[ RadSafe ] Pipe Cleaners
Hansen, Richard
HansenRG at nv.doe.gov
Mon Mar 8 15:15:51 CST 2010
For more information about NORM in petroleum pipe scales,
see the article in Health Physics:
October 2004 - Volume 87 - Issue 4 - pp 382-397
Radiological Assessment of Petroleum Pipe Scale
>From Pipe-Rattling Operations
Hamilton, I S.; Arno, M G.; Rock, J C.; Berry, R O.; Poston, J W. Sr;
Cezeaux, J R.; Park, J -M.
The abstract is available at:
http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2004/10000/Radiological_Assessment_of_Petroleum_Pipe_Scale.5.aspx
Pipes from three oil fields were
rattled to collect as much industry-representative data as possible. The 226Ra specific
activity of the pipe scale ranged from 33.6 ± 0.4 to 65.5 ± 0.7 Bq g-1, depending on the
formation. A median atmospheric dust loading of 0.13 mg m-3 was measured in the
operator breathing zone. The respirable fraction was observed to be about 42% to 46%.
Based on cleaning 20 pipes per day,250 d per year on average, annual committed effective
doses for the operator and helper ranged from 0.11 mSv (11 mrem) to 0.45 mSv(45 mrem)
for inhalation and from 19 μSv (1.9 mrem) to 97 μSv (9.7mrem) for incidental ingestion.
Worker annual external dose from thepipe racks ranged from 0 to 0.28 mSv (28 mrem). In
the deposition experiment, more than 99% by weight of the deposited scale fell within 2 m
of the machine centerline, the vast majority of which was in the downwind direction. The
dose from this deposited material dominated the worker dose estimates. The annual
external dose from dispersed material was estimated to be 2.8 mSv (280 mrem) for the
operator and 4.1 mSv (410 mrem) for the helper.
Best regards,
Rick Hansen
Senior Scientist
Counter Terrorism Operations Support Program
National Security Technologies, LLC, for the U.S. Dept of Energy
hansenrg at nv.doe.gov
www.ctosnnsa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:04 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 238, Issue 2
Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu
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: Airport Body Scanners (Hansen, Richard)
2. Re: Airport Body Scanners (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net)
3. Re: Correction - Airport Body Scanners (HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net)
4. Re: Radiation Risk organization (Stewart Farber)
5. FW: Pipe Cleaners (Mercado, Don)
6. Re: Airport Body Scanners (Franz Sch?nhofer)
7. Re: FW: Pipe Cleaners (Dan)
8. Re: FW: Pipe Cleaners (Franz Sch?nhofer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:42:57 -0800
From: "Hansen, Richard" <HansenRG at nv.doe.gov>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID:
<55923BCCB2EB134790707CA38D3DFCAE0271A5F5 at NLV-VPO1-WS.NTS.OPS>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7
There is an ANSI/HPS standard for security screening systems that use x-rays and are designed to be used on people. This standard states maximum dose per scan, the maximum dose to the operators, and the minimum information to be provided to the persons being scanned.
ANSI/HPS N43.17-2002
American National Standard Radiation Safety For Personnel Security Screening Systems Using X-rays
Under maximum operating parameters, the effective dose shall not exceed 0.10 microsievert (10 microrem) per scan of the subject's front.
The facility shall be operated to ensure that no individual scanned receives from the facility an effective dose in excess of 0.25 millisievert (25 millirem) in any twelve-month period.
The system should be positioned and operated such that personnel at any work station do not exceed a dose of 1 millisievert (100 millirem) per year.
At a minimum, the institution operating the system shall inform each person being scanned of the following:
a) The system emits radiation;
b) The dose from one scan shall not exceed 0.1 ?Sv (10 ?rem);
c) An example shall be provided to compare the dose to a commonly known source of radiation, such as "The radiation from one scan is equivalent to approximately 20 minutes of exposure to naturally occurring background radiation";
d) The system conforms with the ANSI/HPS consensus standard N43.17; if requested, information on how to acquire this standard shall be provided.
What is interesting is to compare the dose a passenger would get from a security scan (0.10 microsievert, 10 microrem) to the length of time it would take for that passenger to receive the same dose on the airline flight. Using the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute Federal Aviation Administration CARI program (http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov./cariprofile.asp), I made a rough estimate for a flight from Los Angeles to New York City. Each passenger would receive a dose of about 18.60 microsieverts (1860 microrem), with a dose rate of about 3.8 microsievert per hour (380 microrem/h) at a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet. This means the dose from the x-ray scanner is equivalent to the dose a passenger would receive in less than 2 minutes at cruising altitude. Or another way to look at it is that getting the x-ray scan increases the passenger's dose for the airline trip by less than 0.6% (not counting the dose from natural background during the 2+ hours the passenger was on the ground at t
he airport before boarding and after exiting the aircraft).
Best regards,
Rick Hansen
Senior Scientist
Counter Terrorism Operations Support Program
National Security Technologies, LLC, for the U.S. Dept of Energy
hansenrg at nv.doe.gov
www.ctosnnsa.org
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:50:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
To: edmond0033 at comcast.net
Cc: pollycove at comcast.net, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID:
<44926129.3393841268074208650.JavaMail.root at sz0002a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Should European failure to reproduce (birth rates much < 2/person),
aggravated by fatal fears like the Chernobyl abortion panic,
concern both health physicists and family doctors?
Ed's anectodal Prologue (summarized below) could enlighten the ignorant.
Myron Pollycove, formerly of the US Nuclear regulatory Commission,
enlightened?our UCSF Medical class of '50, 5 years ago (at my behest)
about his?research?in?hormesis. What will he be able to report
this May about progress?with either public or health physicists'
comprehension of the benefit of 1 to 10 rad/year?
Howard Long
----- Original Message -----
From: edmond0033 at comcast.net
To: "Franz Sch?nhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu, "HOWARD LONG" <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>, "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:27:24 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
Franz:
I agree with you.? There is too much 'Big Brother'.? Imagine if anyone in Radsafe suggested it would be fine if someone should be exposed to 'deadly' radiaton for any reason whatsoever.? Perish the thought.? Hopefully anyone in Radsafe doesn't get picked as a possible terrorist for expressing their opinion.
Ed Baratta
edmond0033 at comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
To: "Franz Sch?nhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>, "HOWARD LONG" <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>, "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 12:49:34 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
RADSAFERs,
I want to add for clarification, that I am by far not afraid of any
radiation exposure (why should I!), but I oppose the trend to cut down the
privacy of people by forcing them to parade "naked" in front of some
whatever persons and however these pictures deleted later on. This is
against any human dignity.
What I understand least of all, is that this humiliating concept originated
from the USA - the "land of the free", the land claiming to be a spearhead
to indiviudual rights. Come on, don't tell me about "bla, bla, bla". It is a
political concept, it is discrimination of foreigners. Having been dozens of
times in the USA I do not really plan to visit the USA again within the next
few years. I have the feeling that I am not welcome unless I can prove that
I am not a Taliban or any other islamic organisation etc. I suppose that
after sending this message I am registered in the USA because of using
"Taliban". ?
?
Every scientist is welcome to Austria by me and the other authorities
without having to parade at a naked-scanner at the Vienna Airport. I cannot
pay any costs for visiting!
Seriously: I had several participants of RADSAFE already as guests in Vienna
and I think we mutually enjoyed the guided VIP tour I provided. I encourage
everybody to contact me for a visit, though I am most of the time not in
Vienna.
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Franz Sch?nhofer
Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. M?rz 2010 20:02
An: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; 'Ed Hiserodt'
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
RADSAFErs
Please help me to understand, why we have at RADSAFE to deal with all kind
of nonsensical pseudo-radiation protectional rubbish.
Howard, I would recommend that you keep to your profession of (as far as I
understand) family doctor.
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. M?rz 2010 18:45
An: Ed Hiserodt
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
"UNDEREXPOSED? -? What if Radiation Is Actually GOOD for You",
Ed Hiserodt's paperback, is on my waiting room table, and well-thumbed.
The Prologue?is riveting (in brief):???
???????????? "?Radiation can be dangerous.?
???????????? So can ignorance.??
X-rays for wrist fracture scared a woman into having an abortion,
to prevent the 'likelihood of a deformed child'
?[- ignorant of 200?FEWER?deformities in Taiwan apts?
where 4cSv?over 10years Chen, Luan, J Am Phys & Surg 13/1/Spring '08].
A health physicist estimated the increased radiation as less
than from a coast to coast flight. -
I wonder what my niece or nephew would have been like"
?????????????????????? Publicize?your engineering analysis,?Ed!
Howard Long, family doctor?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:36:26 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
I recently received this email from a friend who thinks that I know
something about radiation since I wrote a book on the beneficial effects of
LLR. ?Hey, when did writing on a subject and having any knowledge of it
become synonymous? ? (Remember Al Gore?) ?Anyway here is his question. ?Any
comments on it would be appreciated.?
"Regarding the virtual strip-search machines that will be appearing at
airports across the country, how much radiation do they actually release and
how does this compare to the radiation we are normally exposed to anyway?
How dangerous are these machines, if at all, for someone who does a lot of
flying? ?I understand that there are two technologies the TSA uses to peer
through clothing:?
"One uses millimeter waves - does this involve any radiation; is it
completely safe??
"The other is the backscatter X-ray."?
Ed Hiserodt
Maumelle, AR
501 258 2571?
??
?
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:41:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Correction - Airport Body Scanners
To: blreider at aol.com
Cc: aaps at aapsonline.org, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID:
<1370561422.3419071268077313465.JavaMail.root at sz0002a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Barbara (and other Radsafers interested in a rare natural experiment)
go to www.aapsonline.org , scroll down a long ways to
"Journal", then to "Spring 2004, V9:1" then to
"Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer",
W.L. Chen, Y.C. Luan et al pp6-10.
Please ask if that doesn't answer fully. The number 200 is arithmetic from the rates and pop. found there.
Howard Long
?
----- Original Message -----
From: blreider at aol.com
To: "HOWARD LONG" <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu, hise at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 9:11:22 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Correction - Airport Body Scanners
Howard, the number 200 you quoted from the Taiwan article does strike one.? I shall look for the article.? But not having seen it, your post brings to mind quite a few questions that are needed by some of us technical folks to?feel comfortable with?the conclusion prior to using this?as an argument.? I'm not an epidemiologist and perhaps someone who has more experience evaluating environmental data can add their 2 or more cents in.? Some of the questions I have?are:
? What is the size of the population studied?
? What is the size of the unexposed background population used?
? What are the differences in abodes??
? Are there other differences in race, age, lifestyles or class of the populations?
? What types of deformaties are noted as radiation related??
? Are the same deformaties found in the aborted fetuses?
? What are the standard deviations on the data and background data?
? How do data trend from year to year?
I am sure I can think of more however I think this is a good start.? One of my faults is that I always question everything.? It is also one of my strengths.
Barbara Reider, CHP
?
-----Original Message-----
From: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; Ed Hiserodt <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:16 am
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Correction - Airport Body Scanners
Correction: Extra dose in Taiwan apts averaged 0.4 Sv (not 4.0 cSv)
associated with just?10%?of the deformities?in non-exposed equivalents.
Howard Long?
"UNDEREXPOSED? -? What if Radiation Is Actually GOOD for You",
Ed Hiserodt's paperback, is on my waiting room table, and well-thumbed.
The Prologue?is riveting (in brief):??
???????????? "?Radiation can be dangerous.
???????????? So can ignorance.??
X-rays for wrist fracture scared a woman into having an abortion,
to prevent the 'likelihood of a deformed child' [ignorant of
200?FEWER?deformities in Taiwan apts?where 4cSv?over 10years
Chen, Luan, J Am Phys & Surg 13/1/Spring '08].
A health physicist estimated the increased radiation as less
than from a coast to coast flight. -
I wonder what my niece or nephew would have been like"
Publicize?your engineering analysis,?Ed!
Howard Long, family doctor?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Hiserodt" < hise at sbcglobal.net >
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:36:26 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
I recently received this email from a friend who thinks that I know
something about radiation since I wrote a book on the beneficial effects of
LLR. ?Hey, when did writing on a subject and having any knowledge of it
become synonymous? ? (Remember Al Gore?) ?Anyway here is his question. ?Any
comments on it would be appreciated.
?
"Regarding the virtual strip-search machines that will be appearing at
airports across the country, how much radiation do they actually release and
how does this compare to the radiation we are normally exposed to anyway?
