, Determination of 238U/235U, > 236U/238U and uranium concentration in urine using SF-ICP-MS and MC- > ICP-MS: An interlaboratory comparison. Health Physics v.90 (2), p. > 127-138. > Or you can read of the procedure by visiting the method of Laboratory > `B' of the following website: > http://www.duob.org.uk/laboratory.htm > Sincerely, > Professor Randall Parrish > NERC Isotope Geosciences Laboratory > British Geological Survey > rrp at nigl.nerc.ac.uk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." _______________________________________________ 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/ From sperle at mirion.com Fri Jul 18 08:01:52 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:01:52 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Message-ID: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Thanks Franz. Another very good reason for maintaining the Status Quo. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 AM To: Michael, Joey L ; Perle, Sandy ; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From joey-michael at uiowa.edu Fri Jul 18 08:32:46 2008 From: joey-michael at uiowa.edu (Michael, Joey L) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list In-Reply-To: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com> References: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDB@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> On second thought Franz and Sandy have it right. The internet is just another passing fad. ?He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.? ~Harold Wilson From: Perle, Sandy [mailto:sperle at mirion.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:02 AM To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; Michael, Joey L; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Thanks Franz. Another very good reason for maintaining the Status Quo. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 AM To: Michael, Joey L ; Perle, Sandy ; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Fri Jul 18 08:49:16 2008 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:49:16 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Fri Jul 18 09:29:02 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> References: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672C@SRV502.tudelft.net> Jerry, What is actually calculated using this method is not the number of atoms that is removed from the organ (source organ) but the number of atoms that decayed in this organ. Hence, this is the number that we're interested in since this is contributing to the dose. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM Sent: vrijdag 18 juli 2008 15:49 To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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/ From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Fri Jul 18 09:58:04 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:58:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> References: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDA02BB2E96@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Jerry, from what you describe and I understand, I think you un-necessarily complicate the issue. >From a dosimetric point of view all I am interested in is the energy deposited in a system in a given time interval. For that purpose I multiply the total number of decays in that time interval with the energy per decay. If you plot activity (ordinate: decays-in-a-given-system per unit time) against time (abscissa) then the integral of this function gives you the total number of decays in the system between two moments in time, i.e., that what you need. The number of decays per unit time is proportional to the number of radioactive atoms present at this moment. The number of radioactive atoms present decreases by (a) the decay itself with a decay constant C-phys and (b) biological metabolism. In a more or less crude approximation biological removal is modelled as an exponential process with a decay constant C-biol. This approximation leads to an exponential decay with the decay constant: C-total = C-phys + C-biol. To summarize: The total number of decays is what I need to know. I get them by integration of the activity curve over time. You may call this total number of decays "cumulated activity" though I would dissuade from doing so. HTH, 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 -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Juli 2008 15:49 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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/ From Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil Fri Jul 18 10:01:32 2008 From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil (Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:01:32 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) In-Reply-To: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672C@SRV502.tudelft.net> References: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D5FF5@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672C@SRV502.tudelft.net> Message-ID: <10ACCA92BC30C84F8D61A1EFE74ADE17053D608E@AMEDMLNARMC135.amed.ds.army.mil> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Marcel and All, Thanks for the information. I've discovered that my confusion arose from working in activity instead of atoms. This is something I learned way back when (kudos to Clay French, Ken Skrable, and George Chabot back at Lowell) and had neglected when reading Mike's book. When considering atoms and how they are removed, everything becomes clear to me. Thanks again, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Marcel Schouwenburg [mailto:M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:29 AM To: Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Jerry, What is actually calculated using this method is not the number of atoms that is removed from the organ (source organ) but the number of atoms that decayed in this organ. Hence, this is the number that we're interested in since this is contributing to the dose. With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg Head / Lecturer Training Centre Delft, Health Physicist, expert level 2 RadSafe Moderator & Listowner National Centre for Radiation Protection (Dutch abbr. NCSV) Manager Quality Assurance Reactor Institute Delft (RID) Delft University of Technology Faculty of Applied Sciences / Reactor Institute Delft Mekelweg 15 NL - 2629 JB DELFT The Netherlands T: +31 (0)15 27 86575 F: +31 (0)15 27 81717 E: m.schouwenburg at tudelft.nl -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A Dr USACHPPM Sent: vrijdag 18 juli 2008 15:49 To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cumulated Activity and Dosimetry Question (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE All, I was reading Mike Stabin's new book "Fundamentals of Nuclear Medicine Dosimetry," and it got me thinking about cumulated activity. The thinking then got me confused, which is more common than I'd like it to be. The cumulated activity is defined at the time integral of the activity in a particular organ or tissue (compartment). In this integral the effective (biological + physical) removal rate constant is used. This cumulated activity is often called the number of nuclear transitions, decays, or distintegrations. This is where I get confused. By using the effective removal rate constant in the integrand, the result is the total number of atoms removed by biological and physical process, not just radiological decay. I thought that only those atoms "removed" by decay would contribute to dose. For dosimetry, it seems that what is needed is the total number of decays that occur in the compartment of interest, not the total removed. So, it seems that the cumulated activity as defined above should be multiplied by the fraction of the atoms removed that decay, which is the ratio of the physical removal rate constant (the decay constant) to the effective (total) removal rate constant. Is there an underlying assumption that the physical half-life for the radionuclides used will always be much shorter than the biological half-life so that the effective removal rate equals the decay constant? What am I missing here? I'd appreciate someone pointing out where I've gone astray. BTW, I've enjoyed Mike Stabin's book very much so far, and what I've skimmed ahead to looks excellent. Thanks, Jerry ________________________________ The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve the right to make mistakes. Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health Physics Program jerry.falo at us.army.mil 410-436-4852 DSN: 584-4852 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ 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/ Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE From garyi at trinityphysics.com Fri Jul 18 10:11:57 2008 From: garyi at trinityphysics.com (garyi at trinityphysics.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:11:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list In-Reply-To: <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDB@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> References: <003501c8e8d6$91d25e2c$0901800a@corp.gds.com>, <401C02F3B87A9B43B7EC7AE1A293C44AC6CCDB@IOWAEVS03.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <48806C6D.9776.4378E74@garyi.trinityphysics.com> Hi Joey, Change can be bad or good, like aging or faster computers. Progress is that subset of change which results in improvement rather than decay. Since you haven't made a case for your desired change actually being progress, you should not be annoyed at the cool response you got. The ongoing prescence of posts that might annoy you does not mean that Marcel can not keep up with the job of moderating the list. It means that he has made the executive decision not to censor the list except in extreme cases. Therefore, unless you disagree with his decisions, I don't understand why you think changing the list format would be progress. The internet is indeed here to stay, and it is a powerful tool. It took me only about 12 seconds to find your quote. On the same page, 4 quotes down, I found the one below. Have a great weekend, Gary Isenhower When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. ~Victor Frankl On 18 Jul 2008 at 8:32, Michael, Joey L wrote: Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Date sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:32:46 -0500 From: "Michael, Joey L" To: On second thought Franz and Sandy have it right. The internet is just another passing fad. "He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery." ~Harold Wilson From: Perle, Sandy [mailto:sperle at mirion.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:02 AM To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at; Michael, Joey L; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Thanks Franz. Another very good reason for maintaining the Status Quo. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 AM To: Michael, Joey L ; Perle, Sandy ; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Temporary technical problem with RadSafe mailing list Sandy, I agree with your opinion, but want to further support it by quoting one of the most important rules of sports: "Never change a winning team". Best regards, Franz From legend396 at COX.NET Sat Jul 19 16:05:10 2008 From: legend396 at COX.NET (DAVID LOSS) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:05:10 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs Message-ID: <000201c8e9e3$21605af0$d5dfcc48@david758051adf> According to the article that you wrote some of the information is wrong. Lowell Ryman was a child from 1950 to 1953 so he did not work at the lab he was 9 years old and lived down the street from me and my family on Walnut Street . He was a friend of my brothers and they played in the canyons. See news paper article from Santa Fe New Mexican titled "Deadly exposures plague Children of the Manhattan Project. Lynne Loss From sjd at swcp.com Sun Jul 20 16:27:17 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:27:17 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs In-Reply-To: <000201c8e9e3$21605af0$d5dfcc48@david758051adf> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080720151012.009f3c10@mail.swcp.com> July 20 What is "wrong" with the "information" in the article I wrote? (It is below, dated June 22.) In reference to your message (farther below), a person is a child from birth until age 18, not for a mere three years. Ryman did not work at Los Alamos Labs and no one has said that he did. The correct title of the article in the Santa Fe New Mexican is "Deadly exposure: Plutonium-related cancers plague children of the Manhattan Project." The link is , (May 4, 2008). Steven Dapra June 22, 2008 A lawsuit has been filed against the University of California, operator of Los Alamos National Laboratories, and against the Zia Company, a company that was a LANL contractor until 1986. The suit claims that one Lowell Ryman was exposed to radioactive waste as a child and at age 63 died of cancer as a result of the exposure. According to the opening portion of an article at Findlaw.com, "Plutonium released from Los Alamos National Laboratory killed a New Mexico man who was exposed to the radioactive metal as a child, according to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by his daughter in Albuquerque federal court. "The suit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, says the University of California, which operates the lab, and Zia Co., a maintenance and construction contractor, are liable for Lowell Ryman's death from cancer at age 63. "According to the complaint, Ryman's father worked at Los Alamos from 1950 to 1953. During that time Ryman allegedly played extensively in the nearby canyons, where he was exposed to radioactive waste, including plutonium. "Los Alamos released the plutonium from 1943 to 1964 while developing and testing nuclear weapons, the complaint says. "Plutonium exposure causes cancer, especially multiple myeloma, which Ryman allegedly developed as an adult before his death in 2005." The article is at this link: . According to an article in the Las Cruces (NM) Sun-News, Ryman's daughter "said her father's doctors were mystified about the cause of his cancer until they talked to her about his past. "I told the doctor he grew up in Los Alamos, and he looked at me, put down his pen and said, 'Your dad has radiation exposure,' [the daughter] said." The link is . (How's that for a diagnosis? The doctor never so much as saw the patient.) For residents of Albuquerque, NM and vicinity, this was reported in the Albq. Journal on June 18, p. C-2. ----- END of my June 22 posting ----- At 02:05 PM 7/19/08 -0700, DAVID LOSS wrote: >According to the article that you wrote some of the information is wrong. >Lowell Ryman was a child from 1950 to 1953 so he did not work at the lab >he was 9 years old and lived down the street from me and my family on >Walnut Street . He was a friend of my brothers and they played in the >canyons. See news paper article from Santa Fe New Mexican titled >"Deadly exposures plague Children of the Manhattan Project. > >Lynne Loss From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 20 23:49:33 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to protein linked to bone marrow failure in humans Message-ID: <81855.77827.qm@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> As you read the following article I would ask that you consider the following questions: Is it possible that radiation induced damage causes action of p53, and that high levels of radiation cause high levels of p53 activation which in kind leads to high levels of severe anemia or bone marrow failure?? In other words, is it possible that the anemia that accompanies high levels of radiation exposure isn't caused?directly by the radiation itself, but rather by the consequence of the activation of p53?? ? Roy Herren ? ? Public release date: 20-Jul-2008 Contact: Krista Conger kristac at stanford.edu 650-725-5371 Stanford University Medical Center Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to protein linked to bone marrow failure in humans STANFORD, Calif. - The study of dark-skinned mice has led to a surprising finding about a common protein involved in tumor suppression, report researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The results may lead to new treatments for bone marrow failure in humans. The protein, called p53, has been dubbed the "guardian of the genome" for its ability to recognize DNA damage and halt the division of potentially cancerous cells. However, in a new twist, it appears that p53 also responds to disruptions in the cell's protein factories, leading to changes in skin color and causing anemia in mice. "This may be just the tip of an iceberg," said Gregory Barsh, MD, PhD, professor of genetics and of pediatrics. "When we think of p53, we think in extremes: high levels cause cell death, low levels cause cancer. This research shows that even moderate changes can have very important consequences. It also suggests that the activation of p53 may be involved in more pathways than we previously anticipated." Barsh is the senior author of the study, which will be published online in Nature Genetics on July 20. Kelly McGowan, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and postdoctoral scholar in Barsh's laboratory, is the first author. The researchers studied mutations that darken the feet, tails and ears of normally light-skinned mice. Alterations in pigmentation are not only easy to identify, but also often involve a variety of biologically important pathways that control more than just hair or skin color. McGowan homed in on two skin-darkening mutations, which she found affected specific protein components of the cell's ribosomes. Ribosomes act as cellular protein factories, translating the instructions encoded by RNA molecules into new proteins to do the cell's work. The discovery was interesting because mutations affecting one of the same ribosomal proteins in humans are associated with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome, a condition that causes a type of anemia specific to red blood cells. When the scientists examined the dark-skinned mice more closely, they found that these mice exhibited similar abnormalities in red blood cell formation. "Diamond-Blackfan itself is fairly rare," said McGowan, "but the bone marrow failure that sometimes occurs in these individuals happens quite often in many other disorders, including acute myelogenous leukemia and multiple myeloma." People with bone marrow failure are unable to produce enough red blood cells, white blood cells and/or platelets. They are susceptible to uncontrolled bleeding, infection and fatigue. Understanding the disorder in mice may help scientists and physicians develop new treatment for other, similar conditions. Interestingly, people with mutations in the same ribosomal protein can exhibit a range of very different symptoms. Such variation suggests that, although the mutations occur in the all-important ribosomes, the problem isn't the result of ham-handedly interfering with all protein production in the cell. McGowan, Barsh, and their colleagues found that skin from the feet of the mutant mice exhibited elevated levels of p53. This elevation, or "activation," of p53 stimulated the production of a protein called Kit ligand that stimulates the growth of pigment cells, which turned the mice's skin darker than normal. In contrast, mutant mice unable to express p53 had normal levels of Kit ligand. They also had light-colored feet and unaffected numbers of red blood cells. "The involvement of p53 in this pathway suggests that the variability seen in human disease may be due to a varying extent to which p53 is activated, or expressed," said McGowan. "The mild anemia seen in these mice and in some humans with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome may be due to mild activation of p53. More severe anemia or bone marrow failure may be the result of very high levels of p53 activation." The researchers hypothesize that increased activation of p53 affects different types of cells in the body in different ways. In skin cells, it increases the amount of Kit ligand and causes darker skin, whereas in bone marrow cells it causes anemia by causing the death of red blood cell precursors. These results suggest that moderating the levels of p53 may be one way to treat a variety of bone marrow failures in humans. In the future, McGowan and Barsh will focus on using what they've learned to develop a better mouse model of bone marrow failure in which to try new drugs and therapies. They will also search for additional skin-darkening mutations that affect this and other previously unknown p53 pathways. "This illustrates the potential benefits that come from basic science research," said Barsh. "Although you don't always know where you're going to end up, many advances in human health would not have been discovered any other way." ### In addition to McGowan and Barsh, other Stanford researchers on the work include Jun Li, PhD, and Holly Tabor, PhD, both senior scientists at the Stanford Human Genome Center; hematopathologist Christopher Park, MD, PhD; graduate students Veronica Beaudry and Weibin Zhang; medical student Amit Sabnis; as well as Richard Myers, PhD, the Stanford W. Ascherman, M.D., F.A.C.S. Professor in Genetics; and Laura Attardi, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and of genetics. The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the German Human Genome Project and the National Genome Research Network. Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication & Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu. From M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl Mon Jul 21 04:49:02 2008 From: M.Schouwenburg at tudelft.nl (Marcel Schouwenburg) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:49:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Background information on Depleted Uranium Message-ID: <35E4AD8616BA7D4EB8CFA55E37C900496B672E@SRV502.tudelft.net> Dear RadSafers, I'm forwarding this message to the list on behalf of George Stanford ( gstanford at aya.yale.edu ) since it was (for unknow reason to me at the moment) filtered out by the server. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- There is a rather comprehensive backgrounder on DU at http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/information/med_vaccs/engraph/DU_Backgrou nder_e.asp or http://peek.snipurl.com/2u9aq -- George Stanford Reactor physicist, retired ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- With kind regards, Marcel Schouwenburg RadSafe Moderator & Listowner From Rainer.Facius at dlr.de Mon Jul 21 06:10:02 2008 From: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de (Rainer.Facius at dlr.de) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:10:02 +0200 Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to proteinlinked to bone marrow failure in humans References: <81855.77827.qm@web81605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1B5EBED4E01074419C07EEF9D3802FDAF73E0E@exbe02.intra.dlr.de> Roy, given that p53 is member of a multi-multi component network of regulatory molecules, any shape of a dose-response function is conceivable. Given that we know only a minor - if not negligible - fraction of all the players and their interactions, the reported observations are well within the realm of 'possibilities'. The only way to assess their validity is to scrutinize the experimental details leading to the reported results. However, there arises one reservation from studying the press release. It concerns the absence of any mentioning of apoptosis, one of the important regulatory pathways where p53 is a key player. Regards, Rainer Dr. Rainer Facius, DLR, German Aerospace Center, Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Division of Radiation Biology, 51147 Cologne, Germany ________________________________ Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von ROY HERREN Gesendet: Mo 21.07.2008 06:49 An: radsafe at radlab.nl Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to proteinlinked to bone marrow failure in humans As you read the following article I would ask that you consider the following questions: Is it possible that radiation induced damage causes action of p53, and that high levels of radiation cause high levels of p53 activation which in kind leads to high levels of severe anemia or bone marrow failure? In other words, is it possible that the anemia that accompanies high levels of radiation exposure isn't caused directly by the radiation itself, but rather by the consequence of the activation of p53? Roy Herren Public release date: 20-Jul-2008 Contact: Krista Conger kristac at stanford.edu 650-725-5371 Stanford University Medical Center Stanford study of dark-skinned mice leads to protein linked to bone marrow failure in humans STANFORD, Calif. - The study of dark-skinned mice has led to a surprising finding about a common protein involved in tumor suppression, report researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The results may lead to new treatments for bone marrow failure in humans. The protein, called p53, has been dubbed the "guardian of the genome" for its ability to recognize DNA damage and halt the division of potentially cancerous cells. However, in a new twist, it appears that p53 also responds to disruptions in the cell's protein factories, leading to changes in skin color and causing anemia in mice. "This may be just the tip of an iceberg," said Gregory Barsh, MD, PhD, professor of genetics and of pediatrics. "When we think of p53, we think in extremes: high levels cause cell death, low levels cause cancer. This research shows that even moderate changes can have very important consequences. It also suggests that the activation of p53 may be involved in more pathways than we previously anticipated." Barsh is the senior author of the study, which will be published online in Nature Genetics on July 20. Kelly McGowan, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and postdoctoral scholar in Barsh's laboratory, is the first author. The researchers studied mutations that darken the feet, tails and ears of normally light-skinned mice. Alterations in pigmentation are not only easy to identify, but also often involve a variety of biologically important pathways that control more than just hair or skin color. McGowan homed in on two skin-darkening mutations, which she found affected specific protein components of the cell's ribosomes. Ribosomes act as cellular protein factories, translating the instructions encoded by RNA molecules into new proteins to do the cell's work. The discovery was interesting because mutations affecting one of the same ribosomal proteins in humans are associated with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome, a condition that causes a type of anemia specific to red blood cells. When the scientists examined the dark-skinned mice more closely, they found that these mice exhibited similar abnormalities in red blood cell formation. "Diamond-Blackfan itself is fairly rare," said McGowan, "but the bone marrow failure that sometimes occurs in these individuals happens quite often in many other disorders, including acute myelogenous leukemia and multiple myeloma." People with bone marrow failure are unable to produce enough red blood cells, white blood cells and/or platelets. They are susceptible to uncontrolled bleeding, infection and fatigue. Understanding the disorder in mice may help scientists and physicians develop new treatment for other, similar conditions. Interestingly, people with mutations in the same ribosomal protein can exhibit a range of very different symptoms. Such variation suggests that, although the mutations occur in the all-important ribosomes, the problem isn't the result of ham-handedly interfering with all protein production in the cell. McGowan, Barsh, and their colleagues found that skin from the feet of the mutant mice exhibited elevated levels of p53. This elevation, or "activation," of p53 stimulated the production of a protein called Kit ligand that stimulates the growth of pigment cells, which turned the mice's skin darker than normal. In contrast, mutant mice unable to express p53 had normal levels of Kit ligand. They also had light-colored feet and unaffected numbers of red blood cells. "The involvement of p53 in this pathway suggests that the variability seen in human disease may be due to a varying extent to which p53 is activated, or expressed," said McGowan. "The mild anemia seen in these mice and in some humans with Diamond-Blackfan syndrome may be due to mild activation of p53. More severe anemia or bone marrow failure may be the result of very high levels of p53 activation." The researchers hypothesize that increased activation of p53 affects different types of cells in the body in different ways. In skin cells, it increases the amount of Kit ligand and causes darker skin, whereas in bone marrow cells it causes anemia by causing the death of red blood cell precursors. These results suggest that moderating the levels of p53 may be one way to treat a variety of bone marrow failures in humans. In the future, McGowan and Barsh will focus on using what they've learned to develop a better mouse model of bone marrow failure in which to try new drugs and therapies. They will also search for additional skin-darkening mutations that affect this and other previously unknown p53 pathways. "This illustrates the potential benefits that come from basic science research," said Barsh. "Although you don't always know where you're going to end up, many advances in human health would not have been discovered any other way." ### In addition to McGowan and Barsh, other Stanford researchers on the work include Jun Li, PhD, and Holly Tabor, PhD, both senior scientists at the Stanford Human Genome Center; hematopathologist Christopher Park, MD, PhD; graduate students Veronica Beaudry and Weibin Zhang; medical student Amit Sabnis; as well as Richard Myers, PhD, the Stanford W. Ascherman, M.D., F.A.C.S. Professor in Genetics; and Laura Attardi, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and of genetics. The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the German Human Genome Project and the National Genome Research Network. Stanford University Medical Center integrates research, medical education and patient care at its three institutions - Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. For more information, please visit the Web site of the medical center's Office of Communication & Public Affairs at http://mednews.stanford.edu . _______________________________________________ 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/ From Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Mon Jul 21 09:57:33 2008 From: Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:57:33 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Message-ID: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30A9@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Hi, Did anyone else pay his/her registration fees to IRPA12 by PayPal? How long after your payment has appeared on your credit card account did the organization send you an email to confirm? In my case, it has been one week, but I haven't received any confirmation that I am registered. Thanks, --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. From sperle at mirion.com Mon Jul 21 10:27:39 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:27:39 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Message-ID: <005b01c8eb46$6eab8352$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Colette, I have not registered individually. As long as you have your Paypal receipt, you should be OK. I'd give them more time to confirm. This is not unusual. Regards, Sandy Perle Sent via MOTO Q 9h by ATT -----Original Message----- From: Colette Tremblay Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 08:02 AM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Hi, Did anyone else pay his/her registration fees to IRPA12 by PayPal? How long after your payment has appeared on your credit card account did the organization send you an email to confirm? In my case, it has been one week, but I haven't received any confirmation that I am registered. Thanks, --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA (418) 656-2131 poste 2893 T?l?copie: (418) 656-5617 Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca www.ssp.ulaval.ca/sgc/radioprotection -- Message relatif ? la confidentialit?: http://www.rec.ulaval.ca/lce/securite/confidentialite.htm Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement. _______________________________________________ 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/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Mon Jul 21 10:41:22 2008 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto G. Raabe) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:41:22 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration In-Reply-To: <005b01c8eb46$6eab8352$0901800a@corp.gds.com> References: <005b01c8eb46$6eab8352$0901800a@corp.gds.com> Message-ID: <200807211543.m6LFhB2v028602@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> July 21, 2008 I registered for IRPA 12 in April. It took about two weeks before I got confirmation. 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 *********************************************** From Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca Tue Jul 22 08:14:40 2008 From: Colette.Tremblay at ssp.ulaval.ca (Colette Tremblay) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:14:40 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration In-Reply-To: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30A9@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> References: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30A9@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Message-ID: <84DE6ADA31226347ABFFAE2192829C9C5F30F7@exch-be01.ulaval.ca> Thank you all for your input. I'll wait until next week before contacting the IRPA12 organization. Colette -----Message d'origine----- De?: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] De la part de Colette Tremblay Envoy??: 21 juillet 2008 10:58 ??: radsafe at radlab.nl Objet?: [ RadSafe ] IRPA12 registration Hi, Did anyone else pay his/her registration fees to IRPA12 by PayPal? How long after your payment has appeared on your credit card account did the organization send you an email to confirm? In my case, it has been one week, but I haven't received any confirmation that I am registered. Thanks, --- Colette Tremblay Sp?cialiste en radioprotection Service de s?curit? et pr?vention Universit? Laval Pavillon Ernest-Lemieux 2325, Rue de la Vie-?tudiante Local 2527 Qu?bec (Qu?bec) G1V 0B1 CANADA From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 23 19:33:51 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:33:51 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cell phones and brain cancer Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080723182559.009ef8f0@mail.swcp.com> July 23, 2008 Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has sent a warning to about 3000 faculty and staff warning them to limit their cell phone use because the phones may cause cancer. