[ RadSafe ] RE: Cancer Suit filed against Los Alamos

Brian Rees brees at lanl.gov
Mon Jun 23 13:41:14 CDT 2008

Two things:

Los Alamos is at about 7000' elevation, and people will therefore receive 
approximately  40 mrem/yr more than somebody at sea level

I'm not sure who said this (I think it was Otto Raabe), but it has stuck 
with me ever since - NOBODY knows their precise total lifetime radiation 
exposure.  (occupational + natural and incidental)

Brian Rees

At 10:15 AM 6/23/2008, Cmtimmpe at aol.com wrote:
>I agree that it is an all too common 'leap of faith' that because a person
>worked at one of the DOE nuclear facilities they must have been exposed 
>to  rad
>iation.  With respect to this case, I suggest that the body be exhumed  and
>checked to see if there is any body burden remaining.  Not conclusive,  but
>certainly would add some actual data to the case. It could very well be that
>living at the higher altitude of Los Alamos resulted in more radiation 
>for the individual than his work at Los Alamos.  Also, nothing is said  about
>the life history of the individual as an adult and the possible  exposures
>after he left Los Alamos.  It will be an interesting case if it  ever 
>goes to court.
>Thank  you,
>Christopher M. Timm, PE
>Vice President/Senior Program  Manager
>PECOS Management Services, Inc.
>(505) 323-8355 - phone
>(505)  323-2028 - fax
>(505) 238-8174 - cellular
>**************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: 
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list