How dangerous are these machines, if at all, for someone who does a lot of
flying? ?I understand that there are two technologies the TSA uses to peer
through clothing:
?
"One uses millimeter waves - does this involve any radiation; is it
completely safe?
?
"The other is the backscatter X-ray."
?
Ed Hiserodt
Maumelle, AR
501 258 2571?
??
?
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 12:04:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Farber <radproject at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Risk organization
To: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>
Cc: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <553353.29910.qm at web82507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Bjorn,
?
This "?European Committee on Radiation Risk" organization is clearly an entity that was formed by anti-nuclear activists, and exists to exaggerate the detriment from nuclear energy and radiation related matters. The report they issued on Chernobyl is a clear piece of one-sided distortion, issued for political purposes [aka propaganda]. Their "publications" and "analyses" are part of the philosophy: "If one repeats a lie often enough, it somehow becomes true".
?
For example,?Euradcom holds?a Dr. Rosalie Bertell in high esteem. Dr. Bertell is a radiation hazard?propagandist who? has been active for the past?40?years [trying to out-Sternglass, Sternglass, as it were] working to stop?all nuclear power development. For example, she has claimed?millions of people will have died from the Chernobyl accident.??
?
Readers of this "European Committee on Radiation Risk" Euradcom group's claims beware.
Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [office]
website: http://www.farber-medical.com
===============================
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Risk organization
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 3:13 AM
Anyone in Radsafers land who could help to characterize the following institution/"body"?:
http://www.euradcom.org/
Does it have anything formally to do with EU for instance?
My personal initiative only,
Bjorn Cedervall
??? ???????? ?????? ??? ?
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:36:01 -0700
From: "Mercado, Don" <don.mercado at lmco.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: Pipe Cleaners
To: "'radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu'" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<7FD1BB6984A20844BF6F1FD7B6896FE64738329070 at HDXMSP5.us.lmco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Does anyone have more information on this? Was it natural or manmade RM?
Jury: Energy giant must pay $2 million
By The Associated Press
Friday, March 05, 2010
A state district court jury decided Friday that Exxon Mobil Corp. failed to warn workers that offshore drilling pipes they cleaned over decades contained radioactive contamination.
Sixteen former employees of now-defunct Intracoastal Tubular Services, of Harvey, were awarded nearly $2 million as compensation for the increased risk of developing cancer. The jury declined to award punitive damages.
"We still believe that our pipe did not cause any harm," Exxon Mobil attorney Charles Gay said after the verdict.
Plaintiff attorney Tim Falcon said the former workers were disappointed by the award, but still called the finding that Exxon was at fault "a victory."
The verdict came after seven days of deliberations. No blame was placed on Intracoastal Tubular Services.
The suit was filed in 2001 after a New Orleans jury awarded the Grefer family, which owns the property on which the pipes were cleaned, $1 billion in punitive damages against Exxon Mobil and ITCO. The family leased 33 acres for three decades to ITCO.
A state appeals court later upheld the verdict, but reduced punitive damages to $122 million.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:41:32 +0100
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
To: <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>, <edmond0033 at comcast.net>
Cc: pollycove at comcast.net, radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <66021849BAFE473298590C58B6400E2D at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Howard,
I am sure that I have a rather good command of English, so I more than
wonder, what you write. What do you mean by ?European failure to reproduce?
much<2/ person???? (This would make four childen per couple???) Where do you
get these numbers from? Could you imagine that birthcontrol is in developed
countries a matter of living standard? (BTW I have three ?children?, grown
up in the mean time.) Where do you take this idiotic claim of ?Chernobyl
abortion panic???? You seem to read to many antinuclear propaganda!!! There
do not exist any statistics which would indicate a rise in abortions. I
remember that I gave at that time an interview on the Austrian Radio clearly
stating that it would be irresponsible and unjustifiable to seek abortion
and that the health risks (not to talk about psychical impacts) of an
abortion would be by far higher than any theoretically and statistically
calculated damage.
Your Pollycove ? if he is the source of the above mentioned nonsense ? could
probably make a better ?research? than he did for your ?UCSF Medical Class?
for the money he sure has received. Some ?Hardliners? (Gary!) will for sure
use this comment to pin me down as an ?anti-American agitator?. I have high
estimate for Ed Baratta, whom I met many years ago at RADCHEM in Marianske
Lazne in the Northern Czech Republic and whom I hope to meet at the next one
this April again.
