[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 598, Issue 1

DORAN, GERARD A GDORAN at entergy.com
Wed Apr 13 13:36:48 CDT 2011


Response to message 1 below:

The term suppression pool stems from (I believe) the newer Mark II BWR
containment design.  These newer designs actually do have a pool (that
you can walk over on grating) that is used much like the older Torus (to
suppress energy in the event of over-pressure/over-temperature).  Even
GE has used the term suppression pool in some discussions about Mark I
BWR design.  Pool or Torus, they both perform similar safety functions. 

Gerry Doran, CHP

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:51:46 -0500
From: "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	MailingList'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <015c01cbf93a$4b364ba0$4401a8c0 at pumpconbsflye1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Here is the latest from the N.E.I. on Fukushima:

 

Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor 2
on
March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor's
suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear
<http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm>  Safety Commission said.
Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission
said,
but the volume has dropped considerably.

 

Is the "suppression pool" the same as the spent fuel storage pool?   I
wouldn't think so.  But I've not heard the term before in reference to
BWRs.

 

Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, inc.

Little Rock



-----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: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 598, Issue 1

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 readable PLEASE observe the
following guideline when replying to a message or digest:

1. When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of radsafe digest ..."
2. Do NOT include the entire digest in your reply. Include ONLY the
germane sentences to which you're responding.

Thanks!_______________________________________________


Today's Topics:

   1. Suppression Pool Anyone? (Ed Hiserodt)
   2. Re: Suppression Pool Anyone? (Rouse, Raymond Lawrence)
   3. Re: Suppression Pool Anyone? (William Lipton)
   4. Re: Suppression Pool Anyone? (Jeff Terry)
   5. Re: Suppression Pool Anyone? (Rouse, Raymond Lawrence)
   6. "Complaint" to RADSAFE: #1 WSJ.com - #2 Spam (Franz Sch?nhofer)
   7. "Complaint" to RADSAFE: #1 WSJ.com - #2 Spam (Franz Sch?nhofer)
   8. Re: Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED) (Douglas Minnema)
   9. Re: Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED) (Doug Huffman)
  10. Re: Serendipity (Jerry Cohen)
  11. Re: Serendipity (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  12. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Guilmette, Todd)
  13. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Doug Huffman)
  14. Re: Serendipity (Howard)
  15. Re: Serendipity (Howard)
  16. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
      andColleagues (Steven Dapra)
  17. This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't exist
      (Bjorn Cedervall)
  18. This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't exist
      (Bjorn Cedervall)
  19. Re: Developing Body of Evidence to Refute	Mangano
      andColleagues (Doug Aitken)
  20. The Economist" conducts international online debate on the
      future of nuclear power (Bjorn Cedervall)
  21. FW: [abolition-caucus] Supposedly "Independent" French
      Commission Claims Radiation risks from Fukushima to Europe
are no
      longer negligible (Roger Helbig)
  22. Unplanned Radiation Exposures at Cooper Nuclear Plant
      (William Lipton)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:51:46 -0500
From: "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	MailingList'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <015c01cbf93a$4b364ba0$4401a8c0 at pumpconbsflye1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Here is the latest from the N.E.I. on Fukushima:

 

Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor 2
on
March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor's
suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear
<http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm>  Safety Commission said.
Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission
said,
but the volume has dropped considerably.

 

Is the "suppression pool" the same as the spent fuel storage pool?   I
wouldn't think so.  But I've not heard the term before in reference to
BWRs.

 

Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, inc.

Little Rock



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:00:29 -0400
From: "Rouse, Raymond Lawrence" <rlrouse at tva.gov>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
	MailingList"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	
<3E9BD556AF0CE448B45C69DFA70497FD09F5AB0A at TVANUCXVS1.main.tva.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

No a suppression pool is also known as a Torus, it is a giant heat sink
designed to supply water to the reactor in the event of a Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA). If the reactor suffers a severe pipe shear
water would drain into the Torus that water can be cooled and returned
back to the reactor using various systems. It is also design to relieve
pressure from the Drywell. If the Drywell is vented to the Torus the
over pressure can be relived using cooling system designed the spray the
contents with cold water ie. Torus spray. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Hiserodt
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:52 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?

Here is the latest from the N.E.I. on Fukushima:

 

Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor 2
on
March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor's
suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear
<http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm>  Safety Commission said.
Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission
said,
but the volume has dropped considerably.