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080723/ap_on_he_me/cell_phone_warning The article, from Associated Press, is reasonable and notes that a great deal of research and studies has shown no connection between cell phone usage and brain cancer. According to the article, Devra Lee Davis was a "driving force" behind Herberman's memo. In November 1994, a consortium of left-wingers held a seminar in Albuquerque wherein they attempted to blame most cancers (and especially breast cancer) on radiation and on chlorine. Davis was an invited speaker at this seminar. (I attended it, and heard her speak.) Steven Dapra From Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk Thu Jul 24 01:48:53 2008 From: Fred.Dawson199 at mod.uk (Dawson, Fred Mr) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:48:53 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fresh nuclear incident in France Message-ID: <4LFUtEnXNPfpfGAWIs4VxtBu0dcs2l9fd5PPtJf8@qnRDLrz65s.696.S.eC2.f1> BBC reports Fresh nuclear incident in France http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm About 100 staff at a nuclear plant in southern France have been exposed to a low dose of radiation, power firm Electricite de France (EDF) says. They were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, an EDF spokeswoman said. The incident comes two weeks after a leak forced the temporary closure of a reactor at the Tricastin facility. Unenriched uranium had leaked into the water supply. The authorities lifted a ban on fishing and water sports in two local rivers on Tuesday. EDF says Wednesday's incident was not connected to the earlier uranium leak. The company says that sensors detected a rise in the radiation level while maintenance work was being carried out at a reactor that had been shut since 12 July. The rise in radiation prompted 97 EDF and maintenance subcontractors to be evacuated and sent for medical tests. "Seventy of them show low traces of radioelements, below one 40th of the authorised limit," EDF said, adding that the incident would not affect people's health or the environment. "What concerns us is less the level of the people contaminated than the number of people contaminated," EDF spokeswoman Caroline Muller told the Associated Press news agency. Correspondents says the incidents have raised questions about the state-run nuclear industry, at a time when some countries are considering nuclear energy because of the soaring price of oil. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm Fred Dawson CRadP MSRP Fwp_dawson at hotmail.com From rhelbig at california.com Thu Jul 24 06:13:24 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:13:24 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Anyone in Hawaii - Message-ID: <010201c8ed7e$4da7bd80$e8f73880$@com> Note how Rosalie Bertell is the expert in DU, even though she knows nothing about the subject. Does anyone in Hawaii recognize the poster Anson Chong - the name sounds familiar, but his supposed expertise escapes me. Press Release on DU in Hawaii (BIP) By Anson Chong(Anson Chong) Rosalie Bertell, PhD, reaches a contrary conclusion. She remarks that the lab report "actually says that there IS DU in the sample. There should be zero. It is irrelevant that it is 'not significant.'" Dr. Bertell -- who has been ... Malu Aina, Jim Albertini,... - http://maluaina888.blogspot.com/ From fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Jul 23 16:33:23 2008 From: fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:33:23 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] explosion in the uranium enrichment factory of Urenco in Almelo, NL Message-ID: <003401c8ed0b$bbeb43c0$33c1cb40$@co.uk> [srp] explosion in the uranium enrichment factory of Urenco in Almelo, NL From: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com on behalf of Jetty Middelkoop (Jmiddelkoop at zonnet.nl) Sent: 23 July 2008 21:30:13 Reply-to: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com According to the news an explosion has just taken place in the uranium enrichment factory of Urenco in Almelo. No one got injured. The explosion was not followed by fire. It is still unknown which materials were involved in the explosion, but according to the fire dept. it looks as if there is no danger for the surroundings. The explosion took place just before 22.30. At the moment fire fighters are carrying out measurements. Several fire depts in the region were called in. Jetty Middelkoop Hazmat officer Fire Dept. Amsterdam Amstelland The Netherlands --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Dawson New Malden England From edmond0033 at comcast.net Thu Jul 24 09:44:28 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:44:28 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fresh nuclear incident in France References: <4LFUtEnXNPfpfGAWIs4VxtBu0dcs2l9fd5PPtJf8@qnRDLrz65s.696.S.eC2.f1> Message-ID: <005301c8ed9b$c7f6e760$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Where did the unriched uranium come from??? Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawson, Fred Mr" To: ; Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:48 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fresh nuclear incident in France BBC reports Fresh nuclear incident in France http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm About 100 staff at a nuclear plant in southern France have been exposed to a low dose of radiation, power firm Electricite de France (EDF) says. They were "slightly contaminated" by radioactive particles that escaped from a pipe at a reactor complex in Tricastin, an EDF spokeswoman said. The incident comes two weeks after a leak forced the temporary closure of a reactor at the Tricastin facility. Unenriched uranium had leaked into the water supply. The authorities lifted a ban on fishing and water sports in two local rivers on Tuesday. EDF says Wednesday's incident was not connected to the earlier uranium leak. The company says that sensors detected a rise in the radiation level while maintenance work was being carried out at a reactor that had been shut since 12 July. The rise in radiation prompted 97 EDF and maintenance subcontractors to be evacuated and sent for medical tests. "Seventy of them show low traces of radioelements, below one 40th of the authorised limit," EDF said, adding that the incident would not affect people's health or the environment. "What concerns us is less the level of the people contaminated than the number of people contaminated," EDF spokeswoman Caroline Muller told the Associated Press news agency. Correspondents says the incidents have raised questions about the state-run nuclear industry, at a time when some countries are considering nuclear energy because of the soaring price of oil. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/7522712.stm Fred Dawson CRadP MSRP Fwp_dawson at hotmail.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/ From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 24 13:30:14 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM To: Bob Cherry Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it than get cancer from its radioactivity. Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. -CC --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > From: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > To: "'Chris Cherry'" > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM > > Old news. We almost got a > consulting job on this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: Toxic Countertops > > The article mentions the guy at Rice. > > > > -CC From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 24 14:24:11 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:24:11 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> Message-ID: <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Gentlemen: It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured by a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the chain. At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon in significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure to the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. My opinion only! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Bob Cherry Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM To: 'Chris Cherry' Cc: 'radsafelist' Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM To: Bob Cherry Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it than get cancer from its radioactivity. Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. -CC --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > From: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > To: "'Chris Cherry'" > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM > > Old news. We almost got a > consulting job on this. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: Toxic Countertops > > The article mentions the guy at Rice. > > > > -CC _______________________________________________ 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/ From jmarshall.reber at comcast.net Thu Jul 24 16:38:11 2008 From: jmarshall.reber at comcast.net (J. Marshall Reber) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:38:11 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear-Chicago Alpha Detector Manual? Message-ID: <18131C0B-5453-4DF9-A4BF-C10E6357B37C@comcast.net> Does anyone have Manuals and/or Schematics for a Nuclear-Chicago Alpha Detector Model 2670 with an attached Alpha Probe Model 2641 that could be copied or scanned? Any expenses involved would be happily covered. J. Marshall Reber, ScD 165 Berkeley St. Methuen MA 01844 Tel/Fax: 978-683-6540 Alternate Email: reber at alum.mit.edu From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Thu Jul 24 18:05:14 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:05:14 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com><00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Message-ID: <38a401c8ede1$be4226d0$7d9383ac@your4dacd0ea75> I agree. There are two factors at work, the release of gaseous radons/thoron and the intrinsic penetrating gamma radiation from the stone itself. The source of the radiation is natural abundance of Th-232, uranium 238 and 235, and their decay chains, as well as natural potassium-40 ( K-40). Ironically, radon daughters are attracted to the electrostatic charge on CRT screens, concentrating the lower daughters there. See: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Selectrostatic%20Collection%20of%20Radon%20Daughters,%20by%20George%20Dowell/ My spectrum analysis of granite: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Granite%20Countertop%20Study/Granite%20Counter%20Top.jpg This natural distribution of U and Th and K-40 reveals the same spectra as one would find in any natural rock, more or less, depending on the originating locale's geophysical properties. Go to any landscaping yard and select a pile of decorative gravel, analyze it, and a similar spectrum will be produced. This vein of inclusions: http://www.qsl.net/k0ff/Granite%20Countertop%20Study/Slab%20with%20vein.jpg is no different in countertop granite as it would be in any other natural stone. To the point, any natural stone or material made from stone that is brought into an airtight home will increase the level of gamma radiation as well as the level of radons/thoron gas. The extent of the increase depends on the nature of the stone and the release of gas depends on the available surface area of the isotope/atmosphere interface. Granite countertops are getting a close review at the moment, but other stone products should not be overlooked, such as tile, firebrick, brick, and yes, concrete itself. All of these products contain natural abundances of the normally occurring radioactive materials. Concrete is made from A) course aggregate C)cement < Portland cement is a complex mixture of minerals> D) water. All of these components may contain some amount of NORM. A new patent by Henry Liu will allow flyash byproducts from coal fired power plants to be made into construction bricks. I am getting samples of the bricks and the flyash itself to analyze the radium content of that material. These bricks will need to be observed and monitored as to their radiological consequences. My involvement is from a scientific measurement standpoint only and I have no opinions on human exposure issues. George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab GEOelectronics at netscape.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:24 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Gentlemen: > > It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active > granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained > within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why > granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters > because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured > by > a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the > chain. > At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop > significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon > in > significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure > to > the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. > > But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of > the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper > inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. > > My opinion only! > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- From edmond0033 at comcast.net Fri Jul 25 11:04:43 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:04:43 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com><00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Message-ID: <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Sounds good to me!!! I have one in my bathroom and have detected no increase in radon. Ed Baratta edmondoo33 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Gentlemen: > > It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active > granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained > within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why > granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters > because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured > by > a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the > chain. > At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop > significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon > in > significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure > to > the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. > > But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of > the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper > inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. > > My opinion only! > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf > Of Bob Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM > To: 'Chris Cherry' > Cc: 'radsafelist' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid > spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > > I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it > than get cancer from its radioactivity. > > Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both > granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. > > -CC > > > --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > >> From: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >> >> Old news. We almost got a >> consulting job on this. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: Toxic Countertops >> >> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >> >> > o_interstitial> >> >> -CC > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Fri Jul 25 11:14:17 2008 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:14:17 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Message-ID: <9F3F308EEE4E467AA045E83A30370E04@JohnPC> Ed The radon could be coming in through the shower. John *************** John R Johnson, PhD CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 4535 West 9th Ave 604-676-3556 Vancouver, B. C. V6R 2E2, Canada idias at interchange.ubc.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmond Baratta" To: "'radsafelist'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Sounds good to me!!! I have one in my bathroom and have detected no > increase in radon. > > Ed Baratta > > edmondoo33 at comcast.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan W McCarn" > To: "'radsafelist'" > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:24 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > >> Gentlemen: >> >> It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively >> active >> granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained >> within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why >> granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters >> because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured >> by >> a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the >> chain. >> At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop >> significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon >> in >> significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure >> to >> the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. >> >> But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of >> the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from >> deeper >> inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. >> >> My opinion only! >> >> Dan ii >> >> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; >> USA >> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >> Behalf >> Of Bob Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM >> To: 'Chris Cherry' >> Cc: 'radsafelist' >> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid >> spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it >> than get cancer from its radioactivity. >> >> Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both >> granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. >> >> -CC >> >> >> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: >> >>> From: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >>> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >>> >>> Old news. We almost got a >>> consulting job on this. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Cherry >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >>> To: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >>> >>> >> > o_interstitial> >>> >>> -CC >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ From edmond0033 at comcast.net Fri Jul 25 14:04:17 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:04:17 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> <004801c8ee70$28089ca0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> <9F3F308EEE4E467AA045E83A30370E04@JohnPC> Message-ID: <000c01c8ee89$3d833b80$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> John: I believe the water here comes from a large surface reservoir and consequently wouldn't contain much radon. Unlike some of the well water in this area which does Also having checked my basement, I didn't find any there. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net . ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R Johnson" To: "Edmond Baratta" ; "'radsafelist'" ; "Dan W McCarn" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Ed > > The radon could be coming in through the shower. > > John > *************** > John R Johnson, PhD > CEO, IDIAS, Inc. > 4535 West 9th Ave > 604-676-3556 > Vancouver, B. C. > V6R 2E2, Canada > idias at interchange.ubc.ca > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edmond Baratta" > To: "'radsafelist'" ; "Dan W McCarn" > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:04 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > >> Sounds good to me!!! I have one in my bathroom and have detected no >> increase in radon. >> >> Ed Baratta >> >> edmondoo33 at comcast.net >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan W McCarn" >> To: "'radsafelist'" >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:24 PM >> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> >>> Gentlemen: >>> >>> It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively >>> active >>> granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained >>> within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why >>> granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters >>> because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity >>> measured by >>> a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the >>> chain. >>> At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop >>> significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that >>> radon in >>> significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure >>> to >>> the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. >>> >>> But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most >>> of >>> the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from >>> deeper >>> inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. >>> >>> My opinion only! >>> >>> Dan ii >>> >>> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; >>> USA >>> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >>> Behalf >>> Of Bob Cherry >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM >>> To: 'Chris Cherry' >>> Cc: 'radsafelist' >>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid >>> spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM >>> To: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it >>> than get cancer from its radioactivity. >>> >>> Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both >>> granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. >>> >>> -CC >>> >>> >>> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: >>> >>>> From: Bob Cherry >>>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>>> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >>>> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >>>> >>>> Old news. We almost got a >>>> consulting job on this. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chris Cherry >>>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >>>> To: Bob Cherry >>>> Subject: Toxic Countertops >>>> >>>> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >>>> >>>> >>> >> o_interstitial> >>>> >>>> -CC >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ > > From bcradsafers at hotmail.com Sat Jul 26 05:04:28 2008 From: bcradsafers at hotmail.com (Bjorn Cedervall) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:04:28 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Anyone in Hawaii - In-Reply-To: <010201c8ed7e$4da7bd80$e8f73880$@com> References: <010201c8ed7e$4da7bd80$e8f73880$@com> Message-ID: > Note how Rosalie Bertell is the expert in DU, even though she knows nothing> about the subject. Does anyone in Hawaii recognize the poster Anson Chong -> the name sounds familiar, but his supposed expertise escapes me.> Here is a posting I made some years ago...: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/0108/msg00388.html Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 From eic at shaw.ca Sat Jul 26 10:27:47 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:27:47 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> Message-ID: <006501c8ef34$292927c0$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Hi Dan and all! There are 2 different processes: 1) The escape of radon from the mineral grain (emanation fraction). This is driven by the recoil of the Rn nucleus after the decay of radium. I usually use 0.05 (5%) as a reasonable and conservative value for the emanation fraction in U ore. (In theory, considering the typical size of mineral grains and the recoil energy, it should be much less than 1%.) 2) Once the radon has escaped the mineral grain (through recoil) it travels by diffusion through the pore spaces. If the rock is dry, the radon can travel quite some distance before it decays. In U mines, I use 60 cm as a reasonable and conservative value (which is more than the thickness of a countertop). This is how I understand the process as it relates to U ore. I don't have much experience with granite and would appreciate input on this. I was investigating elevated radon levels in a non-U mine last month and I used the same formulas for granite as I would use for U ore and got pretty good agreement with measured values. So, lets look at the countertop example: Assume 50 ppm (50e-4 %) U content (is that reasonable?) in a 100 kg countertop. Using 0.05 emanation fraction, we get a radon source term of 6.5 e-3 Bq/s (using http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/MassRadon.htm ). In a 12 m3 room with 1 air change per hour, this results in 2 Bq/m3 (0.05 pCi/L) Rn and 3e-4 WL (using http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/RoomRadon.htm ). Best Regards, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > Gentlemen: > > It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively active > granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained > within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why > granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters > because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity measured > by > a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the > chain. > At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop > significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that radon > in > significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric pressure > to > the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. > > But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. Most of > the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from deeper > inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. > > My opinion only! > > Dan ii > > Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; > USA > HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On > Behalf > Of Bob Cherry > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM > To: 'Chris Cherry' > Cc: 'radsafelist' > Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid > spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM > To: Bob Cherry > Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops > > I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it > than get cancer from its radioactivity. > > Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both > granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. > > -CC > > > --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: > >> From: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >> >> Old news. We almost got a >> consulting job on this. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: Toxic Countertops >> >> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >> >> > o_interstitial> >> >> -CC > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1570 - Release Date: 7/24/2008 > 6:59 AM > > > From royherren2005 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 26 20:47:46 2008 From: royherren2005 at yahoo.com (ROY HERREN) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] A new cellular pathway linked to cancer is identified by NYU researchers Message-ID: <933044.62930.qm@web81602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Public release date: 24-Jul-2008 Contact: Jennifer Berman jennifer.berman at nyumc.org NYU Langone Medical Center / New York University School of Medicine A new cellular pathway linked to cancer is identified by NYU researchers Finding may be used to sensitize cells to chemotherapy NEW YORK, July 24, 2008 ? In the life of a cell, the response to DNA damage determines whether the cell is fated to pause and repair itself, commit suicide, or grow uncontrollably, a route leading to cancer. In a new study, published in the July 25th issue of Cell, scientists at NYU Langone Medical Center have identified a way that cells respond to DNA damage through a process that targets proteins for disposal. The finding points to a new pathway for the development of cancer and suggests a new way of sensitizing cancer cells to treatment. "One of the major messages of this study is that we have a new pathway that responds to DNA damage," says Michele Pagano, M.D., the May Ellen and Gerald Jay Ritter Professor of Oncology and Professor of Pathology at NYU School of Medicine, who was recently appointed a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator. "It is already known that the three major protein players in this pathway are deregulated in human cancers, so deregulation of this pathway is probably going to contribute to tumorigenesis (the development of cancer)." DNA damage can be caused by carcinogens in the environment, errors in DNA replication, or glitches in the cellular machinery caused by aging, among other factors. If a cell detects DNA damage when it is about to divide, it activates the so-called G2 checkpoint, a pause button that allows the cell time to correct the problem before cell division, the process whereby a cell makes two copies of itself. The cell maintains a paused state based on a series of proteins, a pathway, that work together like gears in a machine. Some are switched on and others are turned off (often by degradation) to maintain the checkpoint. In addition to the new pathway's association with cancer, it suggests a potentially new way to sensitize cells to chemotherapy, says Dr. Pagano. Tumor cells already have a less efficient checkpoint because of defects in other regulatory pathways. Up to 60% of cancers, for example, have mutations in p53, a tumor suppressor gene and G2 checkpoint regulator that operates in a separate pathway. Inhibiting this new pathway with a drug could make cancer cells especially vulnerable to DNA damage, causing cancerous cells to die rather than pausing to correct the problem, Dr. Pagano says. Unlike cancer cells, which already have a less efficient checkpoint, normal cells have a fully functioning G2 checkpoint and divide less frequently, sparing them from drug-induced cell death. The central player in this pathway is the protein complex called APC/C, which is involved in multiple aspects of cell regulation through a trash disposal system that shreds proteins. In response to DNA damage, the cell targets Cdc14B, an enzyme that rips phosphate groups off of other proteins, to APC/C, an action which turns on the shredder. Once APC/C is turned on, it tags its target, Plk1, for disposal. If Plk1 remains active, the cell will continue to divide. Unlike the G2 checkpoint pathways that have been previously described, the researchers believe this one is "ancient" because it is evolutionarily conserved in organisms from yeast to humans. According to the study, the deregulation of these three pathway components (Cdc14B, APC/C, and Plk1) in cancer cells correlates with lower survival rates in patients. Researchers will need to perform further studies to determine how these proteins are altered in cancer. Some of the effect might be due to changes in the levels of proteins expressed, but it is currently unknown whether mutations to these proteins might also play a role. ### The authors of this study are: Florian Bassermann; Michele Pagano, David Frescas; Daniele Guardavaccaro; Luca Busino and Angelo Peschiaroli. This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, an Emerald Foundation grant, and fellowships from the German Research Foundation and the America Italian Cancer Foundation. ________________________________ From webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org Sat Jul 26 16:30:08 2008 From: webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org (al gerhart) Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Message-ID: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart From peter.bossew at jrc.it Mon Jul 28 02:51:43 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:51:43 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops In-Reply-To: <006501c8ef34$292927c0$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <00ad01c8edb9$a1168740$e34395c0$@rr.com> <564550.41088.