Best regards,
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net [mailto:HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]
Gesendet: Montag, 08. M?rz 2010 19:50
An: edmond0033 at comcast.net
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; Ed Hiserodt; Franz Sch?nhofer;
pollycove at comcast.net
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
Should European failure to reproduce (birth rates much < 2/person),
aggravated by fatal fears like the Chernobyl abortion panic,
concern both health physicists and family doctors?
Ed's anectodal Prologue (summarized below) could enlighten the ignorant.
Myron Pollycove, formerly of the US Nuclear regulatory Commission,
enlightened our UCSF Medical class of '50, 5 years ago (at my behest)
about his research in hormesis. What will he be able to report
this May about progress with either public or health physicists'
comprehension of the benefit of 1 to 10 rad/year?
Howard Long
----- Original Message -----
From: edmond0033 at comcast.net
To: "Franz Sch?nhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu, "HOWARD LONG" <HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>,
"Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:27:24 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
Franz:
I agree with you. There is too much 'Big Brother'. Imagine if anyone in
Radsafe suggested it would be fine if someone should be exposed to 'deadly'
radiaton for any reason whatsoever. Perish the thought. Hopefully anyone
in Radsafe doesn't get picked as a possible terrorist for expressing their
opinion.
Ed Baratta
edmond0033 at comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franz Sch?nhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
To: "Franz Sch?nhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>, "HOWARD LONG"
<HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net>, "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 12:49:34 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
RADSAFERs,
I want to add for clarification, that I am by far not afraid of any
radiation exposure (why should I!), but I oppose the trend to cut down the
privacy of people by forcing them to parade "naked" in front of some
whatever persons and however these pictures deleted later on. This is
against any human dignity.
What I understand least of all, is that this humiliating concept originated
from the USA - the "land of the free", the land claiming to be a spearhead
to indiviudual rights. Come on, don't tell me about "bla, bla, bla". It is a
political concept, it is discrimination of foreigners. Having been dozens of
times in the USA I do not really plan to visit the USA again within the next
few years. I have the feeling that I am not welcome unless I can prove that
I am not a Taliban or any other islamic organisation etc. I suppose that
after sending this message I am registered in the USA because of using
"Taliban".
Every scientist is welcome to Austria by me and the other authorities
without having to parade at a naked-scanner at the Vienna Airport. I cannot
pay any costs for visiting!
Seriously: I had several participants of RADSAFE already as guests in Vienna
and I think we mutually enjoyed the guided VIP tour I provided. I encourage
everybody to contact me for a visit, though I am most of the time not in
Vienna.
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Franz Sch?nhofer
Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. M?rz 2010 20:02
An: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net; 'Ed Hiserodt'
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
RADSAFErs
Please help me to understand, why we have at RADSAFE to deal with all kind
of nonsensical pseudo-radiation protectional rubbish.
Howard, I would recommend that you keep to your profession of (as far as I
understand) family doctor.
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. M?rz 2010 18:45
An: Ed Hiserodt
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
"UNDEREXPOSED - What if Radiation Is Actually GOOD for You",
Ed Hiserodt's paperback, is on my waiting room table, and well-thumbed.
The Prologue is riveting (in brief):
" Radiation can be dangerous.
So can ignorance.
X-rays for wrist fracture scared a woman into having an abortion,
to prevent the 'likelihood of a deformed child'
[- ignorant of 200 FEWER deformities in Taiwan apts
where 4cSv over 10years Chen, Luan, J Am Phys & Surg 13/1/Spring '08].
A health physicist estimated the increased radiation as less
than from a coast to coast flight. -
I wonder what my niece or nephew would have been like"
Publicize your engineering analysis, Ed!
Howard Long, family doctor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:36:26 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Airport Body Scanners
I recently received this email from a friend who thinks that I know
something about radiation since I wrote a book on the beneficial effects of
LLR. Hey, when did writing on a subject and having any knowledge of it
become synonymous? (Remember Al Gore?) Anyway here is his question. Any
comments on it would be appreciated.
