[ RadSafe ] Adverse Health Consequences due to Extensive Exposures of Ionizing Radiation X-rays and Electromagnetic Radiation (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, Jon.

Again, I just skimmed the document.  I didn't see a discussion of other
cancers or fatalities.  If you give me a page number, I will look more
closely.  

There is nothing special about "bremsstrahlung" radiation, other than
its rather entertaining name.  It is just the mechanism by which x-rays
are formed.  There is an article about it on Wikipedia.  

I may be looking at the wrong part of the Tell report.  Page 5 is a
discussion of the Canadian Safety code, including a table: there are no
measurements.  Page 6 is a discussion of LORAN-C Transmission
Characteristics, and does not talk about x-ray, nor have any
measurements.  Page 11 has a discussion about x-rays, and a small table
of measurements, the highest being 3 mrem/hr for low energy X-rays.
This is much lower than the 4,800 mrem/hr cited earlier.  Also on Page
11 is the quote: "At approximately three feet from the most interior
location of the cabinet, the maximum dose rate observed during the
survey was 0.1 mrem/hr."  This would seem to further support the idea
that 38,400 mrem/day is not a reasonable rate to assume for worker
exposure.  

Again, I am not saying that there was no worker exposure to x-rays.  I
am not even saying that there could not have been some type of health
effect, though I suspect that it would likely impossible to link.  I am
saying that the numbers you included in your original post are not
reasonable.  

-----Original Message-----
From: von Kessel, Jon Mr CIV US USA AMC
[mailto:Jon.vonKessel at us.army.mil] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 11:48 AM
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

Aloha, Mike,

I wish to thank you for your insight and comments.  In essence it
appears
that the subject matter certainly contains a large amount of unknowns,
of
which Mr, MacFeeley and I, along with many other Coast Guard people have
come to realize.  I'm curious whether you would have any comments
regarding
the other forms of cancer that were discussed of those who are now up
with
their maker within Mr. MacFeeley's documentation.  Also, are you aware
of
various forms of cancer that have developed and were or should be
credited
to being caused by "bremsstrahlung" radiation?

Would it not appear that the measurements taken by Richard Tell &
recorded
on pp. 5-6 & 11 of his report suggest that the AN/FPN-44 transmitters
(vs.
the much higher powered AN/FPN-45) have radiation levels that are way
beyond
what is considered acceptable working environment exposure, especially
for
those who are frequently exposed to such X-rays?  And, in that regard,
realizing that the maximum potential exposure levels vs. actual exposure
levels are broadly separated - there would appear to be cause for great
concern and possible further analyses.

Your further comments please.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Brennan, Mike (DOH) [mailto:Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:07 AM
To: von Kessel, Jon Mr CIV US USA AMC; 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)

Hi, Jon.

I am sorry to hear about your prostate cancer.  As a man entering the
age
when prostate cancer is often first diagnosed, I have been paying some
attention to recent developments about screening and treatment.  I know
that
it can be a condition where the answers are far from clear.  

Although I have only skimmed the document you attached, I have to say
that I
am quite impressed with Mr. MacFeeley's work.  It is clearly designed to
inform, and not simply to advance a particular agenda (as is the case
with
too many things I read).  

In interest of full disclosure, I have to say that I am not an x-ray
expert: I am mostly a radioactive materials guy, not so much a machine
produced radiation guy.  Still, I do know a fair amount about how
radiation
interacts with the body, and I have participated in several dose
reconstructions, which essentially is what you are trying to do.  

Dose reconstruction can be very hard.  This is especially the case when
the
geometry of sources (in this case tubes) is complex and not available
for
examination, and the people being exposed are moving around, and there
is no
documentation on which to base estimates.  On more than one occasion I
have
seen reconstructions that had so many
(unavoidable) simplifying assumptions that the final number was useless.