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00ae01c8edbb$50fd3d60$f2f7b820$@rr.com> <003c01c8edc2$db391a10$91ab4e30$@com> <006501c8ef34$292927c0$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <488D7A8F.6000808@jrc.it> Kai, Dan, and all interested: about Rn generation and transport: 1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5. In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled. - There is abundant literature about this. 2) Often diffusion accounts only for the minor part of Rn transport in soil. More efficient is convective transport, driven by pressure differences. In particular buildings can produce a stack effect which literally sucks Rn out of the soil, into the basement or ground floor of the building. Also changes in ground water level can give rise to "bursts" of indoor Rn conc. The main geologic factor is soil or rock permeability, even more important than U content. There are examples for very high soil gas and indoor air Rn concentrations, without any extravagant U activity in underlying soil or rock. Soil gas concentrations of a few 100 kBq/m^3, and indoor concentrations of up to a few kBq/m^3 can be produced without much U in the ground. (I know of one example of almost 20 kBq/m^3 indoor, without particularly high U). - Of course this requires particularly poor insulation of basements or ground floors, typically found in older buildings. regards, Peter Kai Kaletsch wrote: > Hi Dan and all! > > There are 2 different processes: > > 1) The escape of radon from the mineral grain (emanation fraction). > This is driven by the recoil of the Rn nucleus after the decay of > radium. I usually use 0.05 (5%) as a reasonable and conservative value > for the emanation fraction in U ore. (In theory, considering the > typical size of mineral grains and the recoil energy, it should be > much less than 1%.) > > 2) Once the radon has escaped the mineral grain (through recoil) it > travels by diffusion through the pore spaces. If the rock is dry, the > radon can travel quite some distance before it decays. In U mines, I > use 60 cm as a reasonable and conservative value (which is more than > the thickness of a countertop). > > This is how I understand the process as it relates to U ore. I don't > have much experience with granite and would appreciate input on this. > I was investigating elevated radon levels in a non-U mine last month > and I used the same formulas for granite as I would use for U ore and > got pretty good agreement with measured values. > > So, lets look at the countertop example: > > Assume 50 ppm (50e-4 %) U content (is that reasonable?) in a 100 kg > countertop. Using 0.05 emanation fraction, we get a radon source term > of 6.5 e-3 Bq/s (using http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/MassRadon.htm ). > > In a 12 m3 room with 1 air change per hour, this results in 2 Bq/m3 > (0.05 pCi/L) Rn and 3e-4 WL (using > http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/RoomRadon.htm ). > > Best Regards, > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" > > To: "'radsafelist'" > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM > Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops > > >> Gentlemen: >> >> It all depends on the permeability of the granite! Even relatively >> active >> granites usually have very low primary permeability so radon is retained >> within the mineral grains and rock itself to a great degree. That's why >> granites are usually in secular equilibrium with all uranium daughters >> because they retain radon until it decays. Most of the activity >> measured by >> a scintillation counter comes from the Bi-214 decay at the end of the >> chain. >> At a larger scale, where granites are fractured and faulted and develop >> significant secondary permeability, is there a good likelihood that >> radon in >> significant quantities will be fluxed via changes in barometric >> pressure to >> the surface, and these examples are noteworthy. >> >> But in countertops, chosen to avoid fractures, that is unlikely. >> Most of >> the radon would be only from the very near surface. The radon from >> deeper >> inside would have virtually no chance of diffusing to the surface. >> >> My opinion only! >> >> Dan ii >> >> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX >> 77479; USA >> HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On >> Behalf >> Of Bob Cherry >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:30 PM >> To: 'Chris Cherry' >> Cc: 'radsafelist' >> Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> Good point about the cemeteries! I will remember this and try to avoid >> spending a lot of time in one as long as I can. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Cherry [mailto:cpdcherry@] >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:24 PM >> To: Bob Cherry >> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >> >> I'm sure more people are harmed in quarrying the stone and installing it >> than get cancer from its radioactivity. >> >> Someone on the medphys list mentioned that cemeteries are full of both >> granite and dead people. This may not be a coincidence. >> >> -CC >> >> >> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Bob Cherry wrote: >> >>> From: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: RE: Toxic Countertops >>> To: "'Chris Cherry'" >>> Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 1:18 PM >>> >>> Old news. We almost got a >>> consulting job on this. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Cherry >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:15 PM >>> To: Bob Cherry >>> Subject: Toxic Countertops >>> >>> The article mentions the guy at Rice. >>> >>> >> > >> o_interstitial> >>> >>> -CC >> >> __ >> -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 03:08:10 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:08:10 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <030c01c8f089$14594680$3d0bd380$@com> Hi Al: I appreciate your remarks. I was using some numbers for hydrologic conductivity / permeability in unfractured granites that were quite low. I'll convert pCi/g to ppm tomorrow, that I can do easily. Typical Wyoming granites are 10 ppm which when weathered, provide enough U to make deposits. Anatectic granites such as in Namibia run up to 100 ppm, but are not found here in the States and are mineable as ore deposits for U. I would think that it would be quite unusual to find a granite body with an average of 50 ppm. That may be possible if there are intrabatholithic veins, but outside of veinlets or locally enriched granites, I would believe 10 ppm would be "normal". But then marine shales are also high, such as the Chattanooga shale with about 100 ppm U. It's not mineable because extraction from the organic matrix is almost impossible. I was looking for U238 in your report, and it was missing. Was that an oversight? Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 4:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From bobcherry at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 28 14:19:38 2008 From: bobcherry at satx.rr.com (Bob Cherry) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:19:38 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Message-ID: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Jimbo must be on vacation. Otherwise, I am sure he would have told us about the following: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-17108.htm Bob C From EMERDF at nv.doe.gov Mon Jul 28 15:00:18 2008 From: EMERDF at nv.doe.gov (Emer, Dudley) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:00:18 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From EMERDF at nv.doe.gov Mon Jul 28 15:15:23 2008 From: EMERDF at nv.doe.gov (Emer, Dudley) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:15:23 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Message-ID: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E5@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Correct the conversion of 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq to read 1 pCi = 0.037 Bq. I had a finger - brain disconnect Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:00 PM To: al gerhart; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Mon Jul 28 17:02:46 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:02:46 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite In-Reply-To: <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> References: <769310.35720.qm@web705.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8321446B63B28C46A405E2AE47961A730430E4@NTS-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS> Message-ID: <03dc01c8f0fd$ac4982b0$04dc8810$@com> Elmer: On my calculation, I get 2.97 ug per pCi U-238 as you do. Assuming secular equilibrium between U-238 and U-234 (age of granite > 2 million years) ug : U-238 = 2.9752E+00, U-235 = 2.1316E-02, U-234 = 1.6072E-04 ug ; Summed = 2.9967 ug U-Natural pCi: U-238 = 1.0000 , U-235 = 0.0461 , U-234 = 1.0000 pCi; Summed = 2.0461 pCi U-Natural Total activity is 2.0461 pCi per 2.9967 ug U-Nat uranium in secular equilibrium or 0.6828 pCi / ug U-Nat total activity Your comments related to ingrowth are essential to understand in order to interpret the meaning of the analyses. The sample would need to be canned for 30 days or so if crushed. But, if I assume that the U-235 activity is 37.83 pCi / g given Al's lab report, Then: 1) the activity of U-238 should be 821.2363 pCi/g, which is in rough equilibrium with Ra-226 (986.95 pCi/g) in Al's report; 2) the total U-natural should be 2460.96 ug / g or about 0.25% U-Nat for the rock. That would be enough to mine if commercial quantities actually showed this endowment, which I strongly doubt for a "plain" granite. When granitic batholiths are intruded, the last remaining watery portions of the magma, having gone through differential precipitation (Bowen Reaction Series), is enriched in uranium and sometimes other metals e.g. gold. These quartz-rich remainders can form intra-batholithic intrusions or peri-batholithic intrusions enriched in uranium. I suspect that Al's rock may, in fact, be something of this nature. I'd say that the only way would be in a vein within a granite, or a pegmatite, but not a granite itself, and the samples were "high-graded" to show a hot-spot, not representative of the overall composition of the granite. Of course what I'd call a pegmatite, and someone else may call granite from the dimension stone business, may be something of an issue! For an "average" granite composed of 10 ppm U (e.g. Wyoming), the average activity would be 6.828 pCi/g. For the Rossing anatectic granite of 100 ppm U (0.01% U) in Namibia (active uranium mine): The average activity would be 68.28 pCi/g I hope my numbers are correct! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:00 PM To: al gerhart; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Mon Jul 28 21:30:51 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:30:51 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Zvezdochka offers to scrap UK [nuclear]submarines Message-ID: <488E80DB.3040907@peoplepc.com> Zvezdochka offers to scrap UK submarines 2008-06-26 British nuclear submarine British nuclear submarine Russia?s biggest shipyard for repairing and scrapping of nuclear powered submarines offers to scrap 11 of Her Majesty the Queens laid-up submarines. If so, the transport of radioactive material along the coast of Northern Norway and Russia will be a fact. RIA Novosti reports that representatives from the Royal Navy recently held preparatory talks with officials from the Severodvinsk based shipyard Zvezdochka. Since the early 90-ties, Zvezdochka has been the main Russian shipyard for decommissioning of nuclear powered submarines of the Northern Fleet. More than 100 of the Russian Northern fleets submarines have so far been scrapped, many of them with financial support from other countries like Norway and the United Kingdom. Earlier this week, the British ambassador to Norway and the British Consul General in St. Petersburg visited Murmansk and the shipyard Nerpa, located on the Barents Sea cost. Norway and United Kingdom are together financing the decommissioning of an old November-class attach submarine at the Nerpa shipyard. At home, the British Royal Navy has at least 11 retired nuclear powered submarines laid-up, floating on sea with their highly radioactive reactors. Accoring to nuclear.ru officials from the Zvezdochka yard say that they can do the scrapping of the British subs within the framework of the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC). This military cooperation, mainly focusing on nuclear safety projects in the Russian north, was initiated by Norway in the mid-90ties, as a three lateral agreement between Norway, Russia and the United States. Great Britain joined the programme in 2003, and Norway ended its active participation in AMEC last year. If the offer from Zvezdochka materializes the British subs will be put on a huge barge, or towed on sea, all the way up the coast of Norway around the Kola Peninsula to the shipyard located in Severodvinsk in the White Sea, not far from the city of Arkhangelsk. There the submarines (still radioactive) reactor compartment and two adjacent compartments will be sealed hermetically and remove them to a storage facility outside Russia, most likely back to Great Britain. French officials have also started exploring the possibility of having old French nuclear powered submarines scrapped at Zvezdochka too. Copyright ? 2003 BarentsObserver Norway Sweden Finland Murmansk Obl. Rep. of Karelia Arkhangelsk Obl. Nenets AO Rep. of Komi Russia general From rgb at rrbev.co.uk Mon Jul 28 22:41:30 2008 From: rgb at rrbev.co.uk (Ross Beveridge) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:41:30 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec Message-ID: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by the gamma spec? Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. Rgds Ross From jc.mora at ciemat.es Tue Jul 29 03:00:38 2008 From: jc.mora at ciemat.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mora_Ca=F1adas_Juan_Carlos?=) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:38 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <84A7FC01A35CFC429F64E62E3EABAA043F30BC@STR.ciemat.es> Please, it is necessary, in order to give an answer, to know at least the resolution of your instrument. What kind of detector are you using? If you are using Sodium Iodide, may be your resolution is too big and the 186 keV peak could interfere in lower energies. If you are using an HP-Ge the answer is no. When using electric coolers, instead of N2, the resolution is somehow degraded at low temperatures, but not so much as 100 keV. Anyway, you always should know which are the possible sources of contamination. Is it possible in your installation to find Am-241? Was there a previous contamination with any calibration standard in your sample? Also interferences in that energy could be produced by Ac-228 and Pa-234, that you surely observe in your samples. Juan Carlos Mora Ca?adas CIEMAT -----Mensaje original----- De: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl en nombre de Ross Beveridge Enviado el: mar 29/07/2008 5:41 Para: radsafe at radlab.nl Asunto: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by the gamma spec? Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. Rgds Ross _______________________________________________ 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/ From peter.bossew at jrc.it Tue Jul 29 03:13:02 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:13:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec In-Reply-To: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <488ED10E.1070102@jrc.it> 241Am can regularly be found in soil. It is part of global fallout from atmospheric bomb testing, decay product of 241Pu. Activity conc. is currently approx. equal to 238+240Pu. Maximum of 241Am conc. will be reached in about 2050. The ratio 241Am : 137Cs (global) is about 0.6% (by 2003, back-referenced 1 May 1986). Chernobyl contribution to total 241Am is mostly below 2% (value from a place in Central Europe strongly affected by Ch.) regards, Peter Ross Beveridge wrote: > A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. > > Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. > Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by the > gamma spec? > > Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. > > > Rgds > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org Mon Jul 28 22:23:41 2008 From: webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org (al gerhart) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Message-ID: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged Carpenter terms. "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out of the rock itself? "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of the report. I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure we got it. Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method and result? And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably mined? This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine granite? Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? From peter.bossew at jrc.it Tue Jul 29 08:31:19 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:31:19 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <488F1BA7.8080808@jrc.it> Rn transport, emanation power, etc.: I suggest consulting the standard textbook, Nazaroff, W. W., A. V. Nero (1988): Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor Air. John Wiley & Sons. 0.2 eman. power = 20% set free of a "piece" (depending on experimental setup, but not too much; once out of the grain, the Rn is practically free.) Interstitial water content: the model is, that water in the pore space (as long as it is not too much) slows down the ejected recoil nuclei to an extent that they are not captured by the neighbouring grain. The kinetic energy of the recoil 222Rn nucleus is 86 keV, their mean range in air is ca. 60 um. Experimentally, eman power in soil (!) increases up to ca. 10% water, then remains approx. const. up to ca. 20-30%. After that, experimentally difficult. U series assay by gamma spectrometry is not trivial. - 238U : Via 234Th (63.3, 93 keV), 231mPa (1001), consult literature about these lines first !! - 226Ra: Via progenies 214Pb,Bi (295, 352, 609, 1120, 1764,...). Container must be kept isolated ca. 3 weeks in order to establish sec eq of 226Ra - 222Rn - progenies. For accurate measurement, sum/coinc of some lines must be corrected for, if eff cal. done with standard composed of single line radionuclides (as commonly done)(otherwise up to a few % syst. error, depending on geom.). Validation with certified U samples is advised. - Avoid the 186 line, possible, but complicated. - 210Pb: 46.6 keV. Density correction is crucial. - 235U ff: not easy by g-spec., but possible. 144 keV line: sec. eq. within 235U series required, due to contribution of 223Ra. Also interference by 230Th must be accounted for. - 232Th series: 228Ac (338, 911), 224Ra ff (239, 583, 2615). Different caveats apply. As a summary, 226Ra ff, 228Ac and 224Ra ff are relatively easy and straight forward, but 238U, 235U, 210Pb require a bit of experience and good QA. regards, Peter al gerhart wrote: > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged Carpenter terms. > > "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." > So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out of the rock itself? > > "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." > Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? > > On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of the report. > I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure we got it. > Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? > I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method and result? > And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably mined? > This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. > This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. > But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine granite? > Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) > By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Tue Jul 29 09:30:30 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:30:30 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <011201c8f187$a91b5980$375184ac@your4dacd0ea75> DO you know the testing equipment/procedure? Normally the answer to your question would be "NO". George Dowell NLNL New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Beveridge" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:41 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec >A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. > > Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. > Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by > the > gamma spec? > > Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. > > > Rgds > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From edmond0033 at comcast.net Tue Jul 29 09:34:58 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:34:58 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec References: <03455E57A03842A8BFA352BBA0466113@RGBPC> Message-ID: <00cd01c8f188$475554c0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Ross It is possible that Americium-241 from the 'older' type smoke detectors has made its way into the soil. It's 59.5 Kev (35.9% abundance) peak along with it's lower energy peak @ 17.8 Kev (19.3 % abundance), should be easier to identify. Since it is soil, it is very possible that Radium-226 is also present. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Beveridge" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Soil gamma spec >A decom project with minimal (no) history of likely contaminants. > > Some recent soil spec results show the presence of americium. > Could soft X rays from radium be misinterpreted as an americium peak by > the > gamma spec? > > Any input/advice etc. would be gratefully appreciated. > > > Rgds > Ross > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 29 09:58:43 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:58:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Radiation levls from granite known over 50 years ago. Message-ID: <735281.52288.qm@web23108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dan, I am happy to see that every one is keen to know more about natural radioactivity. I am somewhat late in responding to the "radioactive" granite story. Overall very informative thread! I remember it was in the mid fifties Prof Bill Spiers (Leeds University, UK) and his friends discovered increased levels of radiation from granitic areas. Some one living in a building in granitic areas gets more dose than another who lives in a wooden house.Then it was a novel idea. The present excitement is because people who are not familiar with natural radioactivity do not expect radiation over a granite countertop. Next story may be on radioactivity in Brazil nut! ( It was interesting news in the 50s; may be now as well for those who are radio-phobic!). It will be shocking to them if we calculate the dose to the tender cell lining in the mouth as we eat Brazil nuts. The tissue tract of a micrometer diameter and a few tens of micrometer length will receive mega rads! The story may get top billing! I am pleased to see the flurry of "activity" around the NYT story. Any professor who starts using a radiation detector for the first time may be thrilled to test every thing that comes in the way. I am not sure whether such routine measurements will be appealing to any peer reviewed journal. Another related matter. I recall that the staff of a British Museum which exhibited some geological samples(some of them can be pretty radioactive) was convicted for exposing people to undesirable levels of radiation! I do not remember the details. Our colleagues from UK may be able to tell us more about it. The best way to spice up a news story is to add some radioactivity in it! Regards Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan W McCarn To: radsafe at radlab.nl Cc: "Emer, Dudley" ; al gerhart Sent: Tuesday, 29 July, 2008 3:32:46 AM Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Elmer: On my calculation, I get 2.97 ug per pCi U-238 as you do. Assuming secular equilibrium between U-238 and U-234 (age of granite > 2 million years) ug : U-238 = 2.9752E+00, U-235 = 2.1316E-02, U-234 = 1.6072E-04 ug ; Summed = 2.9967 ug U-Natural pCi: U-238 = 1.0000 , U-235 = 0.0461 , U-234 = 1.0000 pCi; Summed = 2.0461 pCi U-Natural Total activity is 2.0461 pCi per 2.9967 ug U-Nat uranium in secular equilibrium or 0.6828 pCi / ug U-Nat total activity Your comments related to ingrowth are essential to understand in order to interpret the meaning of the analyses. The sample would need to be canned for 30 days or so if crushed. But, if I assume that the U-235 activity is 37.83 pCi / g given Al's lab report, Then: 1) the activity of U-238 should be 821.2363 pCi/g, which is in rough equilibrium with Ra-226 (986.95 pCi/g) in Al's report; 2) the total U-natural should be 2460.96 ug / g or about 0.25% U-Nat for the rock. That would be enough to mine if commercial quantities actually showed this endowment, which I strongly doubt for a "plain" granite. When granitic batholiths are intruded, the last remaining watery portions of the magma, having gone through differential precipitation (Bowen Reaction Series), is enriched in uranium and sometimes other metals e.g. gold. These quartz-rich remainders can form intra-batholithic intrusions or peri-batholithic intrusions enriched in uranium.. I suspect that Al's rock may, in fact, be something of this nature. I'd say that the only way would be in a vein within a granite, or a pegmatite, but not a granite itself, and the samples were "high-graded" to show a hot-spot, not representative of the overall composition of the granite. Of course what I'd call a pegmatite, and someone else may call granite from the dimension stone business, may be something of an issue! For an "average" granite composed of 10 ppm U (e.g. Wyoming), the average activity would be 6.828 pCi/g. For the Rossing anatectic granite of 100 ppm U (0.01% U) in Namibia (active uranium mine): The average activity would be 68.28 pCi/g I hope my numbers are correct! Dan ii Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:00 PM To: al gerhart; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Al, I'm kind of curious about the lab report and how was it done. How was the sample prepared? Was it a crushed sample or in-situ? Was the sample sealed and allowed to have the radon chain in-grow before measuring? For a sample with this much thorium and uranium the report is missing some expected nuclides and apparently misreporting others.. Considering the half life of Sc-46 is 83 days it is most likely being misreported due to the Bi-214 photo peak at 1120.3 keV with a 15% yield. While Cs-137 and Co-60 have photo peaks close to Bi-214, these Bi-214 yields are very low (<0.05%) and unless the count times were very long it's unlikely these are due to Bi-214. While one may find fallout Cs in a field sample the Co is problematic; perhaps a lab contamination problem or maybe check sources near the detector. Did they run a blank? I would expect that other uranium chain daughters would have been detected and reported; specifically the Th-234, Pa-234m and Th-230 which can help establish the degree of equilibrium in the U-238 chain. For conversions: 1 pCi/g U-238 = 2.97 ppm 1 pCi/g Th-232 = 9.1 ppm 1 pCi/g K-40 = 1224 ppm 1 pCi = 0.37 Bq You will not be able to convert a Geiger counter reading into isotopic activity - that will require a calibrated spectrometer. Dudley Emer Geophysicist National Security Technologies 702-295-7808 office 702-794-5824 pager 702-521-8577 cell -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of al gerhart Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 2:30 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon travel in granite Hi all, First post, long time lurker. Finally something I can contribute to, some facts on radioisotope content, countertop size, porosity of granite, and Radon/radiation levels. Countertop granite is pretty porous. We cut and polish wet, it soaks up the water, turns darker. Water will soak through the center of the slab in a few hours. We have to use a torch to dry out places that need epoxy, seams, rodding grooves, lamination edges. It takes a while to dry it out, heat and let cool, heat again, and so on. There has been an explosion of newer stones that were less likely to be used years ago, but these days they resin the back, apply fiberglass mesh, so it doesn't break up during polishing. Some stones get a coat of polyester resin, which is then ground off during polishing. The resined slabs still soak up the water anyway, and they stain from oil or even hard water, so there is still some amount of porosity present. As to emanation rates, I know several leading Radon techs and a few Radon scientists (Kitto and Steck). The Radon emission range will run from 4 pCi/SF/Hr to over 500 pCi/SF/Hr (that would be Niagara Gold, it was featured in both the NY Times story and the CBS Morning show). The Niagara Gold sample was from my sample collection, part of a 72" x 18" remnant that I bought off a competitor here in Oklahoma. That particular sample measured over 200 uR/hr Gamma (PM 1703 on contact, yes, I need a better meter) but the hottest spot on that remnant was as high as 250 uR/hr Gamma, or 5300 to 6300 cpm with one of George's LENi Geiger counters (pancake probe, about 9 mm standoff). 10.5 mR/Hr supposedly. As to 50 ppm being reasonable, not sure, we aren't smart enough to convert ppm into pCi/g or cpm. :) I can say that I have seen reports much higher, 200 to 4,000 cpm. I have a lab report on the countertop in Houston Texas that lead to this flurry of reports. It gave two Radium isotope contents as 1,130 pCi/g or so. Potassium 40, 53.9 . Scandium 46 , 31.65 Cobalt 60 , .13 Cesium137 , .189 Thallium 208, 37.8 Lead 210 , 415.5 Bismuth 212 , 85.46 Bismuth 214 , 410.77 Lead 214, 484.99 Radium 226 , 986.95 Radium 228 , 128.34 Thorium 228 , 144.76 Uranium 235 , 37.83 ARS Houston Granite Countertop report We use US units here, darn it, but I'll figure out how to convert the example in Kai's example. Can anyone tell me if it is possible to convert a Geiger counter reading into PPM of Isotopes? Sure it must have a lot to do with the isotope rad level, but are there any rules of thumbs for a quick and dirty guess? Thanks for the excellent site. I am learning so much here. Al Gerhart _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From eic at shaw.ca Tue Jul 29 10:33:39 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:33:39 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite and concrete References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <488F1BA7.8080808@jrc.it> Message-ID: <012401c8f190$79bbe200$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Peter's numbers for emanation from soil are much higher than my numbers for U ore. I have seen some higher emanation fractions on U ore , but the samples were either very weathered, unrepresentative of normal ore (airborne dust collected on a filter, emanation determined by alpha spectrum), the methodology was questionable or the grade was very low. So, the question becomes which emanation fraction one would expect from granite. The measured emanation fractions in both U ore and soil are much higher than what one would predict from a theoretical calculation, assuming the radium is evenly distributed in the ore grain. As Peter mentions, the range of the recoiling 222Rn nucleus is about 60 um in air. If we scale that by density to get an estimate of the range in the rock grain, we get about 0.02 um, which is a lot smaller than the size of the rock grain. So, it would be physically impossible for any significant fraction of 222Rn to escape. One explanation is that the host rock normally gets there first and the U (which is pretty mobile) gets there later and just coats the outside of the grain. So at low U concentrations, almost all of the U would be in range of the pore space. Once you get to a few percent U, the layer of Uranium (and other late coming materials) becomes thicker and less of the Rn has a chance of getting out. In granite, do we expect the U to by inside the rock grain or on the outside? While we are talking about radon movement, I have a few questions and hope someone on the list can help me out. What is a reasonable diffusion length to use for Rn in concrete? Does concrete have air-filled pore spaces like rock? (Peter is correct that the convective transport is probably more important for getting radon into your basement than diffusion. In my application, however, I do need to know the diffusion transport.) If anyone has experience with cemented tailings backfill in a U mine and is willing to share, please contact me off list. Thanks, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. points out that ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Bossew" To: "al gerhart" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:31 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Rn transport, emanation power, etc.: I suggest consulting the standard > textbook, > Nazaroff, W. W., A. V. Nero (1988): Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor > Air. John Wiley & Sons. > > 0.2 eman. power = 20% set free of a "piece" (depending on experimental > setup, but not too much; once out of the grain, the Rn is practically > free.) > Interstitial water content: the model is, that water in the pore space (as > long as it is not too much) slows down the ejected recoil nuclei to an > extent that they are not captured by the neighbouring grain. The kinetic > energy of the recoil 222Rn nucleus is 86 keV, their mean range in air is > ca. 60 um. Experimentally, eman power in soil (!) increases up to ca. 10% > water, then remains approx. const. up to ca. 20-30%. After that, > experimentally difficult. > > U series assay by gamma spectrometry is not trivial. > - 238U : Via 234Th (63.3, 93 keV), 231mPa (1001), consult literature about > these lines first !! > - 226Ra: Via progenies 214Pb,Bi (295, 352, 609, 1120, 1764,...). Container > must be kept isolated ca. 3 weeks in order to establish sec eq of 226Ra - > 222Rn - progenies. For accurate measurement, sum/coinc of some lines must > be corrected for, if eff cal. done with standard composed of single line > radionuclides (as commonly done)(otherwise up to a few % syst. error, > depending on geom.). Validation with certified U samples is advised. - > Avoid the 186 line, possible, but complicated. > - 210Pb: 46.6 keV. Density correction is crucial. > - 235U ff: not easy by g-spec., but possible. 