"Regarding the virtual strip-search machines that will be appearing at
airports across the country, how much radiation do they actually release and
how does this compare to the radiation we are normally exposed to anyway?
How dangerous are these machines, if at all, for someone who does a lot of
flying? I understand that there are two technologies the TSA uses to peer
through clothing:
"One uses millimeter waves - does this involve any radiation; is it
completely safe?
"The other is the backscatter X-ray."
Ed Hiserodt
Maumelle, AR
501 258 2571
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:52:36 -0700
From: Dan <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Pipe Cleaners
To: "Mercado, Don" <don.mercado at lmco.com>
Cc: "radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <40762915-D6C7-450E-AF93-01AF30230CCE at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
This is TENORM material that precipitated over time on the pipes.
Mainly radium. Well known and characterized.
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
HotGreenChile at gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 8, 2010, at 1:36 PM, "Mercado, Don" <don.mercado at lmco.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have more information on this? Was it natural or manmade
> RM?
>
> Jury: Energy giant must pay $2 million
> By The Associated Press
> Friday, March 05, 2010
>
> A state district court jury decided Friday that Exxon Mobil Corp.
> failed to warn workers that offshore drilling pipes they cleaned
> over decades contained radioactive contamination.
>
> Sixteen former employees of now-defunct Intracoastal Tubular
> Services, of Harvey, were awarded nearly $2 million as compensation
> for the increased risk of developing cancer. The jury declined to
> award punitive damages.
>
> "We still believe that our pipe did not cause any harm," Exxon Mobil
> attorney Charles Gay said after the verdict.
>
> Plaintiff attorney Tim Falcon said the former workers were
> disappointed by the award, but still called the finding that Exxon
> was at fault "a victory."
>
> The verdict came after seven days of deliberations. No blame was
> placed on Intracoastal Tubular Services.
>
> The suit was filed in 2001 after a New Orleans jury awarded the
> Grefer family, which owns the property on which the pipes were
> cleaned, $1 billion in punitive damages against Exxon Mobil and
> ITCO. The family leased 33 acres for three decades to ITCO.
>
> A state appeals court later upheld the verdict, but reduced punitive
> damages to $122 million.
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
> settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:05:13 +0100
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Pipe Cleaners
To: "'Mercado, Don'" <don.mercado at lmco.com>,
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <BE98BC77F4384FD5AE0F8C57D2F95857 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Don,
Even without knowing the accurate circumstances I can tell you that radium
bearing "scales" are a big concern not only in the oil industry but also to
a much lesser extent to drinking water supplies, because radium is enriched
in them. For instance in Norway those scales from oil drilling pipes have to
be collected and are treated as radioactive waste by law. Similar
legislation exists world wide.
I do not know how in your case "natural" and "man made" is defined. Of
course the radium is of natural origin (NORM), but on the other side it is
accumulated by interference of human machinery (TENORM). Please keep me
informed of the outcome!
Best regards,
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Mercado, Don
Gesendet: Montag, 08. M?rz 2010 21:36
An: 'radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu'
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] FW: Pipe Cleaners
Does anyone have more information on this? Was it natural or manmade RM?
Jury: Energy giant must pay $2 million
By The Associated Press
Friday, March 05, 2010
A state district court jury decided Friday that Exxon Mobil Corp. failed to
warn workers that offshore drilling pipes they cleaned over decades
contained radioactive contamination.
Sixteen former employees of now-defunct Intracoastal Tubular Services, of
Harvey, were awarded nearly $2 million as compensation for the increased
risk of developing cancer. The jury declined to award punitive damages.
"We still believe that our pipe did not cause any harm," Exxon Mobil
attorney Charles Gay said after the verdict.
Plaintiff attorney Tim Falcon said the former workers were disappointed by
the award, but still called the finding that Exxon was at fault "a victory."
The verdict came after seven days of deliberations. No blame was placed on
Intracoastal Tubular Services.
The suit was filed in 2001 after a New Orleans jury awarded the Grefer
family, which owns the property on which the pipes were cleaned, $1 billion
in punitive damages against Exxon Mobil and ITCO. The family leased 33 acres
for three decades to ITCO.
A state appeals court later upheld the verdict, but reduced punitive damages
to $122 million.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 238, Issue 2
***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list