 

Is the "suppression pool" the same as the spent fuel storage pool?   I
wouldn't think so.  But I've not heard the term before in reference to
BWRs.

 

Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, inc.

Little Rock

_______________________________________________
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: 3
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:01:23 -0400
From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinB5syo0prBBM2E9crfYKcrY_jkWw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

For BWR's with a Mark 1 containment, the suppression pool, aka "torus,"
is a
donut shaped container, partially filled with water, that is below the
reactor vessel, and connected to the vessel by several large pipes,
called
downcomers.  For normal operation, valves in the downcomers are closed,
to
isolate the torus.  Under accident conditions, one option for dealing
with
an overpressurized reactor is to open these valves. Steam from the
reactor
vessel goes into the suppression pool, where it is condensed by the
water,
to depressurize the reactor.

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.



On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Ed Hiserodt <hise at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Here is the latest from the N.E.I. on Fukushima:
>
>
>
> Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor
2 on
> March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor's
> suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear
> <http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm>  Safety Commission said.
> Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission
said,
> but the volume has dropped considerably.
>
>
>
> Is the "suppression pool" the same as the spent fuel storage pool?   I
> wouldn't think so.  But I've not heard the term before in reference to
> BWRs.
>
>
>
> Ed Hiserodt
>
> Controls & Power, inc.
>
> Little Rock
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:03:45 -0500
From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <03A1E6C7-6381-4808-812B-A5E7524AE242 at iit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii

Hi Ed,

The suppression pool is the torus shaped device at the bottom of the
reactor.
You can see an image here: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm

In case of a pressure (steam) build up in the drywell, the pressure can
be vented 
into the wetwell (suppression pool). The wetwell has a large volume of
water which 
acts to cool the steam. The steam released from the reactor pressure
vessel can
contain various radionuclides depending upon the amount of damage
suffered
by the fuel rods. 

This was the source of the radioactivity in the surpression pool. 


Jeff

Jeff Terry
Asst. Professor of Physics
Life Science Bldg Rm 166
Illinois Institute of Technology
3101 S. Dearborn St. 
Chicago IL 60616
630-252-9708
terryj at iit.edu




On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

> Here is the latest from the N.E.I. on Fukushima:
> 
> 
> 
> Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor
2 on
> March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor's
> suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear
> <http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm>  Safety Commission said.
> Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission
said,
> but the volume has dropped considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the "suppression pool" the same as the spent fuel storage pool?   I
> wouldn't think so.  But I've not heard the term before in reference to
BWRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Hiserodt
> 
> Controls & Power, inc.
> 
> Little Rock
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:07:20 -0400
From: "Rouse, Raymond Lawrence" <rlrouse at tva.gov>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
	MailingList"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	
<3E9BD556AF0CE448B45C69DFA70497FD09F5AB0C at TVANUCXVS1.main.tva.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Exactly the Wet well being 1/2 filled with water  vs Drywell which is
Dry (inerted with a non combustible gas) 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:04 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Suppression Pool Anyone?

Hi Ed,

The suppression pool is the torus shaped device at the bottom of the
reactor.
You can see an image here: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/bwr.htm

In case of a pressure (steam) build up in the drywell, the pressure can
be vented 
into the wetwell (suppression pool). The wetwell has a large volume of
water which 
acts to cool the steam. The steam released from the reactor pressure
vessel can
contain various radionuclides depending upon the amount of damage
suffered
by the fuel rods. 

This was the source of the radioactivity in the surpression pool. 


Jeff

Jeff Terry
Asst. Professor of Physics
Life Science Bldg Rm 166
Illinois Institute of Technology
3101 S. Dearborn St. 
Chicago IL 60616
630-252-9708
terryj at iit.edu




On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

> Here is the latest from the N.E.I. on Fukushima:
> 
> 
> 
> Authorities said much of the high-level radiation leaked from reactor
2 on
> March 15 and 16, early in the accident. Abnormalities in the reactor's
> suppression pool caused the radiation release, the Japan Nuclear
> <http://www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/index.htm>  Safety Commission said.
> Radiation continues to leak from the suppression pool, the commission
said,
> but the volume has dropped considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the "suppression pool" the same as the spent fuel storage pool?   I
> wouldn't think so.  But I've not heard the term before in reference to
BWRs.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Hiserodt
> 
> Controls & Power, inc.
> 
> Little Rock
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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: 6
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:39:06 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Complaint" to RADSAFE: #1 WSJ.com - #2 Spam
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	MailingList'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <C48563A876964410924541A5690D77A9 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

I received today two suspicious e-mails from RADSAFE. 