144 keV line: sec. eq. > within 235U series required, due to contribution of 223Ra. Also > interference by 230Th must be accounted for. > - 232Th series: 228Ac (338, 911), 224Ra ff (239, 583, 2615). Different > caveats apply. > > As a summary, 226Ra ff, 228Ac and 224Ra ff are relatively easy and > straight forward, but 238U, 235U, 210Pb require a bit of experience and > good QA. > > regards, > Peter > > > al gerhart wrote: >> Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged >> Carpenter terms. >> "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if >> one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." >> So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out >> of the rock itself? >> "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." >> Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? On the lab >> samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is a phone >> number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, would be >> very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. Well, >> that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of the >> report. >> I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to >> learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be >> determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the >> handheld meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for >> making sure we got it. >> Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide >> gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters >> except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or >> even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? >> I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that >> should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one >> can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against >> what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method >> and result? >> And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the >> granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably >> mined? >> This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. >> This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the >> entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium >> high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. >> But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine >> granite? >> Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for >> being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a >> Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) >> By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> > > > -- > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Peter Bossew > European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for > Environment and Sustainability (IES) > TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 > 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it > http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ > "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any > circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European > Commission." > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: > 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 5:13 PM > > > From robbarish at verizon.net Tue Jul 29 14:28:56 2008 From: robbarish at verizon.net (Robert Barish) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:28:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 Message-ID: As a footnote to the thread on granite, Brazil nuts, etc. the test source that I use for demonstrating the use of a Geiger counter is an ordinary pill bottle containing the usual potassium chloride tablets prescribed as a supplement for patients on antihypertensive medications that include diuretics. A typical 3 cm x 6 cm pill bottle filled with these tablets makes quite an impressive display. Think of the millions of people who are ingesting these little radioactive sources very day! Scary, huh? Rob Barish, CHP, FAAPM From edmond0033 at comcast.net Tue Jul 29 15:23:52 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:23:52 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 References: Message-ID: <007101c8f1b9$048380f0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> My quote in the past has been: if someone does't have any Potassium-40 in their body, they have been dead for a long time. As we all know, thier is no life without radioactivity. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Barish" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:28 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 As a footnote to the thread on granite, Brazil nuts, etc. the test source that I use for demonstrating the use of a Geiger counter is an ordinary pill bottle containing the usual potassium chloride tablets prescribed as a supplement for patients on antihypertensive medications that include diuretics. A typical 3 cm x 6 cm pill bottle filled with these tablets makes quite an impressive display. Think of the millions of people who are ingesting these little radioactive sources very day! Scary, huh? Rob Barish, CHP, FAAPM _______________________________________________ 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/ From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jul 30 02:31:33 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:31:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pancreatic Cancer - Any Record of Uranium Having Caused Message-ID: <000001c8f216$5ccefb10$166cf130$@com> Is there a possibility that it was not DU, but other things that had burned/were apparently still burning, when this officer went to Camp Doha? Note that Elnagar, one of the most prolific anti-DU posters on the internet, former owner of the Yahoo Groups DeadlyDUST and AmericanDUST which replaced it (the DUST stands for DU Study Team, but no dissenting or "scientific" opinion is permitted in her rigorously moderated groups) has gotten this off the notoriously anti-American Italian based website that claims to be the "voice of the Iraqi resistance". Cathy Garger, a prolific anti-DU writer and now speaker as well despite having no knowledge of the subject beyond what she has been fed by Moret, Rokke or Nichols (a co-moderator), has taken over AmericanDUST, which has public archives so anyone can read what is posted there and gets a very lopsided opinion of the horrors of depleted uranium which posters maintain was used at Fallujah and nearly every day in Iraq and Afghanistan (I would sure like to get accurate figures for usage in Afghanistan; my guess is very close to zero since there were no tank-to-tank battles and I am not even sure that the A-10 Warthog was used against the Taliban's perhaps a half dozen tanks. Garger has also taken over DU-Watch as the sole moderator. The European group that created DU-Watch seems to have dissolved. Roger Helbig --- On Tue, 7/29/08, Romi Elnagar wrote: From: Romi Elnagar Subject: [DU-WATCH] Widow's VA claim gaining steam To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 2:17 PM Widow's VA claim gaining steam GEORGE WERNETH Monday, July 28, 2008 A Mobile woman says she was encouraged recently when a Department of Veterans Affairs appeals judge agreed to review a claim involving her late husband, who believed that his Army exposure to radiation triggered his deadly cancer. Theresa Orrell said she has been struggling with the VA over her husband's case for nine years, seeking acknowledgement of the dangers that he faced, as well as compensation for her family. About six weeks before dying in 1999, Lt. Col. William A. Orrell III, an Army Reserve officer, filed a claim with the VA, certain that his pancreatic cancer was connected with his encounter with depleted uranium in Kuwait. He was 56 when he died. Last month, an appeals judge, Lisa Barnard, took Orrell's depleted uranium death claim under advisement after a hearing in Montgomery. A ruling is expected in six to nine months. "I was encouraged because this judge was more down-to-earth than the previous judge and she wanted all the facts," Theresa Orrell said. She has pursued her husband's case while working and earning a degree from Spring Hill College to better support her three children. Lt. Col. Orrell had gone to Kuwait in June of 1991 as commander of the 1103rd Transportation Battalion with the job of rounding up American military vehicles used in Operation Desert Storm for return to the United States, according to his wife. There had been a huge explosion and fire involving U.S. military vehicles containing depleted uranium on July 11, 1991, in Doha, Kuwait, and he was sent two days later to inspect them, she said. That's when he believed he was exposed to high levels of radiation, Theresa Orrell said. She said the vehicles were still smoldering while he inspected them. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process and because of its high density is used as a shield to protect U.S. military vehicles. It is also used in the manufacturing of munitions, such as armor-piercing bullets and tank shells. There has been extensive controversy about depleted uranium and its possible toxic effects on U.S military personnel who have served in Kuwait and Iraq. A VA spokesman in Washington, D.C., said recently that he could not comment on the Orrell case until Theresa Orrell signs and returns to the agency a privacy waiver. The spokesman said a VA official was not immediately available to discuss the depleted uranium issue in general as pertains to the VA. Theresa Orrell is seeking compensation and dependents' assistance for herself and her three children since they owe about $86,000 in college loans, she said. Two of the children have completed college, while the youngest is a sophomore at the University of South Alabama. She noted that she has a video in which her husband reported that he went to Doha after the explosion to check on the vehicles. She said he told her that the Army did not provide him with protective gear. At the June 27 appeals hearing, she said, the judge agreed that her husband was at Doha at the time that he claimed. The appeals case rests on a decision by the VA concerning the radiation levels at the site of the fire, Theresa Orrell said. William Orrell enrolled at the University of South Alabama in 1964 - the first year of the school - and was the first editor of the school's Vanguard publication, Theresa Orrell said. He went on to graduate from the Army's Officer Candidate School and served for 35 years in the Army Reserve and the National Guard. Theresa Orrell said her husband was a patriot who volunteered for service in both Bosnia and Operation Desert Storm. "I want the Army to say my husband died because of his service to his country," she said. C 2008 Press-Register C 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved. http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46053&hd=&size=1&l=e ------------------------------------ [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]Yahoo! Groups Links From peter.bossew at jrc.it Wed Jul 30 02:57:17 2008 From: peter.bossew at jrc.it (Peter Bossew) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:57:17 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radon Travel in Granite and concrete In-Reply-To: <012401c8f190$79bbe200$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <488F1BA7.8080808@jrc.it> <012401c8f190$79bbe200$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <48901EDD.8050905@jrc.it> Kai Kaletsch wrote: > Peter's numbers for emanation from soil are much higher than my > numbers for U ore. I have seen some higher emanation fractions on U > ore , but the samples were either very weathered, unrepresentative of > normal ore (airborne dust collected on a filter, emanation determined > by alpha spectrum), the methodology was questionable or the grade was > very low. So, the question becomes which emanation fraction one would > expect from granite. > > The measured emanation fractions in both U ore and soil are much > higher than what one would predict from a theoretical calculation, > assuming the radium is evenly distributed in the ore grain. As Peter > mentions, the range of the recoiling 222Rn nucleus is about 60 um in > air. If we scale that by density to get an estimate of the range in > the rock grain, we get about 0.02 um, which is a lot smaller than the > size of the rock grain. That seems to be a reasonable estimate. I have heard of about 0.05 um within the grain. > So, it would be physically impossible for any significant fraction of > 222Rn to escape. One explanation is that the host rock normally gets > there first and the U (which is pretty mobile) gets there later and > just coats the outside of the grain. So at low U concentrations, > almost all of the U would be in range of the pore space. Once you get > to a few percent U, the layer of Uranium (and other late coming > materials) becomes thicker and less of the Rn has a chance of getting > out. I have also heard about this theory. A way to check is measuring U conc. in dep. of grain size. If it rises with decreasing size, it points to U sitting on the surface, because the surface / volume ratio increases with decreasing grain size. (This is btw. a common observation for 137Cs and other fallout r.n. in sediments, which are normally attached on or near the surface.) > > In granite, do we expect the U to by inside the rock grain or on the > outside? > > While we are talking about radon movement, I have a few questions and > hope someone on the list can help me out. > > What is a reasonable diffusion length to use for Rn in concrete? Does > concrete have air-filled pore spaces like rock? (Peter is correct that > the convective transport is probably more important for getting radon > into your basement than diffusion. In my application, however, I do > need to know the diffusion transport.) diffusion lengths, 222Rn: L = sqrt(D/lam) (lam= decay constant) soil typically 1.5 m (0.1-3), building material: 0.5 (0.005-1). (Porstend?rfer J. (1991): Properties and Behaviour of Radon and Thoron and Their Decay Products in the Air. 5th International Symposion on the Natural Radiation Environment (NRE V), Salzburg 22-28 Sept. 1991, Tutorial Session.) Folkerts et al.: 0.06 and 0.8 m for two kinds of concrete. (Gives also figures for other materials, and a list of useful material constants.) Folkerts K. H., G. Keller, H. Muth (1984): Experimental Investigations on Diffusion and Exhalation of 222Rn and 220Rn from Building Materials. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 7 (1-4), 41-44. UNSCEAR 1988: concrete 0.15 m (0.04-0.26) For relation of porosity with diffusion constant and hence diffusion length, and with water content: Nazaroff & Nero 1988, ch. 1. diffusion constants: Martinelli G. (1998): Gas Geochemistry and 222Rn Migration Processes. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 78 (1),77-82. air: 0.1 cm^2/s, water: 1.13e-5 at normal temperature. See also Folkerts et al. (1984) and Porstend?rfer (1991). solid bodies: 10^-20 cm^2/s, within crystal lattice: 10^-22 ... 10^-70 (!), Morawska L., C. R. Phillips (1993): Dependence of the radon emanation coefficient on radium distribution and internal structure of the material. Geochimica and Cosmochimica Acta 57, 1783-1797 (Therefore one thinks that the main mechanism for Rn to be set free is ejection by recoil, rather than diffusion out of the grain.) I think there is much more literature about the subject. As it isn't my field of work, I can quote only these. regards, Peter > > If anyone has experience with cemented tailings backfill in a U mine > and is willing to share, please contact me off list. > > Thanks, > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. > > > > points out that > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Bossew" > To: "al gerhart" > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:31 AM > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > > >> Rn transport, emanation power, etc.: I suggest consulting the >> standard textbook, >> Nazaroff, W. W., A. V. Nero (1988): Radon and its Decay Products in >> Indoor Air. John Wiley & Sons. >> >> 0.2 eman. power = 20% set free of a "piece" (depending on >> experimental setup, but not too much; once out of the grain, the Rn >> is practically free.) >> Interstitial water content: the model is, that water in the pore >> space (as long as it is not too much) slows down the ejected recoil >> nuclei to an extent that they are not captured by the neighbouring >> grain. The kinetic energy of the recoil 222Rn nucleus is 86 keV, >> their mean range in air is ca. 60 um. Experimentally, eman power in >> soil (!) increases up to ca. 10% water, then remains approx. const. >> up to ca. 20-30%. After that, experimentally difficult. >> >> U series assay by gamma spectrometry is not trivial. >> - 238U : Via 234Th (63.3, 93 keV), 231mPa (1001), consult literature >> about these lines first !! >> - 226Ra: Via progenies 214Pb,Bi (295, 352, 609, 1120, 1764,...). >> Container must be kept isolated ca. 3 weeks in order to establish sec >> eq of 226Ra - 222Rn - progenies. For accurate measurement, sum/coinc >> of some lines must be corrected for, if eff cal. done with standard >> composed of single line radionuclides (as commonly done)(otherwise up >> to a few % syst. error, depending on geom.). Validation with >> certified U samples is advised. - Avoid the 186 line, possible, but >> complicated. >> - 210Pb: 46.6 keV. Density correction is crucial. >> - 235U ff: not easy by g-spec., but possible. 144 keV line: sec. eq. >> within 235U series required, due to contribution of 223Ra. Also >> interference by 230Th must be accounted for. >> - 232Th series: 228Ac (338, 911), 224Ra ff (239, 583, 2615). >> Different caveats apply. >> >> As a summary, 226Ra ff, 228Ac and 224Ra ff are relatively easy and >> straight forward, but 238U, 235U, 210Pb require a bit of experience >> and good QA. >> >> regards, >> Peter >> >> >> al gerhart wrote: >>> Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged >>> Carpenter terms. >>> "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and >>> if one wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." >>> So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, >>> or out of the rock itself? >>> "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." >>> Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? On the >>> lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There is >>> a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and >>> helpful, would be very interested in hearing any info on this >>> matter, good or bad. Well, that doesn't sound right, how about >>> supportive or non supportive of the report. >>> I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking >>> forward to learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so >>> much info can be determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the >>> shortcomings of the handheld meters, especially those that we are >>> using. Thanks though for making sure we got it. >>> Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a >>> wide gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see >>> daughters except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped >>> inside, or even if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no >>> data for Radon? >>> I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium >>> that should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known >>> value, one can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is >>> checked against what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of >>> verifying the method and result? >>> And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in >>> the granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be >>> profitably mined? >>> This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. >>> This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent >>> the entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all >>> medium high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. >>> But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing >>> mine granite? >>> Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up >>> for being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced >>> math, and a Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) >>> By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> Peter Bossew >> European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for >> Environment and Sustainability (IES) >> TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. >> +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it >> http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ >> "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any >> circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the >> European >> Commission." >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus >> Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 5:13 PM >> >> >> > > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Peter Bossew European Commission (EC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) TP 441, Via Fermi 1 21020 Ispra (VA) ITALY Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it http://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission." From rhelbig at california.com Wed Jul 30 04:39:01 2008 From: rhelbig at california.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:39:01 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP Message-ID: <001e01c8f228$4d4573b0$e7d05b10$@com> If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 05:07:44 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:07:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP- About an encounter with Bertell Message-ID: <452796.24513.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Roger, This comment is on Rosalie Bertell. She managed to get invited to address an elitist gathering in Mumbai a few years ago. A few of my friends attended, as the talk was to be on low level radiation. They were disappointed listening to the rhetoric ! During question time, they asked some queries related to the subject. It was obvious that she was at the receiving end. The questioner, a Ph.D from a US University persisted with the questions. A retired judge (?) who was chairing intervened asserting that she was addressing a lay audience and not professionals. He told my colleague that if he has any doubts, he may ask them privately. The main speaker was found wanting! But the intervention from the Chair helped. It is surprising how some of these "Bertells" get such attention from people who are otherwise distinguished. The judge in question was a very eminent person and was well known for his compassion to the underdog. Regards Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Roger Helbig To: Radsafe Sent: Wednesday, 30 July, 2008 3:09:01 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From brian.riely at ngc.com Wed Jul 30 07:28:38 2008 From: brian.riely at ngc.com (Riely, Brian P.) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:28:38 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP- About an encounter with Bertell In-Reply-To: <452796.24513.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <452796.24513.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A5443034D9850@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> On the internet there is a video by Rosalie Bertell where she claims many things, one of which is: THE OFFICIAL 9-11 STORY IS NOT CREDIBLE Its very important that we take a look at the starting point of this war on terror. Something else happened to bring those buildings down and Building 7 came down without being hit [in 6.5 seconds]The Pentagon is even more problematictheres no plane; theyve never found parts of the plane. The official story is not credible. Its not credible. Rosalie Bertell Part 2 (5:47) -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of parthasarathy k s Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:08 AM To: Roger Helbig; Radsafe Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation,Now into HAARP- About an encounter with Bertell Dear Roger, This comment is on Rosalie Bertell. She managed to get invited to address an elitist gathering in Mumbai a few years ago. A few of my friends attended, as the talk was to be on low level radiation. They were disappointed listening to the rhetoric ! During question time, they asked some queries related to the subject. It was obvious that she was at the receiving end. The questioner, a Ph.D from a US University persisted with the questions. A retired judge (?) who was chairing intervened asserting that she was addressing a lay audience and not professionals. He told my colleague that if he has any doubts, he may ask them privately. The main speaker was found wanting! But the intervention from the Chair helped. It is surprising how some of these "Bertells" get such attention from people who are otherwise distinguished. The judge in question was a very eminent person and was well known for his compassion to the underdog. Regards Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ---- From: Roger Helbig To: Radsafe Sent: Wednesday, 30 July, 2008 3:09:01 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don't know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic _______________________________________________ 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/ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html _______________________________________________ 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/ From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Wed Jul 30 07:48:55 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:48:55 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP In-Reply-To: <001e01c8f228$4d4573b0$e7d05b10$@com> References: <001e01c8f228$4d4573b0$e7d05b10$@com> Message-ID: <003a01c8f242$b3d80060$1b880120$@oilfield.slb.com> Looks like the end of the world, Roger! The article claims that Rosalie Bertell is a high-level scientist who was designated by the Reagan administration to study the effects of the "Star Wars" project. She is now a consultant to the European Parliament on HAARP. Which, the article claims is the ultimate "doomsday technology", capable of deep-underground scanning to detect secret bases, interrupting all forms of electronic communication, influence human behavior, change the climate, "grill" flying aircraft like a microwave oven, cause earthquakes and explosions as strong as an atomic bomb...... It seems that most of the furor was triggered by the book "Angels don't play this Haarp". Google the title and you will get plenty of information! Regards Doug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doug Aitken???? Cell phone: 713-562-8585 QHSE Advisor D&M Operations Support?????????? Schlumberger Technology Corporation 300 Schlumberger Drive Sugar Land TX 77030 Home office: 713-797-0919? Home Fax: 713-797-1757 ______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Roger Helbig Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:39 AM To: Radsafe Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the University of Alaska. Roger Helbig Les nouvelles technologies de guerre des Etats-Unis Le Post - Paris,France Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour ?tudier ... See all stories on this topic _______________________________________________ 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/ From maay100 at bgu.ac.il Wed Jul 30 08:02:53 2008 From: maay100 at bgu.ac.il (Mike Quastel) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:02:53 +0300 Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 In-Reply-To: <007101c8f1b9$048380f0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> References: <007101c8f1b9$048380f0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> Message-ID: Quite a long time indeed. The half life of K40 is 1.25 billion years. Mike Quastel On Jul 29, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Edmond Baratta wrote: > > My quote in the past has been: if someone does't have any > Potassium-40 in their body, they have been dead for a long time. > As we all know, thier is no life without radioactivity. > > Ed Baratta > > edmond0033 at comcast.net > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Barish" > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:28 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] K-40 > > > As a footnote to the thread on granite, Brazil nuts, etc. the test > source that I use for demonstrating the use of a Geiger counter is > an ordinary pill bottle containing the usual potassium chloride > tablets prescribed as a supplement for patients on antihypertensive > medications that include diuretics. A typical 3 cm x 6 cm pill > bottle filled with these tablets makes quite an impressive display. > Think of the millions of people who are ingesting these little > radioactive sources very day! Scary, huh? > > Rob Barish, CHP, FAAPM > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From franz.schoenhofer at chello.at Wed Jul 30 09:06:17 2008 From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:06:17 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP Message-ID: <23992728.1217426778012.JavaMail.root@viefep12> Hi all, Knowing quite a bit about persons similar to Rosalie Bertell in Europe I have two questions: 1) Is it really true, that she was a consultant to the Reagan administration on the Star War Project? I know people who would claim having been a consultant for some important government project, after visiting some public meeting on that topic. I have no respect for politicians, but I find it hard to believe that such a person would be invited to consult. Or maybe she consulted on the Impact of Star Wars on Catholic Nunneries? 2) Is she a consultant to the European Parliament or is she financed by the few percents of Greens in the European Parliament? This is quite a difference!!! Moreover I know for sure, that other similar "high-level scientists" have claimed that they were requested by the "European Parliament" for an expertise - but it had been only these few persons of the Green Fraction who did. I am not a psychiatrist, but I know, that such a behaviour like Bertell, Rokke and the like show is a sign of serious mental disorder. (No kidding, no ridiculing, but my serious opinion.) I am sure that every psychiatrist could name this disease. Best regards, Franz ---- Doug Aitken schrieb: > Looks like the end of the world, Roger! > The article claims that Rosalie Bertell is a high-level scientist who was > designated by the Reagan administration to study the effects of the "Star > Wars" project. She is now a consultant to the European Parliament on HAARP. > > Which, the article claims is the ultimate "doomsday technology", capable of > deep-underground scanning to detect secret bases, interrupting all forms of > electronic communication, influence human behavior, change the climate, > "grill" flying aircraft like a microwave oven, cause earthquakes and > explosions as strong as an atomic bomb...... > > It seems that most of the furor was triggered by the book "Angels don't play > this Haarp". > Google the title and you will get plenty of information! > > Regards > Doug > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Doug Aitken???? Cell phone: 713-562-8585 > QHSE Advisor > D&M Operations Support?????????? > Schlumberger Technology Corporation > 300 Schlumberger Drive > Sugar Land TX 77030 > > Home office: 713-797-0919? Home Fax: 713-797-1757 > ______________________________________________ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf > Of Roger Helbig > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:39 AM > To: Radsafe > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into > HAARP > > If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the > link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as > a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t > know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the > University of Alaska. > > > > Roger Helbig > > Les > de-guerre-des-etats-unis.html> nouvelles technologies de guerre des > Etats-Unis > Le Post - Paris,France > Parmi ceux-ci, le Dr Rosalie Bertell, une scientifique de haut niveau qui, > nagu?re, avait ?t? d?sign?e comme expert par l'administration Reagan pour > ?tudier ... > > 27/1231669_les-nouvelles-technologies-de-guerre-des-etats-unis.html> See all > stories on this topic > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ From syd.levine at mindspring.com Wed Jul 30 11:22:09 2008 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:22:09 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. Thanks. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.com From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 30 11:54:04 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:54:04 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: <02e601c8f264$e1ecc0e0$31e0a4ac@your4dacd0ea75> Sid, look on eBay "GEOelectronics" George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Syd H. Levine" To: "'radsafelist'" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:22 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources > My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about > one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap > source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to > be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they > are apparently afraid of radiation these days. > > Thanks. > > Syd H. Levine > AnaLog Services, Inc. > Phone: (270) 276-5671 > Telefax: (270) 276-5588 > E-mail: analog at logwell.com > Web URL: www.logwell.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/ > From radmax at earthlink.net Wed Jul 30 11:57:35 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Message-ID: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community ?doesn?t have a story? to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. ?They?ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,? Dr. Graham said. ?Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.? Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,? Graham said. ?Why would they do that?? Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests ?and without too much effort connected the dots,? ... ?The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,? he said. ?And that?s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.? The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation?s critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. ?The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be ?truly massive traffic jams,? Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. ?So you would be walking. You wouldn?t be driving at that point. And it wouldn?t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn?t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.? The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because ?we wouldn?t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,?... The United States ?would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.? except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. ?You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population? that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. ?I?d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,? he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people ? about the number that existed in the decades after America?s independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to ?an earlier economy based on barter,? the EMP commission?s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the >link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as >a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t >know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the >University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > From louie at tgainc.com Wed Jul 30 12:36:06 2008 From: louie at tgainc.com (Louie Cueva) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:36:06 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4890a569.05d6720a.14d5.ffff83b6@mx.google.com> United Nuclear Scientific Supplies has them relatively cheap. http://www.unitednuclear.com/ -Louie Cueva -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Syd H. Levine Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:22 AM To: 'radsafelist' Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. Thanks. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.