No subject

measurements taken in contact with the tube, and did not make any
adjustment
for distance to where people would actually be standing.
This would make a huge difference.  It also seems that didn't account
for
possible shielding by other pieces of equipment.  I have sympathy with
his
desire to try to get some numbers to work with, but I don't think his
model
is appropriate. =20

As evidence of that, I cite the numbers you pulled out of his document.
"... about 38,400 mrem/day, with occasional periods of exposure at
76,800
mrem/day..."  Let's call it 50 rem per day.  If workers were receiving
that
kind of dose, you would expect some people to get sick within a couple
of
weeks, and most dying after a couple of months in those conditions.
That
this didn't happen indicates that those numbers aren't right.

I am frankly skeptical that good enough data exists to be able to build
a
useful reconstruction.  I think the best that can be justified is,
"workers
were exposed to an unknown amount of x-ray.  Those who worked closest to
the
tubes for the longest periods were exposed to more."  I know it isn't a
very
good answer, but it may be the best available. =20

Another telling point is that in my readings I have not found any
connection
between exposure to X-ray and prostate cancer.  There are a number of
demonstrated and proposed things linked to increased chance of
developing
prostate cancer, but whole body radiation exposure does not seem to be
one
of them. =20

I wish I could give you an answer to your question, "Why is this
happening
to me?"  I don't know what that answer is, but I don't think there is
good
evidence that it is x-ray exposure from your Coast Guard day. =20

Good luck.    =20

-----Original Message-----
From: von Kessel, Jon Mr CIV US USA AMC
[mailto:Jon.vonKessel at us.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 4:52 PM
To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); Jeff Terry; Radsafe; JvK at clearwire.net
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Adverse Health Consequences due to Extensive
Exposures of Ionizing Radiation X-rays and Electromagnetic Radiation
(UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Gentlemen,

With due respect back to you astute folks.  When one considers the
rather
high values that I had presented in my inquiry, I based it all upon the
contents of the attached document with its multiple references and
attachments by those who are much more qualified to make such assertions
than I.  May I invite you to glean over the material.

Your comments are certainly invited on this rather alarming subject.

Jon
---------------------------------------
Respectfully,
Jon von Kessel
Small Business Specialist
Regional Contracting Office-Hawaii - Schofield Branch  -Small Business
is
Smart Business
Cel: 808-392-2197
Ofc: 808-655-3047
Fax: 808-655-7350

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE