AW: [ RadSafe ] News Report

Wed Apr 15 15:17:31 CDT 2009

Brian, Barbara, Joel and all other RADSAFErs interested in these topics, 

There have been several topics on RADSAFE, dealing with press releases on
"nuclear topics" recently. Uranium in hair, now something on plutonium
wheresoever. 

Why - why - why do the best knowledgable people available have to spend
their time to comment on those who do not have a clue??? Why do the experts
have to write hundreds of pages of papers to show that the accusations of a
bunch of id****ts, who just have not the slightest clue about the topic, are
wrong. And after having distributed the comment to a few hundred (or less)
papers the anti's will tell us, that we are all paid by the nuclear lobby
and it is not necessary to consider our arguments.

As we have the case in my home country Austria, the government (absolutely
antinuclear because of solely political reasons!!!) tells us, that nuclear
energy is phased out all over the world. The fact is that an increasing
number of nuclear power plants are ordered in all parts of the world. Those
press releases - like the ones mentioned in recent RADSAFE - are solely to
discredit nuclear energy in local papers. Any discussion about the
comparison of "background" and different instruments is therefore worthless,
you always can find higher and lower backgrounds - if this would not be the
case, ther could not be a "mean" background....

Best regards,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Brian Rees
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. April 2009 13:29
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] News Report

Barbara,

I don't quite agree that "250 times...background" is a meaningless 
and un noteworthy measurement.  At least this puts the event in some 
sort of context.  How many times do we see "high radiation" 
reported?  That gives us even less information, since many reporters 
seem to think that anything above background is "high".  Since 
there's no distance mentioned there's no way to really estimate 
what's going on here, but at least we have a starting point.

Any time "we" talk to a reporter and give a level, they invariably 
ask for some sort of framework to understand (and relate to) that 
level.  It's that level that makes it to the final copy, since most 
of the public doesn't understand what a millirem is or means.   Even 
talking to lay people I find it useful to discuss background, or the 
radiation level at 35,000' since they know that that level isn't 
harmful.  I do find that emphasizing that radiation is not a man-made 
phenomena, and that radiation exposure is part of our natural 
existence helps people.

Yeah, I'd LIKE to see "x mr/hr 30 cm from the source, measured with a 
"brand x model xyz ion chamber, closed window"  but that's a lot to ask
for...

I suppose we could ask that the reporter give the radiation level in 
mr/hr along with the comparison to a known level, but some may see 
that as interfering with their writing. But we should try.

Brian Rees
(my opinion only)

At 06:38 PM 4/14/2009, blhamrick at aol.com wrote:
>And, I won't comment about the plutonium at all, but would like to 
>point out that "250 times...background" is a meaningless and 
>unnoteworthy measurement.? Landfills across the country find iodine 
>patient waste at 250 times background all the time.? In a typical 
>area of California that's only about 2.5 mR/hr, and easy to exceed 
>if you're measuring a nuclear medicine patient's waste at near contact.
>
>Barbara L. Hamrick
>
>P.S.? To Phil Egidi - I am still here, and I wanted to try to find 
>the information I had on uranium in hair analyses, but alas, that 
>was almost 10 years ago, and I haven't been able to dig up the 
>report I made at one of the CRCPD meetings.? Suffice it to say, the 
>contacts I had with the laboratories were not confidence-inducing.? 
>They had poor statistics (and, they originally claimed to have 
>analyzed "thousands" of samples, but when I got the data, it was 
>actually about 220 nationwide, with most coming from the two coasts, 
>and a smattering from the middle of the country).? They had?no?data 
>on possible exposure, so nothing to translate from hair uptake to 
>potential past intake.? In short, the reported uranium in hair was a 
>number, without any meaningful implications.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brennan, Mike (DOH) <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 2:32 pm
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] News Report
>
>
>
>I won't comment about whether of not it is a critical mass, but Pu-239
>would not be a particularly good choice for a dirty bomb.  The specific
>activity just isn't that high, so the amount of radiation per kilo isn't
>that high.  Of course, given the insane fear of the word "plutonium", it
>would enhance the panic effect even if it did not increase the damage
>done by the bomb.
>
>I would be perfectly happy seeing these would-be rad merchants put to
>death.  While it may not be possible to deter fanaticism, it is not
>particularly hard to deter greed:  You just adjust the risk/benefit
>ratio until there aren't any takers.  At the very least you get fewer
>and generally stupider people trying stuff like this.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf Of Joel C.
>Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:10 PM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] News Report
>
>3 held over radioactive material
>14/04/2009 18:04??-?(SA)??
>
>
>Kiev - Three Ukrainians have been arrested for seeking to sell
>radioactive material that could have been used by terrorists to make a
>"dirty bomb", the country's SBU security service said Tuesday.? The
>three men were arrested in the western Ternopil region last Thursday
>when they tried to sell a container of radioactive material for $10m,
>the SBU said in a statement. The men - identified as a member of the
>Ternopil regional parliament and two businessmen - believed they were
>selling 3 672kg of radioactive plutonium-239, the statement said.? The
>material "could have been used for terrorist purposes for the creation
>of a dirty bomb", the SBU said, referring to a kind of weapon combining
>radioactive material with conventional explosives.
>
>
>Authorities were seeking to determine what substance was in the
>container, but the SBU said its radioactivity level was 250 times
>greater than normal background radiation. The SBU said the substance had
>been produced on Russian territory in the Soviet era and could have been
>transferred to Ukraine from a neighbourin
>g state, without providing
>further details. The men have been charged with illegal handling of
>radioactive material and face from eight to 15 years in prison. In
>recent years the United States and its allies have expressed concern
>that unsecured nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union could fall
>into the hands of terrorists.
>
>- AFP
>
>I think they mean 3.672 kg of Pu-239.? Critical mass?
>
>
>Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>Oakland, California
>joelc at alum.wpi.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/
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>RadSafe rules. These can be 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/