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/ From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jul 30 12:44:15 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:44:15 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: <4890A86F.1070607@peoplepc.com> Hi Syd, You might wish to see if Kim K had any success -- his email was here on radsafe in 2004 ... Best, Maury&Dog _______________ Cs-137 source sought * To: radsafe at list.vanderbilt.edu * Subject: Cs-137 source sought * From: Kim Kearfott * Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:22:22 -0400 * CC: Joe Miklos , Bill Martin * Reply-To: Kim Kearfott * Sender: owner-radsafe at list.vanderbilt.edu * User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.0.0.040405 The University of Michigan Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences is interested in obtaining a Cs-137 irradiator (8-20 Ci range) suitable for calibration of thermoluminescent detectors. An example of an appropriate system would be a Shepherd 28-8B, but others may also work.If you have such an irradiator and are contemplating getting rid of it, please contact me at (734) 763-9117 or kearfott at umich.edu Thanks Kim ************************************************************************ You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo at list.vanderbilt.edu Put the From maurysis at peoplepc.com Wed Jul 30 12:49:02 2008 From: maurysis at peoplepc.com (Maury Siskel) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:49:02 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> Message-ID: <4890A98E.5020303@peoplepc.com> I have no information re current availability or suitability but they advertise Cs-137 ... http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm Best, Maury&Dog ====================== Syd H. Levine wrote: > My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably > about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a > relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated > world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science > supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. > > Thanks. > > Syd H. Levine > AnaLog Services, Inc. > Phone: (270) 276-5671 > Telefax: (270) 276-5588 > E-mail: analog at logwell.com > Web URL: www.logwell.com From jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com Wed Jul 30 13:19:54 2008 From: jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com (Doug Aitken) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:19:54 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004401c8f270$f0956280$d1c02780$@oilfield.slb.com> Sorry, but this looks more like 2 + 2 = 22, rather than "connecting the dots".... Equating Iran conducting a (medium-range) missile test at sea to their ability (or desire) to revert the US to pre-industrial revolution conditions is just a little hard to swallow..... Sounds like someone with a political agenda (just like Rosalie, even if he is on the other side and has a few more credentials....) Regards Doug -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community ?doesn?t have a story? to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. ?They?ve got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches,? Dr. Graham said. ?Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us.? Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude,? Graham said. ?Why would they do that?? Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests ?and without too much effort connected the dots,? ... ?The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it,? he said. ?And that?s exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States.? The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation?s critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. ?The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be ?truly massive traffic jams,? Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. ?So you would be walking. You wouldn?t be driving at that point. And it wouldn?t do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn?t be able to get there, even if you could get through to them.? The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because ?we wouldn?t be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,?... The United States ?would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country.? except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. ?You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population? that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. ?I?d have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack,? he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people ? about the number that existed in the decades after America?s independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to ?an earlier economy based on barter,? the EMP commission?s report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is the >link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be exposed as >a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject at all. I don?t >know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research program at the >University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Wed Jul 30 13:21:53 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:21:53 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. "They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us." Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?" Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," ... "The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States." The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. "The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams," Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. "So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point. And it wouldn't do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even if you could get through to them." The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"... The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. "You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. "I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack," he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people - about the number that existed in the decades after America's independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.html Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is >the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be >exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject >at all. I don?t know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research >program at the University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From danny.mcclung at louisville.edu Wed Jul 30 14:12:19 2008 From: danny.mcclung at louisville.edu (Danny K McClung) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:12:19 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources In-Reply-To: <489060AD.62D3.0005.0@gwise.louisville.edu> References: <000301c8f0e6$e18986d0$a49c9470$@rr.com> <489060AD.62D3.0005.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Message-ID: <489084D3.62D3.0005.0@gwise.louisville.edu> http://www.spectrumtechniques.com/ Syd, Try these guys. I have recently used them. Dan Danny K. McClung, BS, RRPT Health Physicist, Asst. RSO ********************************* University of Louisville Radiation Safety Office 319 Abraham Flexner Way Room 102, Library Commons Louisville, KY 40202 502-852-5231 (phone) 502-852-8911 (fax) danny.mcclung at louisville.edu GO CARDS !! Think Green! Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >>> "Syd H. Levine" 7/30/2008 12:22 PM >>> My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they are apparently afraid of radiation these days. Thanks. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.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/ From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Wed Jul 30 14:40:47 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:40:47 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources Message-ID: <053801c8f27c$2c79b7a0$31e0a4ac@your4dacd0ea75> Syd, and all, a typical eBay 'auction' number for Cs-137 is 350072156906. Many other isotope sources also available from GEOelectronics , most but not all as listed in NRC CFR30.71 Schedule B. These are quite inexpensive, with the common buttons are Cs-137, Sr-90, Co-60, Co-57 etc running 57 USD each. The only unlicensed alpha sealed source is .1 uCi Po-210. There are GENERALLY LICENSED sources of Po-210 that are much larger, for example the STATICMASTER BRUSH REFILLS @ 500 uCI, but actually, it is illegal to use one for a radiation TEST SOURCE ( go figure, it comes under the general heading of "misuse"). U.S. NRC allows up to 10 "exempt quantities" to be shipped in one package, but a person may order as many individual sources as they desire, just that each package can only contain 10 exempt quantity sources. For example, Cs-137 is limited to 10 uCi as a single sealed exempt quantity source ( In USA), so 100 uCi's can go into one package. This would be 10 ea. 10 uCi buttons, or 20 ea. 5 uCi or 100 ea. 1 uCi. All the above presupposed that the dose rate at the surface of the package is within limits *( <.5 mR/H at surface). To achieve this, extra large boxes are sometime used. Much larger than would be required for the actual size of the contents. As stated Cs-137 in the USA is limited to 10 uCi per button, no limit on how many buttons *anyone* may ultimately own or possess. No one may TRANSFER a button source or any exempt quantity sealed source without a NRC distribution license. There is NO LICENSE required to own them, but once you do own them, you may not transfer them to another person or entity. All you can do is trash can them. Some countries outside the USA go by the IAEA rules, this limits a Cs-137 to .27 uCi. To comply with those rules, .25 sources are sent. Ultimately the responsibility of holding the correct activity sources falls on the end user, as there is no issue shipping them FROM the USA, as long as the NRC and transport entity rules are followed. lastly, there is a big price increase scheduled for this year, the first in 4 years, so if you are contemplating replacing or adding to you isotope inventory. now would be the time. \Hope that helps. George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo>K0FF" To: "Syd H. Levine" ; "'radsafelist'" Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources > Sid, look on eBay "GEOelectronics" > > > > > George Dowell > New London Nucleonics Lab > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Syd H. Levine" > To: "'radsafelist'" > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:22 AM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cs-137 Check Sources > > >> My little Cs-137 check source is getting a bit old and is probably about >> one half-life down in activity. Any suggestions for a relatively cheap >> source of button check sources in this over-regulated world? You used to >> be able to get em cheap from the school science supply houses, but they >> are apparently afraid of radiation these days. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Syd H. Levine >> AnaLog Services, Inc. >> Phone: (270) 276-5671 >> Telefax: (270) 276-5588 >> E-mail: analog at logwell.com >> Web URL: www.logwell.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/ >> > From rad_sci_health at comcast.net Wed Jul 30 18:24:16 2008 From: rad_sci_health at comcast.net (Jim Muckerheide) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:24:16 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MiniCAT mini-dose Message-ID: Friends, Here?s another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It?s not just the big medical equipment makers ?waiting in the wings? any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA ?principles? and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of ?radiation safety.? Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT ? CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can?t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars ? allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut ? that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on?because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 ? 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It?s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don?t realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. ?Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child? says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. ?One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.? From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Wed Jul 30 20:01:49 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan McCarn) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:01:49 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Message-ID: <4ec2f9380807301801l7ab44048o3f8a4a3a291d153@mail.gmail.com> Hi Group: I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt of purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. Comments? -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From sjd at swcp.com Wed Jul 30 20:10:49 2008 From: sjd at swcp.com (Steven Dapra) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:10:49 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pancreatic Cancer - Any Record of Uranium Having Caused In-Reply-To: <000001c8f216$5ccefb10$166cf130$@com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20080730190334.009e7c50@mail.swcp.com> July 30 In a news article below, an Army Reserve officer claims that his pancreatic cancer was caused by exposure to depleted uranium while he was in Kuwait. Risk factors for pancreatic cancer are age, smoking, diabetes, being male, being Afro-American, family history, and having chronic pancreatitis. A family history of ovarian or colon cancer is also a risk factor for pancreatic cancer. "Other studies suggest that exposure to certain chemicals in the workplace or a diet high in fat may increase the chance of getting pancreatic cancer." The link is . This is the National Cancer Institute's web site. Steven Dapra At 12:31 AM 7/30/08 -0700, Roger Helbig wrote: [edit] >--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Romi Elnagar wrote: > >From: Romi Elnagar >Subject: [DU-WATCH] Widow's VA claim gaining steam >To: du-watch at yahoogroups.com >Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 2:17 PM > >Widow's VA claim gaining steam >GEORGE WERNETH > >Monday, July 28, 2008 > >A Mobile woman says she was encouraged recently when a Department of >Veterans Affairs appeals judge agreed to review a claim involving her >late husband, who believed that his Army exposure to radiation >triggered his deadly cancer. > >Theresa Orrell said she has been struggling with the VA over her >husband's case for nine years, seeking acknowledgement of the dangers >that he faced, as well as compensation for her family. > >About six weeks before dying in 1999, Lt. Col. William A. Orrell III, >an Army Reserve officer, filed a claim with the VA, certain that his >pancreatic cancer was connected with his encounter with depleted >uranium in Kuwait. He was 56 when he died. > >Last month, an appeals judge, Lisa Barnard, took Orrell's depleted >uranium death claim under advisement after a hearing in Montgomery. A >ruling is expected in six to nine months. > [edit] > >C 2008 Press-Register >C 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved. > >http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46053&hd=&size=1&l=e > >------------------------------------ > >[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]Yahoo! Groups Links > From syd.levine at mindspring.com Wed Jul 30 20:19:29 2008 From: syd.levine at mindspring.com (Syd H. Levine) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:19:29 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU References: <4ec2f9380807301801l7ab44048o3f8a4a3a291d153@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Definitely not. You should send them to Kentucky to me. Just kidding. Syd H. Levine AnaLog Services, Inc. Phone: (270) 276-5671 Telefax: (270) 276-5588 E-mail: analog at logwell.com Web URL: www.logwell.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan McCarn" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:01 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU > Hi Group: > > I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration > sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice > from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt > of > purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. > > Comments? > > -- > Dan W. McCarn > Geologist > > Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 > Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile 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/ From eic at shaw.ca Wed Jul 30 20:32:37 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:32:37 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Hi Al and all, Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, which is too high, even for 0.25%U. Regards. Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "al gerhart" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged > Carpenter terms. > > "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one > wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." > So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out > of the rock itself? > > "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." > Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? > > On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There > is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, > would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. > Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of > the report. > I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to > learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be > determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld > meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure > we got it. > Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide > gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters > except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even > if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? > I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that > should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one > can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against > what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method > and result? > And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the > granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably > mined? > This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. > This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the > entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium > high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. > But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine > granite? > Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for > being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a > Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) > By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 > 5:13 PM > > > From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 23:39:46 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:39:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [Rad_Sci_Health] MiniCAT mini-dose Message-ID: <447560.11706.qm@web23101.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear Jim, I enjoy reading your comments; particularly,those which reveals the biting wit and sarcasm while referring to the omissions and commissions of ICRP, NCRP and others in the regulatory community. I may not be able to support the view that companies want to retain ALARA principles because of some profit motive I shall appreciate your comments on the following: 1. What is the radiation dose below which you will not have any concern about (harmful!) radiation effects(0.5mSv,5 mSv,10 mSv, 50 mSv????) 2. Do you accept the dose limits of ICRP (a) with out ALARA "principle" (b) With ALARA "principle" 3. If you have all the authority to enforce radiation safety what are the possible recommendations? (Preferably in one page?) I welcome the responses from other list members as well. I request the respondents' permission to quote their comments in a feature article I am planning to write. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muckerheide To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose Friends, Here?s another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It?s not just the big medical equipment makers ?waiting in the wings? any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA ?principles? and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of ?radiation safety.? Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT ? CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can?t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars ? allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut ? that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on?because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 ? 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It?s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don?t realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. ?Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child? says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. ?One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.? __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Yahoo! Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Yahoo! Groups Find balance between nutrition, activity & well-being. Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! . __,_._,___ __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From ksparth at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 30 23:44:51 2008 From: ksparth at yahoo.co.uk (parthasarathy k s) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:44:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Your recommendations on dose limits Message-ID: <915602.24854.qm@web23105.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dear lists members, I am resending my earlier message; the only change is in the subject line. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: parthasarathy k s To: Jerry Cuttler ; Jim Muckerheide ; radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; Rad_Sci_Health Sent: Thursday, 31 July, 2008 10:09:46 AM Subject: Re: [Rad_Sci_Health] MiniCAT mini-dose Dear Jim, I enjoy reading your comments; particularly,those which reveals the biting wit and sarcasm while referring to the omissions and commissions of ICRP, NCRP and others in the regulatory community. I may not be able to support the view that companies want to retain ALARA principles because of some profit motive I shall appreciate your comments on the following: 1. What is the radiation dose below which you will not have any concern about (harmful!) radiation effects(0.5mSv,5 mSv,10 mSv, 50 mSv????) 2. Do you accept the dose limits of ICRP (a) with out ALARA "principle" (b) With ALARA "principle" 3. If you have all the authority to enforce radiation safety what are the possible recommendations? (Preferably in one page?) I welcome the responses from other list members as well. I request the respondents' permission to quote their comments in a feature article I am planning to write. Regards K.S.Parthasarathy ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muckerheide To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose Friends, Here?s another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It?s not just the big medical equipment makers ?waiting in the wings? any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA ?principles? and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of ?radiation safety.? Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT ? CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can?t agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars ? allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut ? that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on?because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 ? 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It?s so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don?t realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. ?Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child? says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. ?One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT.? __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Polls | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Yahoo! Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Yahoo! Groups Find balance between nutrition, activity & well-being. Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! . __,_._,___ ________________________________ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 01:31:44 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan McCarn) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:31:44 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <903087.2629.qm@web707.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <4ec2f9380807302331s1a9d4a2ew3520dc041de81f51@mail.gmail.com> Hello Group: Before we go any further in this thread, let me say that the definition of a granite in the dimension stone business and the definition by a geologist are not the same. Apparently pegmatites, migmatites, and schists are likely listed as granites. Perhaps Al can illuminate this dark sector of the dimension stone business. But the next time I go to Verona for the annual world dimension stone exhibition, I'll be sure to care my scintilation counter and perhaps my gamma spectormeter. Perhaps the European Federation of Geologists can send a delegation! Al communicated with me separately that indeed he did have a "white" granite from Namibia which was moderately radioactive. This may likely be an alaskitic (white, quartz-rich) granite possibly associated with the alaskites of the Rossing U deposit. But also, importantly, my estimate of the 0.25% total U from the apparent pegmatite is only supported by the U-235 activity. If this is in error, then my estimate is also in error. It would indeed be interesting to get a total extractable U chemical assay from several samples (hot nitric acid leach) to confirm the amount of U in the rock. But I would also veer away from having an ore-grade piece of rock in the kitchen or dressing-up the floors of my house. Have a good day! Dan ii Dan W McCarn, Geologist Albuquerque & Houston On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Kai Kaletsch wrote: > Hi Al and all, > > Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I > don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first > choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is > important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing > by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. > > 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several > regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower > levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered > 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is > contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the > material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the > exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can > see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations > here: > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie > > Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or > mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a > bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to > Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. > > You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of > uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see > http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the > documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a > pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off > by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or > similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will > see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you > want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, > which is too high, even for 0.25%U. > > Regards. > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "al gerhart" < > webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org> > To: > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:23 PM > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > > > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged >> Carpenter terms. >> >> "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one >> wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." >> So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out >> of the rock itself? >> >> "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." >> Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? >> >> On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There >> is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, >> would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. >> Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of >> the report. >> I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to >> learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be >> determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld >> meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure we >> got it. >> Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide >> gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters >> except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even >> if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? >> I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that >> should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one >> can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against >> what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method and >> result? >> And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the >> granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably >> mined? >> This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. >> This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the >> entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium high >> like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. >> But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine >> granite? >> Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for >> being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a >> Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) >> By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 >> 5:13 PM >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list > > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the > RadSafe rules. These can be found at: > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html > > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings > visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ > -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: HotGreenChile at gmail.com From jc.mora at ciemat.es Thu Jul 31 04:47:59 2008 From: jc.mora at ciemat.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mora_Ca=F1adas_Juan_Carlos?=) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:47:59 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU References: <4ec2f9380807301801l7ab44048o3f8a4a3a291d153@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <84A7FC01A35CFC429F64E62E3EABAA043F30C7@STR.ciemat.es> Dan. The european law has the same exemption levels that you can find at the IAEA BSS (#115), so check there if the activities or specific activities are lower and if so, you should have no problem (as exemption level assures). Anyway I would consult first to the air company in order to accomplish their requirements (if any). Juan Carlos Mora CIEMAT -----Mensaje original----- De: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl en nombre de Dan McCarn Enviado el: jue 31/07/2008 3:01 Para: radsafe at radlab.nl Asunto: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Hi Group: I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt of purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. Comments? -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile 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/ From axel.lindroth at canberra.com Thu Jul 31 05:14:02 2008 From: axel.lindroth at canberra.com (LINDROTH Axel) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:14:02 +0200 Subject: [ RadSafe ] software for making dose budgets Message-ID: <54ABD6EBE81E7341AF92F73D8B8762BC513ADE@bfrcsqymx01.bdom.ad.corp> Hello, Does anyone know some good software for managing dose budgets? WBR, Axel From charlene.vollrath at monserco.com Thu Jul 31 05:17:50 2008 From: charlene.vollrath at monserco.com (Charlene Vollrath) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:17:50 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Message-ID: <200807311015.m6VAFWBS005577@mail305c9.megamailservers.com> Dan Check IATA regs first ? most airlines say no to any radioactives on checked/personal luggage. Charlene Vollrath Health Physics Consultancy Manager Monserco Limited, An EnergySolutions Company T: 905.450.3507 .232 F: 905.450.8523 C: 416.571.2104 E: charlene.vollrath at monserco.com P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. P S.V.P. ne pas imprimer ce courriel ? moins que ce soit absolument requis. - -----Mensaje original Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:47:59 +0200 From: Mora Ca?adas Juan Carlos Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU To: "Dan McCarn" , Message-ID: <84A7FC01A35CFC429F64E62E3EABAA043F30C7 at STR.ciemat.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dan. The european law has the same exemption levels that you can find at the IAEA BSS (#115), so check there if the activities or specific activities are lower and if so, you should have no problem (as exemption level assures). Anyway I would consult first to the air company in order to accomplish their requirements (if any). Juan Carlos Mora CIEMAT - -----Mensaje original----- De: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl en nombre de Dan McCarn Enviado el: jue 31/07/2008 3:01 Para: radsafe at radlab.nl Asunto: [ RadSafe ] Exempt Sources Transport to EU Hi Group: I'm trying to decide if I should try to take my exempt sealed calibration sources for my spectrometer with me to France. I'd appreciate any advice from any EU colleagues. I still have all the paperwork on them (receipt of purchase, etc.). I keep them in a lead shielded container. Comments? - -- Dan W. McCarn Geologist Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622 Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com From brian.riely at ngc.com Thu Jul 31 07:28:00 2008 From: brian.riely at ngc.com (Riely, Brian P.