#1 is the one below: I do not understand, why RADSAFErs should work
themselves through several links to read a message possibly related to
RADSAFE. First of all these links may lead to fake addresses with all
possible disastrous consequences, secondly if somebody wants to
distribute
something on RADSAFE he or she should use plain text. Thirdly anybody
who
uses a title on RADSAFE in his e-mail address ("doctorbill") is
especially
suspicious for me.

The other case is an e-mail which came via RADSAFE about somebody
cycling to
somewhere to support some cancer fund - of course with the request for
donations. This really is not the agenda of RADSAFE to distribute such
requests. Caveats like above apply to this message as well.

Sorry to bother you with this, but I thought it was most annoying. 

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
doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 03:21
An: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] WSJ.com - Three Workers at Nebraska Plant Exposed
toRadiation



*Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.



I'm interested in seeing more details on this.  



 
********************
 
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if
the
URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the
bottom of this email.
 
Title: WSJ.com - Three Workers at Nebraska Plant Exposed to Radiation
 This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal
for
up to seven days after it is e-mailed.
  
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent
link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etM
ailT
oID=444648260&pt=Y


 

Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to SAVE THIS link:
http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFr
omET
&partnerID=150&etMailToID=444648260&pt=Y

 
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to forward this link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMa
ilTo
ID=444648260&partnerID=150&pt=Y

  
 
********************


Email pages from any Web site you visit - add the EMAIL THIS button to
your
browser, copy and paste the following into your Web browser:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserButto
ns&p
t=Y"


*********************



Instructions:
-----------------------------------------
If your e-mail program doesn't recognize Web addresses:
1. With your mouse, highlight the Web Address above. Be sure to
highlight
the entire Web address, even if it spans more than one line in your
email. 
2. Select Copy from the Edit menu at the top of your screen. 
3. Launch your Web browser.
4. Paste the address into your Web browser by selecting Paste from the
Edit
menu.
5. Click Go or press Enter or Return on your keyboard. 
 
********************
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
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: 7
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:39:06 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Complaint" to RADSAFE: #1 WSJ.com - #2 Spam
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	MailingList'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <C48563A876964410924541A5690D77A9 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

I received today two suspicious e-mails from RADSAFE. 

#1 is the one below: I do not understand, why RADSAFErs should work
themselves through several links to read a message possibly related to
RADSAFE. First of all these links may lead to fake addresses with all
possible disastrous consequences, secondly if somebody wants to
distribute
something on RADSAFE he or she should use plain text. Thirdly anybody
who
uses a title on RADSAFE in his e-mail address ("doctorbill") is
especially
suspicious for me.

The other case is an e-mail which came via RADSAFE about somebody
cycling to
somewhere to support some cancer fund - of course with the request for
donations. This really is not the agenda of RADSAFE to distribute such
requests. Caveats like above apply to this message as well.

Sorry to bother you with this, but I thought it was most annoying. 

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
doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 03:21
An: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] WSJ.com - Three Workers at Nebraska Plant Exposed
toRadiation



*Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.



I'm interested in seeing more details on this.  



 
********************
 
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if
the
URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the
bottom of this email.
 
Title: WSJ.com - Three Workers at Nebraska Plant Exposed to Radiation
 This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal
for
up to seven days after it is e-mailed.
  
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent
link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etM
ailT
oID=444648260&pt=Y


 

Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to SAVE THIS link:
http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=saveFr
omET
&partnerID=150&etMailToID=444648260&pt=Y

 
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to forward this link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&etMa
ilTo
ID=444648260&partnerID=150&pt=Y

  
 
********************


Email pages from any Web site you visit - add the EMAIL THIS button to
your
browser, copy and paste the following into your Web browser:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserButto
ns&p
t=Y"


*********************



Instructions:
-----------------------------------------
If your e-mail program doesn't recognize Web addresses:
1. With your mouse, highlight the Web Address above. Be sure to
highlight
the entire Web address, even if it spans more than one line in your
email. 
2. Select Copy from the Edit menu at the top of your screen. 
3. Launch your Web browser.
4. Paste the address into your Web browser by selecting Paste from the
Edit
menu.
5. Click Go or press Enter or Return on your keyboard. 
 
********************
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:34:00 -0400
From: "Douglas Minnema" <douglasm at DNFSB.GOV>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4DA47EF9020000240001A764 at dnfsb3.dnfsb.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.