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:28:00 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> Message-ID: <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A544303537B3A@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> Mike I agree that Dr. Graham's scenario is not credible; however, in theory you can cover all of the continental US with one 20-megaton bomb emitted at 200 miles above Kansas. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH) Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:22 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. "They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us." Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?" Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," ... "The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States." The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. "The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams," Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. "So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point. And it wouldn't do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even if you could get through to them." The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"... The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. "You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. "I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack," he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people - about the number that existed in the decades after America's independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.htm l Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is >the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be >exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject >at all. I don't know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research >program at the University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com Thu Jul 31 07:50:25 2008 From: dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com (dckosloff at firstenergycorp.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:50:25 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <01a901c8f2ad$50cf5c50$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: Hi Kai ( I like the sound of that, but I am probably pronouncing it wrong), Al and all, This seems to be related to any discussion of the radioactivity from granite: http://www.junkscience.com/apr01/crstudy.htm "Radiation Sources at the U.S. Capitol and Library of Congress Buildings" Unfortunately, I don't have any granite counter tops. How about marble window ledges? Enjoy, Don Kosloff, License Renewalist 6310 N. Harris Harbor Drive Oak Harbor OH 43449 "Kai Kaletsch" Sent by: To radsafe-bounces at r "al gerhart" adlab.nl , cc 07/30/2008 09:51 PM Subject Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Hi Al and all, Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, which is too high, even for 0.25%U. Regards, Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message. From frantaj at aecl.ca Thu Jul 31 10:14:45 2008 From: frantaj at aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:14:45 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Message-ID: Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. From eic at shaw.ca Thu Jul 31 10:48:51 2008 From: eic at shaw.ca (Kai Kaletsch) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:48:51 -0600 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite References: Message-ID: <024001c8f324$f6c7ca80$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Hi Don (you are pronouncing it right), The problem with the junkscience article is that it makes it sound like elevated radiation levels can only be fount at the Capitol. Around here, 90% of all commercial buildings are made with brown brick, which approximately doubles the background radiation level. Ironically, all the meetings where the antis are condemning the dangers of increasing BG radiation by 0.00...001% are held in these buildings. On the positive side, my kids can find their way to school, even in a good Saskatchewan blizzard, by using a Geiger counter. Regards, Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Kai Kaletsch" Cc: ; ; "al gerhart" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Hi Kai ( I like the sound of that, but I am probably pronouncing it > wrong), > Al and all, > > This seems to be related to any discussion of the radioactivity from > granite: > http://www.junkscience.com/apr01/crstudy.htm > > "Radiation Sources at the U.S. Capitol and Library of Congress Buildings" > > Unfortunately, I don't have any granite counter tops. How about marble > window ledges? > > Enjoy, > Don Kosloff, License Renewalist > 6310 N. Harris Harbor Drive > Oak Harbor OH 43449 > > > > > > "Kai Kaletsch" > > Sent by: To > radsafe-bounces at r "al gerhart" > adlab.nl >, > cc > 07/30/2008 09:51 > PM Subject > Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in > Granite > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Al and all, > > Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I > don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first > choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it > is > important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing > by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. > > 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several > regulations > dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For > example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source > material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained > in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material > from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the > exporter > > didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our > Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: > http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie > > Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or > mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a > bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to > Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. > > You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of > uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see > http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the > documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a > pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be > off > by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or > similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will > see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless > (you > want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, > which is too high, even for 0.25%U. > > Regards, > Kai > > Kai Kaletsch > Environmental Instruments Canada Inc > > ----------------------------------------- > The information contained in this message is intended only for the > personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If > the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an > agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you > are hereby notified that you have received this document in error > and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of > this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete > the original message. > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.8/1582 - Release Date: 7/30/2008 > 6:37 PM > > > From GEOelectronics at netscape.com Thu Jul 31 11:00:57 2008 From: GEOelectronics at netscape.com (Geo>K0FF) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:00:57 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? References: Message-ID: <03cc01c8f326$acb4b550$31e0a4ac@your4dacd0ea75> Chlorine is used to purify graphite during manufacture, in a reactor the residual chlorine becomes activated to Cl-36. The T/2 is 301 thousand years. George Dowell New London Nucleonics Lab ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:14 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From idias at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jul 31 11:05:04 2008 From: idias at interchange.ubc.ca (John R Johnson) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:05:04 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jaro It must be from neutrons on stable Cl-35. Chlorine has 2 stable isotopes, Cl-35 (~75%) and Cl-37 (~25%). All of the Cl-36 (halflife ~ 40000years) produced will still be there. John *************** John R Johnson, PhD CEO, IDIAS, Inc. 4535 West 9th Ave 604-676-3556 Vancouver, B. C. V6R 2E2, Canada idias at interchange.ubc.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:14 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ 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/ From Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 31 11:28:03 2008 From: Arvic.Harms at npl.co.uk (Arvic Harms) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:28:03 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Jaro, I guess neutron activation of Cl-35 present in graphite. There are some other pathways involving neutron activation of K-39 and S-34, but these are probably less important. Kind regards, Arvic Harms National Physical Laboratory UK > -----Original Message----- > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On > Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav > Sent: 31 July 2008 16:15 > To: Radsafe (E-mail) > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? > > > Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from > old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? > Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 > MBq/kg from Cl-36. > > Thanks in advance. > > Jaro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE > > This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that > is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. > Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, > dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information > may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. > > AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E > > Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de > l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits > d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, > divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations > non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e > envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > From Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV Thu Jul 31 12:40:43 2008 From: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV (Brennan, Mike (DOH)) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:40:43 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs In-Reply-To: <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A544303537B3A@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> References: <32237546.1217437055623.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B14@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> <9FF47122AC4B4246B37DF24ACF7A544303537B3A@XMBIL141.northgrum.com> Message-ID: <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D101B18@dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl> I stand corrected on the number of weapons needed (though making a missile-deliverable 20 MT weapon is a non-trivial challenge, even compared to a missile-deliverable 20 KT weapon). -----Original Message----- From: Riely, Brian P. [mailto:brian.riely at ngc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:28 AM To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Mike I agree that Dr. Graham's scenario is not credible; however, in theory you can cover all of the continental US with one 20-megaton bomb emitted at 200 miles above Kansas. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH) Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:22 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 9:58 AM To: rhelbig at california.com; radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs I'm so glad Rosalie is concentrating on the important stuff... like HAARP, and contrails and house pets... Who cares about those rapscallion Iranians and their EMP plans... -----Original U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S. Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:00 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman ...In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend... Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community "doesn't have a story" to explain the recent Iranian tests. One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea. "They've got [test] ranges in Iran which are more than long enough to handle Scud launches and even Shahab-3 launches," Dr. Graham said. "Why would they be launching from the surface of the Caspian Sea? They obviously have not explained that to us." Another troubling group of tests involved Shahab-3 launches where the Iranians "detonated the warhead near apogee, not over the target area where the thing would eventually land, but at altitude," Graham said. "Why would they do that?" Graham chairs the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, a blue-ribbon panel established by Congress...commission examined the Iranian tests "and without too much effort connected the dots," ... "The only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to altitude and then detonate it," he said. "And that's exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear weapon on a Scud or a Shahab-3 or other missile, and you wanted to explode it over the United States." The commission warned in a report issued in April that the United States was at risk of a sneak nuclear attack by a rogue nation or a terrorist group designed to take out our nation's critical infrastructure. "If even a crude nuclear weapon were detonated... above the earth, in a split-second it would generate an electro-magnetic pulse [EMP] that would cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure," the report warned. While not causing immediate civilian casualties, the near-term impact on U.S. society would dwarf the damage of a direct nuclear strike on a U.S. city. "The first indication [of such an attack] would be that the power would go out, and some, but not all, the telecommunications would go out. ... As electric power, water and gas delivery systems failed, there would be "truly massive traffic jams," Graham added, since modern automobiles and signaling systems all depend on sophisticated electronics that would be disabled by the EMP wave. "So you would be walking. You wouldn't be driving at that point. And it wouldn't do any good to call the maintenance or repair people because they wouldn't be able to get there, even if you could get through to them." The food distribution system also would grind to a halt as cold-storage warehouses stockpiling perishables went offline. Even warehouses equipped with backup diesel generators would fail, because "we wouldn't be able to pump the fuel into the trucks and get the trucks to the warehouses,"... The United States "would quickly revert to an early 19th century type of country." except that we would have 10 times as many people with ten times fewer resources, he said..... Asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing, Graham gave a chilling reply. "You have to go back into the 1800s to look at the size of population" that could survive in a nation deprived of mechanized agriculture, transportation, power, water, and communication. "I'd have to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable after this kind of attack," he said. America would be reduced to a core of around 30 million people - about the number that existed in the decades after America's independence from Great Britain. The modern electronic economy would shut down, and America would most likely revert to "an earlier economy based on barter," the EMP commission's report on Critical National Infrastructure concluded earlier this year... http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nuclear_plan/2008/07/29/117217.htm l Oh wait, that's what the Global Warming folks want, no wonder Obamassiah is their candidate, since he doesn't want to spend money on a missile defense system. Radmax the denier Yuma, AZ Message----- >From: Roger Helbig >Sent: Jul 30, 2008 5:39 AM >To: Radsafe >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Rosalie Bertell - Knew Little about Radiation, Now into HAARP > >If any of the list members who are French would care to reply, here is >the link that I got from Google Alerts. She certainly deserves to be >exposed as a has been and phony with no real knowledge of the subject >at all. I don't know why she has decided to take on the HAARP research >program at the University of Alaska. > > > >Roger Helbig > _______________________________________________ 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/ From ograabe at ucdavis.edu Thu Jul 31 13:29:50 2008 From: ograabe at ucdavis.edu (Otto Raabe) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:29:50 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Prostate Cancer Linked to Diagnostic X-rays In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200807311846.m6VIjcNS011711@mx2.ucdavis.edu> July 31, 2008 AS REPORTED BY NEWSMAX.COM: Prostate Cancer Linked to X-Rays British researchers have linked prostate cancer with X-rays. A study conducted by the University of Nottingham shows a connection between diagnostic radiation and elevated risk of young-onset prostate cancer, which affects about ten percent of men diagnosed. Young-onset prostate cancer is by definition found in men before the age of sixty. The study included 431 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It showed that men who had typical diagnostic X-rays in the form of barium enemas or X-rays of the pelvis or hip in the previous ten years, were two and a half times more likely to be stricken with prostate cancer than the population at large. In men with a family history of the disease, the link appeared even stronger. The study also emphasized that the evidence that ties X-rays to prostate cancer is still weak at this stage. Professor Kenneth Muir, who led the study, said, "Although these results show some increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who had previously had certain radiological medical tests, we want to reassure men that the absolute risks are small and there is no proof that the radiological tests actually caused any of the cancers." 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 From radmax at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 14:52:27 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:52:27 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] EMPs credibility Message-ID: <9417072.1217533948050.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Brian, no one thought 19 twits could enter the US, take flight training for months, hijack 4 airliners with only box cutters and then kill over 3000 people and reak havok on the scale of 9-11 before that happened either! I'ld rather they try to forcast the incredible than miss the possible. I personally have thought of several ways a dedicated small group (20) could do a repeat without ANY special tech and without getting caught, killing thousands and costing trillions... and it scares the stuffing out of me to think THEY might figure these things out. One just has to look at the recent salmonella scare. Mike, Doug, George... Not my field of expertise, but... from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse According to an internet primer published by the Federation of American Scientists[2] A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth's magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently. The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400?500 km (250 to 312 miles) over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point. According to the accompaning wiki graphs: A: a device delivered 400 km over North Dakota would deliver a 25,000 v/m EM pulse to most of the continental US (Red states) due to the earth's magnetic field. B: a device with a nominal 10 kt promt gamma (approx 100 kt total yield) detonated at 300 km would generate 50,000 v/m, 4 kA/m at ground zero. C: a SINGLE device detonated 300 miles over Kansas would affect the entire continental US and a good portion of Canada and Mexico... almost 3000 miles diameter... We're talking NO unhardened computers or electronics, no GPS, Aircraft falling out of the sky, no financial systems, no electricity, etc... The American 1.4 Mt Starfish test at 400-km, on 9 July 1962, induced large EMP currents in the overhead wires of 30 strings of Oahu streetlights, each string having 10 lights (300 streetlights in all). The induced current was sufficient to blow the fuses. EMP currents in the power lines set off ?hundreds? of household burglar alarms and opened many power line circuit breakers. On the island of Kauai, EMP closed down telephone calls to the other islands despite the 1962 sturdy relay (electromechanical) telephone technology, by damaging the equipment in a microwave link: Oahu was over 1300 km away from Starfish ground zero. http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html (A VERY SCARY READ!!! ) Can you say 'Stone Age'? Sure, I knew you could... This was 1962, there were NO micro-electronics then. I have seen a 2004 computer's modem and a weather station's power supply fried from a lightning strike 10 miles from the SURGE PROTECTED data line buried in the dry Arizona desert out in the middle of nowhere. According to a 2006 Congressional report titled "High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and High Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: Threat Assessments" http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32544.pdf ... even a single, specially designed low-yield nuclear explosion high above the United States, or over a battlefield, can produce a large-scale EMP effect that could result in a widespread loss of electronics, but no direct deaths, and may not necessarily evoke a large nuclear retaliatory strike by the U.S. military. This, coupled with the possible vulnerability of U.S. commercial electronics and U.S. military battlefield equipment to the effects of EMP, may create a new incentive for other countries to develop or acquire a nuclear capability. GEORGE, as far as I'm concerned, I want a Patriot System on every street corner WORLDWIDE. DOUG, In an article titled, "Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars," an Iranian Military journal explains how an attack on America's electronic infrastructure, would bring the country to its knees. ("Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars," Nashriyeh e Siasi Nezami, 1999.) In 2001, this same journal stated ?Terrorist information warfare [includes] using the technology of directed energy weapons (DEW) or electromagnetic pulse (EMP).? After breezing thru FAS's primer page on EMP ( http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm ) and the rest of the above sources, this scares the shiite out of me. Is that credible enough for you? Again, not my field, argue the math and politics with them. Radmax -----Original Message----- From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" Sent: Jul 30, 2008 2:21 PM To: radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs So, the United States has a surface area of call it 10,000,000 km^2. Lets say that only 1% needs to be EMPed achieve Dr. Graham's back-to-basics vision (I actually doubt you could get such a techno-kill even with 100% coverage, but I am being generous). That means you need to cover 100,000 km^2 with warheads. Let's say you have weapons that would get the pulse you want over a circle 10 km in radius (I suspect that is generous, but I don't actually know). That means you need about 320 weapons and delivery systems. Given the spread of the targets and the range of the weapons, you would need a number of ships to launch them, including at least a couple in the Great Lakes. While our intelligence community has on occasions missed things they should have spotted, I find it difficult that an operation of this size would slip by. I find his scenario less than credible. -----Original Message----- From: "Riely, Brian P." Sent: Jul 31, 2008 5:28 AM To: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" , radsafe at radlab.nl Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Mike I agree that Dr. Graham's scenario is not credible; however, in theory you can cover all of the continental US with one 20-megaton bomb emitted at 200 miles above Kansas. From radmax at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 14:54:08 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:54:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs Message-ID: <26088125.1217534048777.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Maybe not trivial Mike, but they (Iran) have already accomplished it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3 2,200 lbs to 1300 miles, portable launcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadr-110 potentially 3000km, 30 minute setup, also portable launcher In 1963, the former USSR fielded the R-21 submarine launched ICBM with a 1 Mt warhead weighing 1.2 tons, just over the Shahab-3 capacity... I imagine it weighs alot less without the re-entry shielding. By 1980, the Sov's had a 500 Mt device weighing ONLY 0.45 tons with re-entry shielding. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rockets_slbm.html It's starting to sound very credible to me. Again it may be trivial compared to Russian or US capabilities, but a match can do just as much damage as a blowtorch... Radmax -----Original Message----- >From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" >Sent: Jul 31, 2008 10:40 AM >To: radsafe at radlab.nl >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs > >I stand corrected on the number of weapons needed (though making a >missile-deliverable 20 MT weapon is a non-trivial challenge, even >compared to a missile-deliverable 20 KT weapon). > From sperle at mirion.com Thu Jul 31 15:57:33 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:57:33 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Did anyone receive my news distribution yesterday title - Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in MO Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C056085B3@gdses.corp.gds.com> I sent this out twice yesterday PDT and have not received it back. Would like to know if anyone received it on Radsafe. If not, is there a system problem with E-Mail delivery? Thanks, Sandy ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net Thu Jul 31 16:18:52 2008 From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:18:52 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Prostate Cancer Linked to Diagnostic X-rays Message-ID: <073120082118.15111.48922C3C000B30C800003B072216549976B9B2B1B4D2BBADBEA9B1B8@comcast.net> Common cause, rather than cause-effect is more likely with the young men's prostate cancer association with x-rays of hip, colon etc. Testosterone increases both. Risk sports increase hip x-rays. Aggressiveness disrupts the colon. Also, the animal and cell experiments of Pollycove, Bobby Scott and others show the opposite: less cancer with more x-ray (up to 10-20 x usual background. I'd want to stimulate the body defenses in my spleen with 75 rem 2x/week for a month if I had a prostate cancer. Watch for an article soon by Cuttler and Pollycove. Howard Long MD MPH (epidemiology) -------------- Original message -------------- From: Otto Raabe > July 31, 2008 > > AS REPORTED BY NEWSMAX.COM: > > Prostate Cancer Linked to X-Rays > > British researchers have linked prostate cancer with X-rays. A study > conducted by the University of Nottingham shows a connection between > diagnostic radiation and elevated risk of young-onset prostate > cancer, which affects about ten percent of men diagnosed. Young-onset > prostate cancer is by definition found in men before the age of sixty. > > The study included 431 men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It showed > that men who had typical diagnostic X-rays in the form of barium > enemas or X-rays of the pelvis or hip in the previous ten years, were > two and a half times more likely to be stricken with prostate cancer > than the population at large. In men with a family history of the > disease, the link appeared even stronger. > > The study also emphasized that the evidence that ties X-rays to > prostate cancer is still weak at this stage. Professor Kenneth Muir, > who led the study, said, "Although these results show some increase > in the risk of developing prostate cancer in men who had previously > had certain radiological medical tests, we want to reassure men that > the absolute risks are small and there is no proof that the > radiological tests actually caused any of the cancers." > > > 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/ From edmond0033 at comcast.net Thu Jul 31 16:37:56 2008 From: edmond0033 at comcast.net (Edmond Baratta) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:37:56 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? References: Message-ID: <001201c8f355$b312c2a0$6501a8c0@OWNER84J1T8A8N> I believe it is from Cl- 35 (Stable) (n, gamma) Cl-36. Ed Baratta edmond0033 at comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Franta, Jaroslav" To: "Radsafe (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:14 AM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Cl-36 in Graphite wastes ?? Anyone here know the origin of Cl-36 in graphite wastes from old (decommissioned) graphite-moderated reactors ? Reportedly, the graphite contains an activity of roughly 1 MBq/kg from Cl-36. Thanks in advance. Jaro ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVIL?GI?E Le pr?sent courriel, et toute pi?ce jointe, peut contenir de l'information qui est confidentielle, r?gie par les droits d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations non autoris?es de l'information ou d?pendance non autoris?e envers celle-ci peut ?tre ill?gale et est strictement interdite. _______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/ From hotgreenchile at gmail.com Thu Jul 31 19:08:22 2008 From: hotgreenchile at gmail.com (Dan W McCarn) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:08:22 -0500 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite In-Reply-To: <021c01c8f300$e201af90$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> References: <337771.2506.qm@web706.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <021c01c8f300$e201af90$6401a8c0@userf94bb99e2f> Message-ID: <01bb01c8f36a$b76f8080$264e8180$@com> Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA HotGreenChile at gmail.com UConcentrate at gmail.com Dear Group, Kai & Al: Back to basics, and a little simplified, but what the heck! Primary mineralized uranium is usually the reduced species uraninite, UO2, also known as pitchblende. When uraninite comes in contact with oxidizing groundwater, the redox state changes rapidly from +4 to +6. Normally, oxidized uranyl species UO2 +2 reacts with groundwater to form the highly soluble solid species UO2(OH)2 H2O (Schoepite) and then to form carbonate anionic aqueous species e.g. UO2(CO3)2 -2 or UO2(CO3)3 -4 because of the high abundance of bicarbonate (HCO3-) in oxidizing natural groundwater conditions.? This includes the range of pH from about 6.2 ? >10.? Below a pH of 6.2 the neutral aqueous species, UO2(CO3)2 0 forms. So, at a pH of 7, the dominate form of aqueous uranyl species is UO2(CO3)2 -2. When solution mining, this species is concentrated in anion exchange resins (bumps Cl -1 off) and the pH is maintained close to 7 to optimize the bicarbonate complexation of uranyl. How much concentration? Up to several hundred mg/L U concentration depending on the bicarbonate ion concentration. Sometimes NaHCO3 is added to enhance the groundwater's ability to complex uranium. Because the kinetics are quite good, the reaction goes pretty fast. Note: rain water, equilibrated to atmospheric CO2 and O2 is easily able to rapidly mobilize uraninite (UO2) forming quite a nice, mildly acid leaching solution of pH = about 5.6. As a geologist, this is quite exciting, and I can only add, "Yippee". Dan ii From: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic at shaw.ca] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:31 AM To: al gerhart Cc: Dan W McCarn Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Uranium is usually pretty mobile and either acids of bases will leach it. Even if you just dig up the ore and leave it sitting outside, the oxygen and water are enough to leach it and you will find a yellow crust on the bottom of the rocks or a yellow stain leading to the floor drain after a few years. ? I meant that you could back calculate U content from dose rate (not for risk assessment). 3.5 mR/hr still sounds a bit too high (but more realistic than 10.5). On a large thick slab, that would correspond to ~ 0.5?%U. If I remember correctly, pancake detectors tend to read high on U ore (even if you shield out the alphas and betas). So, your pancake reading?could be reasonably consistent with the 0.25% from Dan's calculation. On a smaller piece of ore, you need a higher U concentration to get the same dose rate. How thick was the slab and how big was the hot area? ? Regards, Kai ----- Original Message ----- From: al gerhart To: Kai Kaletsch Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite Hi Kai, ? I've heard that Uranium can leach out with water or slightly acidic liquids,? Professor Nussebaum brought it to our attention.? Good to hear another voice on the issue.? We will look into it.? I understand that a lead test swab will react to the Uranium as if it is lead, but are there Uranium swabs that don't react to lead content? ? Or do we have to use acid and precipitate it out??? Then have it measured.? I talked to a local chemist we have done work for and he recommended lab if need be. ? This is indeed getting very political and commercial on some levels, no one is spending this much time and effort without something rewarding their risk.? Let's face it, nothing gets done without an interested party on some level.? But, if the concerns are valid, then it matters little the motivation, just be glad someone stepped up and took a shot at it. ? As to the other stakeholders, they were shown reports just like this long ago along with a request that it be looked into.? Once was a huge stone company, the other time it was a PhD level Professor.? Nothing got done.? Too much money at stake. ? Regulation, yes, we would love to have the protection you guys were smart enough to pass.? As it is, not many countries will allow this stuff to be imported, so America becomes the dumping ground for too hot material. ? What a great idea on using the low level granite to provide a baseline!? Why didn't I think of that?? We will do just that. ? I will use your calculator for the risk assessment.? I need to take the time to learn more about the Geometry aspect of radiation measurements, soaking up a little on Geiger Counter Enthusiasts and the other Rad groups of George Dowel. ? The high reading is total radiation, 12.5 or so before we chopped up the slab into samples for the five scientists that are studying it.? I used a piece of ?paper for an Alpha shield, got 10.5 mR if I remember right.? I didn't have any aluminum, but I used 1/8" of plastic for a Beta shield and got around 3.5 mR/hr. ? All measurements were taken with a LENi Geiger counter (George Dowel sells them) with a pancake probe, with about 8 or 9 mm standoff.?? I've got the measurements in cpm too, or multiply ?the results by 600 to get a close idea. ? Thanks for the info, it has been invaluable.? I'll post this tomorrow on Radsafe, wanted to thank you personally for the time and effort. ? Thanks, AL Kai Kaletsch wrote: Hi Al and all, Aside from any incremental increase in radon or gamma exposure (which I don't tend to get too excited about), 0.25% U ore would NOT be my first choice of food preparation surface. If those numbers are correct, then it is important that a sample of the same material be made available for testing by the other stake holders in this (by now somewhat politicized) issue. 0.25% U is quite high and, at least in Canada, there are several regulations dealing with radioactive materials that kick in at much lower levels. For example, 0.05% U (5 times lower than your rock) is considered 'source material' and is a 'controlled nuclear substance' (even if it is contained in a granite countertop) and a license is required to export the material from Canada. So, if your slab of granite came from Canada, and the exporter didn't approach our nuclear regulator to get a license ... You can see our Nuclear Non-proliferation Import and Export Control Regulations here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-28.3/sor-2000-210/153934.html?noCookie Before, you asked if there is a quick and dirty way of getting from cpm or mR/Hr to ppm. You can get in the right ballpark if you take readings on a bunch of normal granite, average the readings, assume that corresponds to Dan's value of ~ 10 ppm and scale the result of your sample. You can also calculate a dose rate for a given geometry as a function of uranium content. I have a program on my website that does this (see http://members.shaw.ca/eic/Tools/JavaShield/Index.html , read the documentation and use the rectangular source geometry). If you are using a pancake probe, these are not energy compensated and your reading will be off by a bit. More importantly, make sure you put ~ 1 mm sheet of aluminum (or similar) between the source and the pancake. Otherwise, your detector will see alpha and beta radiation and your mR/Hr reading will be meaningless (you want to see gamma). That is probably how you got your 10.5 mR/Hr reading, which is too high, even for 0.25%U. Regards. Kai Kai Kaletsch Environmental Instruments Canada Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "al gerhart" To: Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radon Travel in Granite > Okay, let me ask some questions in carpenter terms, math challenged > Carpenter terms. > > "1) In "ordinary" dry soils, the emanation power is 0.2-0.3, and if one > wants to be really conservative, one should set as much as 0.5." > So that would be 2% to 5% of the Radon getting out of the grain, or out > of the rock itself? > > "In wet soil (10% water m/m) the emanation power can be doubled." > Radon transferred by dissolving in water? Fluid movement? > > On the lab samples, I have no idea how they were prepared, sorry. There > is a phone number on the report and they are quite friendly and helpful, > would be very interested in hearing any info on this matter, good or bad. > Well, that doesn't sound right, how about supportive or non supportive of > the report. > I have purchased a Gamma Spectrometer, older model. Looking forward to > learning how to use it correctly, interesting that so much info can be > determined with Gamma Spectrometry. I got the shortcomings of the handheld > meters, especially those that we are using. Thanks though for making sure > we got it. > Now here is something I can't figure out. No doubt it will show a wide > gap in my understanding of decay chains. I see Radium, I see daughters > except for Radon. If much of the Radon produced is trapped inside, or even > if some of it is trapped inside, why is there no data for Radon? > I think I am following Dan's info, he is using the equilibrium that > should be present in the decay products, using the U-253 known value, one > can deduct a possible value for u-238. Then that value is checked against > what the lab report gives for Ra-226 as a method of verifying the method > and result? > And the end to all this is one quarter of one percent uranium in the > granite? 1 in 400? 2,000 ppm = 1 in 500? And 80 ppm could be profitably > mined? > This is Juparana Bordeaux, pretty costly. > This report was on a hot spot that was cored, does not represent the > entire slab. Sometimes only one or two hot spots, sometimes all medium > high like Niagara Gold, with the occasional hotter spot. > But, that spot was about 36 times higher than an average Rossing mine > granite? > Geezzzz, I just want to sell countertops without setting myself up for > being sued years later. Looks like a Physics degree, advanced math, and a > Geologist degree needs to be completed first :) > By the way, who was looking into toxic countertops? > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 7/28/2008 > 5:13 PM > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.8/1582 - Release Date: 7/30/2008 6:37 PM From radmax at earthlink.net Thu Jul 31 20:17:42 2008 From: radmax at earthlink.net (Richard D. Urban Jr.) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs correction Message-ID: <29160311.1217553462298.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Chris, it was 3am when I initially wrote it... took it directly from the russianspaceweb.com table without questioning... Correct yield for 1980 Soviet R-31 SLBM was 0.5 Mt to 1 Mt http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-31-specs.htm, http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r31.htm weight is still correct at around 0.45 tons. Regardless, still an easily deliverable device for the Shahab, with enough yield to put alot of us into the stone age. radmax -----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Van Den Bergen >Sent: Jul 31, 2008 7:26 PM >To: "Richard D. Urban Jr." >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs > >500 Mt you say? Why exactly would you need one of them? > >Chris van den Bergen >OHSE Consultant >Clayton, Vic > From sontermj at tpg.com.au Thu Jul 31 21:19:16 2008 From: sontermj at tpg.com.au (Mark Sonter) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:19:16 +1000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: tailings cover for gamma attenuation In-Reply-To: <200807311917.m6VJHdYT017833@mail8.tpg.com.au> References: <200807311917.m6VJHdYT017833@mail8.tpg.com.au> Message-ID: <489272A4.3020308@tpg.com.au> Hi all, Does anyone out there in Radsafe Land have good, preferably experimental, info on the Half-Value Layer for sand or soil capping over thorium-bearing tailings from mineral processing plants (either mineral sands dry plants or rare earths extraction plants)?? The thickness required *for gamma attenuation* is likely to be greater than for uranium tails because of the dominant 2.6 MeV from Thallium versus the 609 keV from Bismuth 214... Dan McCarn? Phil Edigi?? Dr Parthasarathy? Anybody else?? Cheers, 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 > From LNMolino at aol.com Thu Jul 31 21:55:39 2008 From: LNMolino at aol.com (Louis N. Molino, Sr.) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:55:39 +0000 Subject: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs correction Message-ID: <1238868089-1217559337-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1364254984-@bxe151.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> What's the flight time for this? LNM from Baku, Azerbaijan ------Original Message------ From: Richard D. Urban Jr. Sender: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl To: Radsafe To: Christopher.Van-Den-Bergen at adm.monash.edu.au ReplyTo: Richard D. Urban Jr. Sent: Aug 1, 2008 06:17 Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs correction Chris, it was 3am when I initially wrote it... took it directly from the russianspaceweb.com table without questioning... Correct yield for 1980 Soviet R-31 SLBM was 0.5 Mt to 1 Mt http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-31-specs.htm, http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r31.htm weight is still correct at around 0.45 tons. Regardless, still an easily deliverable device for the Shahab, with enough yield to put alot of us into the stone age. radmax -----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Van Den Bergen >Sent: Jul 31, 2008 7:26 PM >To: "Richard D. Urban Jr." >Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] HAARPy Rosalie and EMPs > >500 Mt you say? Why exactly would you need one of them? > >Chris van den Bergen >OHSE Consultant >Clayton, Vic > _______________________________________________ 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/ Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T From fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jul 29 10:17:30 2008 From: fred-dawson at blueyonder.co.uk (Fred Dawson) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:30 +0100 Subject: [ RadSafe ] ICRP Application of the Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of Individuals Living in Long Term Contaminated Territories after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency" Message-ID: <001801c8f18e$38662f10$a9328d30$@co.uk> >From the ICRP " Application of the Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of Individuals Living in Long Term Contaminated Territories after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency" This draft, which is now posted here for public consultation, is a companion document to the draft on emergency exposure situations, on which ICRP is consulting from 21 May to 8 August. The present draft however discusses such issues as the transition from an emergency to a 'post-accident rehabilitation' phase, the strategies to achieve levels of exposure comparable to those in normal situations, and the direct involvement of exposed persons in their own protection. Whilst the draft was developed with a view to long-term contamination after an accident or incident, many aspects may also be broadly applicable to other existing exposure situations. The draft report can be downloaded here http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/remissvar.asp In order for ICRP to be able to take your comments into account, we need to have them no later than Monday 13 October." Fred Dawson New Malden England From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 30 10:48:39 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:48:39 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in MO Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C056084A3@gdses.corp.gds.com> Index: Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities ------------------------------------- Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. AmerenUE applied Monday to federal nuclear regulators for a license to build and operate a potential new nuclear power plant in Callaway County. The St. Louis-based utility filed an 8,000-page license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a reactor adjacent to Ameren's existing nuclear facility, the Callaway Plant, outside of Fulton. Ameren said it has not decided to build a second nuclear plant, but wanted to preserve that option if the need arose. Also, applying now puts Ameren in a position to seek federal loan guarantees and production tax credits created by the federal energy law of 2005. Ameren said its 1,190-megawatt electric generating plant at Callaway accounts for 19 percent of the utility's total generation. It came online in December 1984. AmerenUE president Thomas Voss said greater demand for power in Missouri in the next two decades will require the utility to have a large generating plant online by 2018. The company said it hopes to decide by 2010 whether to proceed with the plant. Voss said Ameren will continue to encourage development of renewable energy sources and help customers reduce consumption and demand. "But going forward, we will also need nuclear energy from our existing Callaway unit and possibly from a second unit at Callaway," he said. Ameren said it wants to pursue a possible nuclear plant because it wouldn't produce greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause climate change. But some environmentalists say the benefit is offset by the problem of safely storing the process' nuclear waste. Ameren spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said the Callaway plant's waste is safely stored in secure pools onsite. She said some European nuclear plants reuse the waste to generate more power. Commercial nuclear power plants now produce some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but concern about waste disposal has hampered the industry's growth. Nevada's Yucca Mountain, billed as the nation's first nuclear waste repository, originally was supposed to open in 1998 but has been beset by lawsuits and political and scientific controversies, and cost overruns. The best-possible opening date is now 2020. Earlier this month, a second nuclear reactor at AmerenUE's Callaway plant was the focus of an NRC-hosted public forum in Fulton. Advocates touted Callaway's safety record and a jobs windfall from a second plant. Opponents said they want Ameren Corp., the utility's corporate parent, to more aggressively pursue alternative and renewable energy options. The company then known as Union Electric initially planned a second nuclear reactor at the Callaway County site. That plan was scrapped after a grass-roots effort opposing the Callaway project led Missouri voters in 1976 to decisively approve a law prohibiting state utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built. Persuading state lawmakers to overturn that restriction is a top priority for Ameren in the next legislative session. Should that fail, the company likely won't build a second reactor but instead pursue more costly natural gas generators. Ameren expects the new reactor to cost at least $6 billion, or $9 billion with financing -- roughly the entire value of the parent corporation. Scott Burnell, spokesman for the NRC, said it will take a month for staff to ensure Ameren's application is complete. Once the application is accepted for review, the NRC will alert the public that it can raise challenges within 60 days. Ameren's application will be reviewed on technical and regulatory grounds. The whole process takes roughly 42 months, Burnell said. ---------- NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE (AGI) - Helsinki, 30 July - A small fire broke out on the grounds of a third-generation nuclear site under construction in Finland, but was put out a few hours later without endangering the population in anyway. Reports were from Teolisuuden Voima (TVO), the Scandinavian country's power company which manages the plant. The fire, which did not result in any injuries, broke out in the Olkiluoto plant in south-eastern Finland, where the German Siemens and the French Areva are building the first reactor in the world running on pressurized water. At the time of the fire, work was not underway, and damage was limited to scaffolding and some building materials. The reactor, which is expected to be ready for 2011, will be the fifth in Finland and the third in the Olkiluoto plant. -------------- 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated GRENOBLE, France - About 100 employees were evacuated from a nuclear site in southern France on Tuesday after an alarm went off accidentally, the power plant said. The false alarm at the Tricastin nuclear complex followed two other incidents there in less than a month -- a leak of unenriched uranium and the release of radioactive particles from a pipe. The incidents have raised concerns in heavily nuclear-dependent France. Stephanie Biabaut, a spokeswoman for the plant near the city of Avignon, said the alarm went off accidentally Tuesday, and medical tests showed that personnel were not contaminated. There was some confusion earlier, however, as site engineer Jean Girardi had said medical tests found "extremely weak traces of radioactivity" on two people checked following the alarm. He also said the alarm was apparently set off by a minor leak of radioactive particles. French electric company EdF, which runs the plant, declined to explain Girardi's comments but insisted the case was merely a false alarm. The CGT trade union said the two cases of radioactivity cited by Girardi dated back to a July 23 incident in which radioactive particles spewed from a pipe, slightly contaminating 100 employees. In another incident on July 7, liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a Tricastin factory into two nearby rivers. France is among the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world, with 59 reactors churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity. But the recent incidents at Tricastin have prompted questions about the still-secretive state-run nuclear industry and given fodder to anti-nuclear activists. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has said the incidents were minor, but ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants. --------- More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes A Canadian panel has called for more nuclear reactors to be set up to ensure uninterrupted supply of radioisotopes and also a better communication mechanism among the agencies involved. The shutdown of the National Research Universal nuclear reactor at Chalk River in November 2007 had sparked off a near crisis in the nuclear medicine community. The reactor, which provides two-thirds of the world's radioisotopes, stopped supplying nuclear material essential for medical imaging and diagnostic scans for fractures, cancers and heart conditions. It was restarted on December 16. A group of health specialists, including experts from the field of nuclear medicine, was convened by Health Canada in December 2007 during the prolonged shutdown. The group was conveying to the government its assessment of the impact of the isotope shortage. Once the reactor was restarted and the supply of medical isotopes returned to normal, the group began work on lessons learned from the situation. In their report released Monday, the doctors write how they were in the dark when the Chalk River nuclear reactor halted production of medical isotopes late last year, a critical oversight that put patients at risk. Doctors say they were forced to delay diagnostic and treatment procedures for patients across the country when the supply of isotopes dried up last December. And not knowing how long the isotope shortage would last, they were forced to decide whether to proceed with other procedures for their patients that carried more risk or would be less accurate. ---------- Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines DOLNI ROZINKA, Czech Republic, July 30 (Reuters) - Renewed interest in nuclear power and high uranium prices may extend the life of Czech uranium mines or even reopen closed deposits, said the head of the country's sole, state-owned miner Diamo. The centre-right cabinet of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek gave the ailing industry a boost last year, allowing Diamo to explore uranium reserves at its only remaining mine in Dolni Rozinka, 180 km (113 miles) east of Prague. "We have completed the first three drill holes," Diamo Director Jiri Jez told Reuters in an interview. "It is hard to say what the reserves are now ... but we keep discovering new reserves so it may happen that we will operate here beyond 2012, maybe until 2015," he said. The Rozinka mine has some 700 tonnes of proven uranium reserves left, enough to keep it open at least until 2010. The new exploration should be largely completed by the year-end. The industry has been on the brink of extinction since the 1989 collapse of the Communist regime, which in its hey-days in the 1950s forced tens of thousands of political opponents, held under harsh conditions in labour camps, to extract the radioactive ore for export to the Soviet Union. But record high oil prices and fear of Russian energy supremacy put energy security high on the agenda in Europe, bringing resources such as uranium back in favour. The Czech move mirrors rising interest in exploration by fellow EU members such as Romania, which plans to double uranium output this year. Bulgaria will decide this autumn whether to grant new permits after closing its mines in the 1990s. Spot prices of uranium, used to fuel nuclear plants, hit a record $136 per pound last June. They have since slipped to $64.50, according to Ux Consulting, a leading publisher of uranium prices, but still remain high above the $10-$15 level seen for years before the peak. Some 263 tonnes of uranium were extracted from the Rozinka mine last year and output of 230 tonnes is planned for 2008. Uranium coming from waste processing at another location should put Diamo's total production at 310 tonnes this year, Jez said. Although a fraction of the maximum 3,036 tonnes per year seen in the late 1950s, the current figures still put the Czechs in 12th place in the world behind South Africa and ahead of Brazil, according to the World Nuclear Association. Diamo's output covers roughly one third of Czech power firm CEZ's needs of 700 tonnes a year. KEY DEPOSIT OUT OF REACH FOR NOW Jez said a huge deposit of some 115,000 tonnes at Diamo's northern mine of Straz pod Ralskem, closed since 1996, was out of reach in the near future due to resistance by the Greens, a junior government member, as well as by neighbouring villages. This might change, however, with next general election in 2010, Jez hopes, given CEZ's plans to expand its nuclear assets. "This is a world-ranking deposit, which could supply our nuclear plants for 150 years," Jez said. "Interest is high. Recently, we had Romanians here, looking to buy uranium." He said it would take five to 10 years before mining could start in Straz, where reserves are roughly equal to what the country had extracted in total since the end of World War II. Czech uranium has already drawn interest from Australia's Uran Limited, but its requests for permits have been turned down by the environment ministry, controlled by the Greens. ---------- EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Electricite de France SA, the world's largest owner of nuclear reactors, is close to an accord to buy British Energy Group Plc for 12.5 billion pounds ($24.9 billion), three people with knowledge of the talks said. The proposed price is about 775 pence a share, two of the people said. That's 7.2 percent above today's close of 723 pence and 27 percent more than March 14, the trading session before British Energy said it may get an offer. Centrica Plc may acquire about 25 percent of the British Energy business as part of the agreement. The takeover may be discussed by Electricite de France executives at a July 31 meeting, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are confidential. A deal would conclude more than three months of talks on British Energy's future after the company said in May it received a ``range of proposals'' for a takeover. Gaining control of the East Kilbride, Scotland-based company, the U.K.'s largest nuclear generator, would give Electricite de France access to eight U.K. atomic plants as well as sites on which new ones can be built. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on June 22 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, he backs new atomic plants to meet demand. Energy Cost ``High energy prices, further life extensions and access to the country's most qualitative new-build sites make us confident that the real value of British Energy to EDF is close'' to 770 pence a share, Dexia Bank NV analyst Steven de Proost said in a note published July 25. The bank reiterated a ``buy'' rating on the utility yesterday before a possible deal. Electricite de France shares fell 1.1 percent to 54.59 euros in Paris trading, while shares of British Energy, which have climbed 32 this year, dropped 0.6 percent to 723 pence in London. Centrica rose 1.6 percent to 309.75 pence and is down 14 percent since the end of December. British Energy, led by Chief Executive Officer Bill Coley, said last week it is in ``advanced discussions'' regarding a takeover offer without specifying whom the talks were with. British Energy spokesman Andrew Dowler and Centrica spokesman Andrew Turpin declined to comment yesterday. Electricite de France spokeswoman Carole Trivi also declined to comment. The acquisition, if agreed on, would come 15 months after Spanish power company Iberdrola SA paid 14.4 billion pounds for Glasgow-based Scottish Power Plc in April last year. Nuclear Increase The government owns 35.7 percent of British Energy, and has sought new investors for atomic plants which Business Secretary John Hutton said on March 10 may ``maintain or increase the nuclear contribution'' to the country's electricity production. The country may need to spend 45 billion pounds through 2025 on new generation, Ernst & Young LLP said in January. Electricite de France, which is based in Paris, expects to run 10 of the latest new-generation reactors by 2020, Chief Executive Officer Pierre Gadonneix has said, similar to one under construction at Flamanville, Normandy, in northern France. Centrica, based in Windsor, England, and led by Chief Executive Officer Sam Laidlaw, is Britain's biggest energy supplier. The purchase would expand Electricite de France's operations in the U.K., where its EDF Energy Plc unit sold power to 7.9 million customers last year. The French utility can raise power rates more in the U.K. than in France, where an agreement with the government links increases to inflation. EDF Energy announced last week a 17 percent increase in power bills and a 22 percent rise in gas charges. Higher Prices The Business and Enterprise Committee in the House of Commons, which includes members of Parliament from the U.K.'s three main political parties, concluded in a report yesterday that the country has higher natural gas prices than other European countries. The panel said this suggests a lack of competition, though it didn't find proof of price-fixing. ``Britain has a diverse electricity generation portfolio, owned by a number of different companies,'' the report said. ``We are concerned that this may be undermined by market consolidation, such as a takeover of British Energy.'' Brown favors nuclear power because it emits less carbon dioxide, the gas blamed for global warming, than gas and coal- fed stations. The U.K.'s policy contrasts with Germany, which is committed to closing down its nuclear power plants by about 2021. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's new government announced its intention in May to start building a nuclear plant within five years, after the country abandoned atomic energy for safety reasons in the 1980s. Earnings Drop British Energy in May said full-year profit declined 28 percent after the discovery of corroded wires led to production shutdowns. Net income for the fiscal year ended March 31 slid to 335 million pounds from 465 million a year earlier. EDF said in May first-quarter sales rose 5.2 percent 18.3 billion euros ($28.8 billion) on increased heating demand and higher prices. The company has said earnings will be crimped this year by higher costs and reactor repairs that will dent output. In February it published results showing a 44 percent increase in second-half net income to about 2.11 billion euros. EDF, which operates 58 reactors in France, is pursuing projects in China, South Africa and the U.S., Gadonneix said in an interview on July 4. UBS AG is advising the government on the sale of its stake, Merrill Lynch & Co. is advising EDF and NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd. is working with British Energy. --------- DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada WASHINGTON, July 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator John McCain today will bring his promise of four more years of President Bush's failed energy policies back to Nevada. The last time he was in the Silver State, McCain gave a 3,000 word speech on energy that didn't mention Yucca Mountain or solar power once. Instead, McCain focused on his newfound support for offshore oil drilling, which even he and President Bush admit will have only a "psychological" impact on gas prices. McCain's support for offshore drilling may not provide economic relief for working families, but it did open a flood of new support for McCain's campaign from the oil and gas industry. McCain may be reluctant to detail his record on Yucca Mountain, but the facts are clear. Except for some election-year hedging during his two presidential campaigns, McCain has repeatedly been a champion of Yucca Mountain. In fact, despite his admitted concern about shipping nuclear material through Arizona McCain wants to build at least 45 new nuclear power plants and says dealing with spent nuclear fuel is a "NIMBY" problem that we must have "guts and the courage" to address. See the DNC's web video "NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg "During his 25 years in Congress, Senator McCain has been a part of America's energy problem by repeatedly voting against the kind of policies that would create green jobs in Nevada and break our dependence on fossil fuels," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Now, McCain is promising more of the same by pandering to his new friends in the oil and gas industry and promising to store tons of spent fuel in Nevada, even though he's not comfortable shipping the material through Arizona on its way there. America's working families deserve new energy ideas, not more of the same failed policies that have cost us jobs, driven energy prices through the roof, and done nothing to make America less dependent on foreign oil." The following is a fact sheet on McCain's support for Yucca Mountain: MCCAIN HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED YUCCA... McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996] McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08] McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08] McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08] McCain: "We Will Build At Least 45 New Nuclear Plants." In a speech in Denver, Colorado, McCain said, "We will develop more clean energy. Nuclear power is the most dependable source of zero-emission energy we have. We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them." [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Denver, CO), 7/7/08] ...EXCEPT WHEN HE HEDGED IN CAMPAIGNS 2008: Campaigning In Nevada, McCain Said He Could Be Compelled To Reverse Support For Storage Of Nuclear Waste At Yucca Mountain. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "On the nuclear dump site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which most Nevadans oppose, McCain stressed the importance to national security of finding somewhere to store spent nuclear fuel currently at power plants across the country. But he indicated he could be persuaded to end his support for Yucca as the site. 'I will respect scientific opinion,' he said. 'The scientific opinion that I had up until recently was that Yucca Mountain was a suitable storage place.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV), 3/29/08] 1999: McCain Made Same Vague Promise To Consider Other Sites For Disposal To Nevadans Prior To His 2000 Run. On a trip to Nevada in February 1999, McCain met with key supporters in the gambling industry and the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Associated Press reported that McCain's votes to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could hurt him among Nevada voters. According to AP, "McCain said he is willing to hear arguments on the issue of whether Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as the nation's nuclear waste repository, but he said the storage problem must be resolved." McCain also said, "I'm not expert enough to know if that's the place or not, but it's unconscionable to leave nuclear waste sitting around in facilities forever." [Associated Press, 2/17/1999] MCCAIN HAS HIS OWN NIMBY PROBLEM. MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08] MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch? ---------- Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy JENKINSVILLE, SC (WIS) - South Carolina needs safe, reliable and environmentally friendly energy. The state's biggest public and private utilities say nuclear is the way to go. But it will cost us, and sooner than we might think. Two nuclear generating units built and operated by two of the state's major utilities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, could be a big part of South Carolina's energy future. The units would be located in Jenkinsville, already home to the VC Summer Nuclear Plant. If both go online, the new nukes could turn out enough electricity to provide power to 1.8 million customers. "We looked at coal-fired generation, we looked at natural-gas fired generation. Nuclear. We looked at renewables. And at the end of the day, every time we went through that process of evaluating, nuclear came out on top," says Eric Boomhower of SCE&G. Nuclear power, though controversial and costly, is undeniably efficient. A small fuel pellet provides the energy equivalent of nearly a ton of coal. Boomhower says nuclear is also a clean, practical and increasingly popular alternative to fossil fuels. "I think what has grown is public support for nuclear. You know, it's a different world that we live in today than it was 25-30 years ago. The importance of generation that is clean, you know, not emitting greenhouse gases, is more important than ever. And nuclear has really come to the forefront in terms of what solutions do we have available to us," says Boomhower. But with a total project cost of nearly $10 billion, ratepayers will be asked to chip in. SCE&G is asking for a rate increase of about .5 percent for the average residential customer starting next march. The first of the two units is not scheduled to begin operation until 2016. And you would continue to pay during what will be a long review process. First, the state public service commission will be holding a public hearing in late October that could last five days. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would then spend three to four years examining the plan. If approved, construction would take five or six years. The total cost to SCE&G alone would be more than six billion dollars. --------- Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities REGINA - Saskatchewan's attempt to enter the nuclear power game takes another step today with a tour of an Ontario power plant. Lyle Stewart, the province's enterprise and innovation minister, says he's been invited to tour Bruce Power's massive nuclear generating facilities. Bruce currently operates six reactor units on a site northwest of Toronto. The tour comes after Bruce announced last month that it will study the potential of bringing nuclear energy to Saskatchewan - the world's largest producer of uranium. Stewart says he wants to see what the facilities look like and what kind of "a footprint" they have. The minister half-jokingly says that "Bruce is likely trying to sell" him on the idea, adding that he believes the company is sold on the idea of doing business in Saskatchewan. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From sperle at mirion.com Wed Jul 30 17:05:25 2008 From: sperle at mirion.com (Perle, Sandy) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:05:25 -0700 Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear News - Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in MO Message-ID: <2099866F46DCA04E83F1600E6274AA2C0560852E@gdses.corp.gds.com> Re-sending this news distribution since 7 hours have passed since I sent the first mailing. Perhaps it is lost in Cyberspace! Index: Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities ------------------------------------- Ameren applies for new nuclear plant in Mo. AmerenUE applied Monday to federal nuclear regulators for a license to build and operate a potential new nuclear power plant in Callaway County. The St. Louis-based utility filed an 8,000-page license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a reactor adjacent to Ameren's existing nuclear facility, the Callaway Plant, outside of Fulton. Ameren said it has not decided to build a second nuclear plant, but wanted to preserve that option if the need arose. Also, applying now puts Ameren in a position to seek federal loan guarantees and production tax credits created by the federal energy law of 2005. Ameren said its 1,190-megawatt electric generating plant at Callaway accounts for 19 percent of the utility's total generation. It came online in December 1984. AmerenUE president Thomas Voss said greater demand for power in Missouri in the next two decades will require the utility to have a large generating plant online by 2018. The company said it hopes to decide by 2010 whether to proceed with the plant. Voss said Ameren will continue to encourage development of renewable energy sources and help customers reduce consumption and demand. "But going forward, we will also need nuclear energy from our existing Callaway unit and possibly from a second unit at Callaway," he said. Ameren said it wants to pursue a possible nuclear plant because it wouldn't produce greenhouse gases, which are believed to cause climate change. But some environmentalists say the benefit is offset by the problem of safely storing the process' nuclear waste. Ameren spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said the Callaway plant's waste is safely stored in secure pools onsite. She said some European nuclear plants reuse the waste to generate more power. Commercial nuclear power plants now produce some 20 percent of U.S. electricity, but concern about waste disposal has hampered the industry's growth. Nevada's Yucca Mountain, billed as the nation's first nuclear waste repository, originally was supposed to open in 1998 but has been beset by lawsuits and political and scientific controversies, and cost overruns. The best-possible opening date is now 2020. Earlier this month, a second nuclear reactor at AmerenUE's Callaway plant was the focus of an NRC-hosted public forum in Fulton. Advocates touted Callaway's safety record and a jobs windfall from a second plant. Opponents said they want Ameren Corp., the utility's corporate parent, to more aggressively pursue alternative and renewable energy options. The company then known as Union Electric initially planned a second nuclear reactor at the Callaway County site. That plan was scrapped after a grass-roots effort opposing the Callaway project led Missouri voters in 1976 to decisively approve a law prohibiting state utilities from charging customers for power plants while they're being built. Persuading state lawmakers to overturn that restriction is a top priority for Ameren in the next legislative session. Should that fail, the company likely won't build a second reactor but instead pursue more costly natural gas generators. Ameren expects the new reactor to cost at least $6 billion, or $9 billion with financing -- roughly the entire value of the parent corporation. Scott Burnell, spokesman for the NRC, said it will take a month for staff to ensure Ameren's application is complete. Once the application is accepted for review, the NRC will alert the public that it can raise challenges within 60 days. Ameren's application will be reviewed on technical and regulatory grounds. The whole process takes roughly 42 months, Burnell said. ---------- NUCLEAR ENERGY: FIRE IN FINNISH REACTOR SITE (AGI) - Helsinki, 30 July - A small fire broke out on the grounds of a third-generation nuclear site under construction in Finland, but was put out a few hours later without endangering the population in anyway. Reports were from Teolisuuden Voima (TVO), the Scandinavian country's power company which manages the plant. The fire, which did not result in any injuries, broke out in the Olkiluoto plant in south-eastern Finland, where the German Siemens and the French Areva are building the first reactor in the world running on pressurized water. At the time of the fire, work was not underway, and damage was limited to scaffolding and some building materials. The reactor, which is expected to be ready for 2011, will be the fifth in Finland and the third in the Olkiluoto plant. -------------- 100 employees of French nuclear site evacuated GRENOBLE, France - About 100 employees were evacuated from a nuclear site in southern France on Tuesday after an alarm went off accidentally, the power plant said. The false alarm at the Tricastin nuclear complex followed two other incidents there in less than a month -- a leak of unenriched uranium and the release of radioactive particles from a pipe. The incidents have raised concerns in heavily nuclear-dependent France. Stephanie Biabaut, a spokeswoman for the plant near the city of Avignon, said the alarm went off accidentally Tuesday, and medical tests showed that personnel were not contaminated. There was some confusion earlier, however, as site engineer Jean Girardi had said medical tests found "extremely weak traces of radioactivity" on two people checked following the alarm. He also said the alarm was apparently set off by a minor leak of radioactive particles. French electric company EdF, which runs the plant, declined to explain Girardi's comments but insisted the case was merely a false alarm. The CGT trade union said the two cases of radioactivity cited by Girardi dated back to a July 23 incident in which radioactive particles spewed from a pipe, slightly contaminating 100 employees. In another incident on July 7, liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a Tricastin factory into two nearby rivers. France is among the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world, with 59 reactors churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity. But the recent incidents at Tricastin have prompted questions about the still-secretive state-run nuclear industry and given fodder to anti-nuclear activists. Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has said the incidents were minor, but ordered an overhaul of France's nuclear supervision as well as groundwater checks around all nuclear plants. --------- More Nuclear Reactors Called for to Ensure Uninterrupted Supply of Radioisotopes A Canadian panel has called for more nuclear reactors to be set up to ensure uninterrupted supply of radioisotopes and also a better communication mechanism among the agencies involved. The shutdown of the National Research Universal nuclear reactor at Chalk River in November 2007 had sparked off a near crisis in the nuclear medicine community. The reactor, which provides two-thirds of the world's radioisotopes, stopped supplying nuclear material essential for medical imaging and diagnostic scans for fractures, cancers and heart conditions. It was restarted on December 16. A group of health specialists, including experts from the field of nuclear medicine, was convened by Health Canada in December 2007 during the prolonged shutdown. The group was conveying to the government its assessment of the impact of the isotope shortage. Once the reactor was restarted and the supply of medical isotopes returned to normal, the group began work on lessons learned from the situation. In their report released Monday, the doctors write how they were in the dark when the Chalk River nuclear reactor halted production of medical isotopes late last year, a critical oversight that put patients at risk. Doctors say they were forced to delay diagnostic and treatment procedures for patients across the country when the supply of isotopes dried up last December. And not knowing how long the isotope shortage would last, they were forced to decide whether to proceed with other procedures for their patients that carried more risk or would be less accurate. ---------- Nuclear renaissance may revive Czech uranium mines DOLNI ROZINKA, Czech Republic, July 30 (Reuters) - Renewed interest in nuclear power and high uranium prices may extend the life of Czech uranium mines or even reopen closed deposits, said the head of the country's sole, state-owned miner Diamo. The centre-right cabinet of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek gave the ailing industry a boost last year, allowing Diamo to explore uranium reserves at its only remaining mine in Dolni Rozinka, 180 km (113 miles) east of Prague. "We have completed the first three drill holes," Diamo Director Jiri Jez told Reuters in an interview. "It is hard to say what the reserves are now ... but we keep discovering new reserves so it may happen that we will operate here beyond 2012, maybe until 2015," he said. The Rozinka mine has some 700 tonnes of proven uranium reserves left, enough to keep it open at least until 2010. The new exploration should be largely completed by the year-end. The industry has been on the brink of extinction since the 1989 collapse of the Communist regime, which in its hey-days in the 1950s forced tens of thousands of political opponents, held under harsh conditions in labour camps, to extract the radioactive ore for export to the Soviet Union. But record high oil prices and fear of Russian energy supremacy put energy security high on the agenda in Europe, bringing resources such as uranium back in favour. The Czech move mirrors rising interest in exploration by fellow EU members such as Romania, which plans to double uranium output this year. Bulgaria will decide this autumn whether to grant new permits after closing its mines in the 1990s. Spot prices of uranium, used to fuel nuclear plants, hit a record $136 per pound last June. They have since slipped to $64.50, according to Ux Consulting, a leading publisher of uranium prices, but still remain high above the $10-$15 level seen for years before the peak. Some 263 tonnes of uranium were extracted from the Rozinka mine last year and output of 230 tonnes is planned for 2008. Uranium coming from waste processing at another location should put Diamo's total production at 310 tonnes this year, Jez said. Although a fraction of the maximum 3,036 tonnes per year seen in the late 1950s, the current figures still put the Czechs in 12th place in the world behind South Africa and ahead of Brazil, according to the World Nuclear Association. Diamo's output covers roughly one third of Czech power firm CEZ's needs of 700 tonnes a year. KEY DEPOSIT OUT OF REACH FOR NOW Jez said a huge deposit of some 115,000 tonnes at Diamo's northern mine of Straz pod Ralskem, closed since 1996, was out of reach in the near future due to resistance by the Greens, a junior government member, as well as by neighbouring villages. This might change, however, with next general election in 2010, Jez hopes, given CEZ's plans to expand its nuclear assets. "This is a world-ranking deposit, which could supply our nuclear plants for 150 years," Jez said. "Interest is high. Recently, we had Romanians here, looking to buy uranium." He said it would take five to 10 years before mining could start in Straz, where reserves are roughly equal to what the country had extracted in total since the end of World War II. Czech uranium has already drawn interest from Australia's Uran Limited, but its requests for permits have been turned down by the environment ministry, controlled by the Greens. ---------- EDF Close to Agreement on British Energy Takeover (Update3) July 29 (Bloomberg) -- Electricite de France SA, the world's largest owner of nuclear reactors, is close to an accord to buy British Energy Group Plc for 12.5 billion pounds ($24.9 billion), three people with knowledge of the talks said. The proposed price is about 775 pence a share, two of the people said. That's 7.2 percent above today's close of 723 pence and 27 percent more than March 14, the trading session before British Energy said it may get an offer. Centrica Plc may acquire about 25 percent of the British Energy business as part of the agreement. The takeover may be discussed by Electricite de France executives at a July 31 meeting, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are confidential. A deal would conclude more than three months of talks on British Energy's future after the company said in May it received a ``range of proposals'' for a takeover. Gaining control of the East Kilbride, Scotland-based company, the U.K.'s largest nuclear generator, would give Electricite de France access to eight U.K. atomic plants as well as sites on which new ones can be built. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on June 22 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, he backs new atomic plants to meet demand. Energy Cost ``High energy prices, further life extensions and access to the country's most qualitative new-build sites make us confident that the real value of British Energy to EDF is close'' to 770 pence a share, Dexia Bank NV analyst Steven de Proost said in a note published July 25. The bank reiterated a ``buy'' rating on the utility yesterday before a possible deal. Electricite de France shares fell 1.1 percent to 54.59 euros in Paris trading, while shares of British Energy, which have climbed 32 this year, dropped 0.6 percent to 723 pence in London. Centrica rose 1.6 percent to 309.75 pence and is down 14 percent since the end of December. British Energy, led by Chief Executive Officer Bill Coley, said last week it is in ``advanced discussions'' regarding a takeover offer without specifying whom the talks were with. British Energy spokesman Andrew Dowler and Centrica spokesman Andrew Turpin declined to comment yesterday. Electricite de France spokeswoman Carole Trivi also declined to comment. The acquisition, if agreed on, would come 15 months after Spanish power company Iberdrola SA paid 14.4 billion pounds for Glasgow-based Scottish Power Plc in April last year. Nuclear Increase The government owns 35.7 percent of British Energy, and has sought new investors for atomic plants which Business Secretary John Hutton said on March 10 may ``maintain or increase the nuclear contribution'' to the country's electricity production. The country may need to spend 45 billion pounds through 2025 on new generation, Ernst & Young LLP said in January. Electricite de France, which is based in Paris, expects to run 10 of the latest new-generation reactors by 2020, Chief Executive Officer Pierre Gadonneix has said, similar to one under construction at Flamanville, Normandy, in northern France. Centrica, based in Windsor, England, and led by Chief Executive Officer Sam Laidlaw, is Britain's biggest energy supplier. The purchase would expand Electricite de France's operations in the U.K., where its EDF Energy Plc unit sold power to 7.9 million customers last year. The French utility can raise power rates more in the U.K. than in France, where an agreement with the government links increases to inflation. EDF Energy announced last week a 17 percent increase in power bills and a 22 percent rise in gas charges. Higher Prices The Business and Enterprise Committee in the House of Commons, which includes members of Parliament from the U.K.'s three main political parties, concluded in a report yesterday that the country has higher natural gas prices than other European countries. The panel said this suggests a lack of competition, though it didn't find proof of price-fixing. ``Britain has a diverse electricity generation portfolio, owned by a number of different companies,'' the report said. ``We are concerned that this may be undermined by market consolidation, such as a takeover of British Energy.'' Brown favors nuclear power because it emits less carbon dioxide, the gas blamed for global warming, than gas and coal- fed stations. The U.K.'s policy contrasts with Germany, which is committed to closing down its nuclear power plants by about 2021. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's new government announced its intention in May to start building a nuclear plant within five years, after the country abandoned atomic energy for safety reasons in the 1980s. Earnings Drop British Energy in May said full-year profit declined 28 percent after the discovery of corroded wires led to production shutdowns. Net income for the fiscal year ended March 31 slid to 335 million pounds from 465 million a year earlier. EDF said in May first-quarter sales rose 5.2 percent 18.3 billion euros ($28.8 billion) on increased heating demand and higher prices. The company has said earnings will be crimped this year by higher costs and reactor repairs that will dent output. In February it published results showing a 44 percent increase in second-half net income to about 2.11 billion euros. EDF, which operates 58 reactors in France, is pursuing projects in China, South Africa and the U.S., Gadonneix said in an interview on July 4. UBS AG is advising the government on the sale of its stake, Merrill Lynch & Co. is advising EDF and NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd. is working with British Energy. --------- DNC: John 'Not In My Back Yard' McCain Brings His Yucca Support to Nevada WASHINGTON, July 29, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Senator John McCain today will bring his promise of four more years of President Bush's failed energy policies back to Nevada. The last time he was in the Silver State, McCain gave a 3,000 word speech on energy that didn't mention Yucca Mountain or solar power once. Instead, McCain focused on his newfound support for offshore oil drilling, which even he and President Bush admit will have only a "psychological" impact on gas prices. McCain's support for offshore drilling may not provide economic relief for working families, but it did open a flood of new support for McCain's campaign from the oil and gas industry. McCain may be reluctant to detail his record on Yucca Mountain, but the facts are clear. Except for some election-year hedging during his two presidential campaigns, McCain has repeatedly been a champion of Yucca Mountain. In fact, despite his admitted concern about shipping nuclear material through Arizona McCain wants to build at least 45 new nuclear power plants and says dealing with spent nuclear fuel is a "NIMBY" problem that we must have "guts and the courage" to address. See the DNC's web video "NIMBY: Not In McCain's Back Yard: http://youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg "During his 25 years in Congress, Senator McCain has been a part of America's energy problem by repeatedly voting against the kind of policies that would create green jobs in Nevada and break our dependence on fossil fuels," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney. "Now, McCain is promising more of the same by pandering to his new friends in the oil and gas industry and promising to store tons of spent fuel in Nevada, even though he's not comfortable shipping the material through Arizona on its way there. America's working families deserve new energy ideas, not more of the same failed policies that have cost us jobs, driven energy prices through the roof, and done nothing to make America less dependent on foreign oil." The following is a fact sheet on McCain's support for Yucca Mountain: MCCAIN HAS CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED YUCCA... McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996. [2002 Senate Vote #167, 7/9/2002; The Arizona Republic, 7/10/2002; 2000 Senate Vote #88, 5/2/2000; 1998 Senate Vote #148, 6/2/1998; 1997 Senate Vote #42, 4/15/1997; 1996 Senate Vote #259, 7/31/1996; 1996 Senate Vote #256, 7/31/1996] McCain: "I Am For Yucca Mountain." The Las Vegas Sun reported that in 2007 McCain told the Deseret News, "I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America." [Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, NV), 5/28/08] McCain: "I Believe That Yucca Mountain Is A Suitable Place For Storage." At a campaign event in Springfield, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "I believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage and I know that there's controversy about it and lawsuits and all that. But shouldn't America, a country as smart and as wise as we are, be able to find a place to store spent fuel?" [CNN Live Feed (Springfield, PA), 3/14/08] McCain Senior Adviser Holtz-Eakin Called Political Opposition To Yucca Mountain "Harmful To the U.S. Interests." "McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. 'The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized,' McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said." [Reuters, 5/6/08] McCain: "We Will Build At Least 45 New Nuclear Plants." In a speech in Denver, Colorado, McCain said, "We will develop more clean energy. Nuclear power is the most dependable source of zero-emission energy we have. We will build at least 45 new nuclear plants that will create over 700,000 good jobs to construct and operate them." [CNN Live Feed, Speech (Denver, CO), 7/7/08] ...EXCEPT WHEN HE HEDGED IN CAMPAIGNS 2008: Campaigning In Nevada, McCain Said He Could Be Compelled To Reverse Support For Storage Of Nuclear Waste At Yucca Mountain. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that "On the nuclear dump site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which most Nevadans oppose, McCain stressed the importance to national security of finding somewhere to store spent nuclear fuel currently at power plants across the country. But he indicated he could be persuaded to end his support for Yucca as the site. 'I will respect scientific opinion,' he said. 'The scientific opinion that I had up until recently was that Yucca Mountain was a suitable storage place.'" [Las Vegas Review-Journal (Las Vegas, NV), 3/29/08] 1999: McCain Made Same Vague Promise To Consider Other Sites For Disposal To Nevadans Prior To His 2000 Run. On a trip to Nevada in February 1999, McCain met with key supporters in the gambling industry and the editorial board of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Associated Press reported that McCain's votes to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain could hurt him among Nevada voters. According to AP, "McCain said he is willing to hear arguments on the issue of whether Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as the nation's nuclear waste repository, but he said the storage problem must be resolved." McCain also said, "I'm not expert enough to know if that's the place or not, but it's unconscionable to leave nuclear waste sitting around in facilities forever." [Associated Press, 2/17/1999] MCCAIN HAS HIS OWN NIMBY PROBLEM. MCCAIN 2008: Dealing With Spent Nuclear Fuel Is A "NIMBY" Problem, US Must Have The "Guts And The Courage." At an energy briefing in Santa Barbara, CA, McCain spoke about spent nuclear fuel and said, "But it's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken. It's a, it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody." [CNN Live Feed, Briefing (Santa Barbara, CA), 6/24/08] MCCAIN 2007: Just Don't Ship it Through My Back Yard. "Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): No, I would not. No, I would not." [Nevada Newsmakers, May 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch? ---------- Proposed SC nuclear reactors would bring energy, cost and controversy JENKINSVILLE, SC (WIS) - South Carolina needs safe, reliable and environmentally friendly energy. The state's biggest public and private utilities say nuclear is the way to go. But it will cost us, and sooner than we might think. Two nuclear generating units built and operated by two of the state's major utilities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, could be a big part of South Carolina's energy future. The units would be located in Jenkinsville, already home to the VC Summer Nuclear Plant. If both go online, the new nukes could turn out enough electricity to provide power to 1.8 million customers. "We looked at coal-fired generation, we looked at natural-gas fired generation. Nuclear. We looked at renewables. And at the end of the day, every time we went through that process of evaluating, nuclear came out on top," says Eric Boomhower of SCE&G. Nuclear power, though controversial and costly, is undeniably efficient. A small fuel pellet provides the energy equivalent of nearly a ton of coal. Boomhower says nuclear is also a clean, practical and increasingly popular alternative to fossil fuels. "I think what has grown is public support for nuclear. You know, it's a different world that we live in today than it was 25-30 years ago. The importance of generation that is clean, you know, not emitting greenhouse gases, is more important than ever. And nuclear has really come to the forefront in terms of what solutions do we have available to us," says Boomhower. But with a total project cost of nearly $10 billion, ratepayers will be asked to chip in. SCE&G is asking for a rate increase of about .5 percent for the average residential customer starting next march. The first of the two units is not scheduled to begin operation until 2016. And you would continue to pay during what will be a long review process. First, the state public service commission will be holding a public hearing in late October that could last five days. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would then spend three to four years examining the plan. If approved, construction would take five or six years. The total cost to SCE&G alone would be more than six billion dollars. --------- Sask. minister to tour Bruce Power plant as province ponders nuclear facilities REGINA - Saskatchewan's attempt to enter the nuclear power game takes another step today with a tour of an Ontario power plant. Lyle Stewart, the province's enterprise and innovation minister, says he's been invited to tour Bruce Power's massive nuclear generating facilities. Bruce currently operates six reactor units on a site northwest of Toronto. The tour comes after Bruce announced last month that it will study the potential of bringing nuclear energy to Saskatchewan - the world's largest producer of uranium. Stewart says he wants to see what the facilities look like and what kind of "a footprint" they have. The minister half-jokingly says that "Bruce is likely trying to sell" him on the idea, adding that he believes the company is sold on the idea of doing business in Saskatchewan. ----------------------------------- Sander C. Perle President Mirion Technologies Dosimetry Services Division 2652 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office) +1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax) Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you. From jerrycuttler at rogers.com Wed Jul 30 22:40:29 2008 From: jerrycuttler at rogers.com (Jerry Cuttler) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:40:29 -0400 Subject: [ RadSafe ] MiniCAT mini-dose Message-ID: <002f01c8f2bf$2dad3320$0402a8c0@0620d78c1a7e4b9> MiniCAT mini-doseOnly two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity -- and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muckerheide To: radsafe ; Know_Nukes Cc: cdn-nucl list ; 'Rad_Sci_Health' Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:24 PM Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] MiniCAT mini-dose Friends, Here's another indication of the reason for current NCRP/ICRP hysterics about CT scan doses. It's not just the big medical equipment makers "waiting in the wings" any more. Since 1927-28 in the UK, ICRP and precursors (and NCRP et al.), the x-ray equipment makers have funded them for this purpose. They have tenacious commitments to retaining the LNT and ALARA "principles" and misdirection. This is despite overwhelming contradictory scientific data (that low-dose biological responses are completely different than high-dose responses), and to fabricate public fear in the name of "radiation safety." Congratulations to all involved in this non-science and disinformation on radiation health effects! Regards, Jim ========= MiniCAT T CT Scans Purr with Mini-Radiation Dose Mayo Clinic researchers find MiniCAT to be 10-12x less radiation ANN ARBOR, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Americans can't agree on politics -- but the one thing they do agree on is: Americans do not want unnecessary or excessive radiation. And while medical imaging in the form of CAT scans can be viewed as a technology right out of Star Wars - allowing doctors to look into the human body without making a single cut - that ability comes with a price: radiation exposure to the patient. So is CT imaging worth the radiation exposure? The answer may come down to the scanner you are being tested on.because not all medical CAT scans are created equally -- in terms of radiation dose to the patient. And according to a recent study at the Mayo Clinic, a CT scanner called MiniCAT captures images at a dose nearly 10 - 12 times lower than conventional CT scanners. MiniCAT, a specialty CT scanner designed to capture detailed images of the sinuses and ears, is quickly becoming a household name in the world of E.N.T. and Allergy, and is the brainchild of Michigan-based Xoran Technologies. This uniquely compact, ultra-low dose CT scanner is generally found in the offices of Ear, Nose and Throat physicians and Allergists. And patients have noticed the difference. The upright design of MiniCAT allows patients to sit in a normal position, without sedation, and the scan is complete in 40 seconds or less. It's so simple that Dr. Madan Kandula of Advanced Ear Nose and Throat Specialists in Milwaukee, WI, found many of his patients don't realize the test has even been performed. The low radiation and the quickness of the test have attracted parents. Children are not afraid and do not need to be sedated. "Parents have gone to great lengths to track down a MiniCAT for their child" says Susie Vestevich, PR Manager of Xoran. "One family recently drove 8 hours to be sure their child was scanned on MiniCAT." From webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org Thu Jul 31 19:07:01 2008 From: webmaster at solidsurfacealliance.org (al gerhart) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ RadSafe ] Uranium in granite Message-ID: <250652.63173.qm@web701.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Kai, I've heard that Uranium can leach out with water or slightly acidic liquids, Professor Nussebaum brought it to our attention. Good to hear another voice on the issue. We will look into it. I understand that a lead test swab will react to the Uranium as if it is lead, but are there Uranium swabs that don't react to lead content? Or do we have to use acid and precipitate it out? Then have it measured. I talked to a local chemist we have done work for and he recommended lab if need be. This is indeed getting very political and commercial on some levels, no one is spending this much time and effort without something rewarding their risk. Let's face it, nothing gets done without an interested party on some level. But, if the concerns are valid, then it matters little the motivation, just be glad someone stepped up and took a shot at it. As to the other stakeholders, they were shown reports just like this long ago along with a request that it be looked into. Once was a huge stone company, the other time it was a PhD level Professor. Nothing got done. Too much money at stake. Regulation in Canada, yes, we would love to have the protection you guys were smart enough to pass. As it is, not many countries will allow this stuff to be imported, so America becomes the dumping ground for too hot material. What a great idea on using the low level granite to provide a baseline! Why didn't I think of that? We will do just that. I will take a look at your calculator for the risk assessment. I need to take the time to learn more about the Geometry aspect of radiation measurements, soaking up a little on Geiger Counter Enthusiasts and the other Rad groups of George Dowel. The high reading is total radiation, 12.5 mR (A,B,G) or so before we chopped up the slab into samples for the five scientists that are studying it. I used a piece of paper for an Alpha shield, got 10.5 mR if I remember right. I didn't have any aluminum, but I used 1/8" of plastic for a Beta shield and got around 3.5 mR/hr. All measurements were taken with a LENi Geiger counter (George Dowel sells them) with a pancake probe, with about 8 or 9 mm standoff. I've got the measurements in cpm too, or multiply the results by 600 to get a close idea. Thanks for the info, it has been invaluable. Thanks, AL