No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the
fact that the study had been done in a different era than today.  The
healthy worker effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no
further explanation was deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done
by an operational group (Naval Reactors) that was concerned about
ensuring that their workers were safe enough.  They were primarily
military and civilian engineers, not a bunch scientists looking for
statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any other theory of the day.
Concern over the adequacy of safety programs appears to have been the
norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.

I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some
significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss
did note that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to
publish the study so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps
they did not try as hard as we would have liked them to today. 

No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society, not
individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what is
actually likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any
particular group or individual failed to do what we, as
Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would have done in the same situation.  As
an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is still the model that other
nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their focus was safety in
design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion systems, not
epidemiology. 

 Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
Doug,

 

What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers appear
to
have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that one
of
the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this attitude?
Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their heads
No?

 

Just curious,

 

Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, Inc.

Maumelle, AR

 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A
Dr
CIV USA MEDCOM PHC
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:34 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

All,

 

I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I
got it
from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR):
https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I could
not
find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.

 

There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
data:

 

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx

 

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers at
the
PNS located in Kittery, Maine.

These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic
investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.

 

Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires
additional
authorization.

Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS
release
form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf

 

Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.

 

Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers

 

Matanoski et al.

Journal of Radiation Research

Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91

 

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf

 

Enjoy,

Jerry

 

--------------------------

Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP

Army Institute of Public Health

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM

To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart

 

 

 

Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
address these allegations.

 

During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him about
why
it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time
the
study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody
was
being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2)
since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should
publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
publications.

 

Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.

 

Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the
hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to determine
if
there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things would
be
done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than
what the study was designed to detect.

 

I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.
If
you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.

 

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

 

 

>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>

On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

> 

> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of

> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'

> 

> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.

> 

> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

>> Sandy,

>> 

>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear

>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
at

>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the

>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
these

>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of

>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study was

>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost
20

>> years after analysis of the data.)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> 

<snip>

_______________________________________________

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

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

 

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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: 9
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:44:53 -0500
From: Doug Huffman <doug.huffman at wildblue.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4DA4B9C5.9030106 at wildblue.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Would the data then qualify as convenient and not biased by LNT/hormesis
prejudices?  'Convenient data' as contrasted with purposeful data
assembled by the designer of a study susceptible to charges of bias.

Perhaps it should be re-evaluated with additional statistical
significance arguable for the absence of bias.



On 4/12/2011 15:34, Douglas Minnema wrote:
> Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.
> 
> No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the
fact that the study had been done in a different era than today.  The
healthy worker effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no
further explanation was deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done
by an operational group (Naval Reactors) that was concerned about
ensuring that their workers were safe enough.  They were primarily
military and civilian engineers, not a bunch scientists looking for
statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any other theory of the day.
Concern over the adequacy of safety programs appears to have been the
norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.
> 
> I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some
significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss
did note that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to
publish the study so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps
they did not try as hard as we would have liked them to today. 
> 
> No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society,
not individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what
is actually likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any
particular group or individual failed to do what we, as
Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would have done in the same situation.  As
an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is still the model that other
nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their focus was safety in
design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion systems, not
epidemiology. 
> 
>  Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
> 
>>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
> Doug,
> 
>  
> 
> What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers
appear to
> have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that
one of
> the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
> gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
> Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
> for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
> Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this
attitude?
> Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their
heads No?
> 
>  
> 
> Just curious,
> 
>  
> 
> Ed Hiserodt
> 
> Controls & Power, Inc.
> 
> Maumelle, AR
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald
A Dr
> CIV USA MEDCOM PHC
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:34 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
> 
>  
> 
> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> Caveats: NONE
> 
>  
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I
got it
> from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR):
> https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I
could not
> find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.
> 
>  
> 
> There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
data:
> 
>  
> 
> Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
(https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx
> 
>  
> 
> The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers
at the
> PNS located in Kittery, Maine.
> 
> These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic
> investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.
> 
>  
> 
> Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires
additional
> authorization.
> 
> Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS
release
> form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf
> 
>  
> 
> Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.
> 
>  
> 
> Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers
> 
>  
> 
> Matanoski et al.
> 
> Journal of Radiation Research
> 
> Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf
> 
>  
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> Jerry
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
> 
> Army Institute of Public Health
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema
> 
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM
> 
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
> address these allegations.
> 
>  
> 
> During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
> and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him
about why
> it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the
time the
> study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
> significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that
nobody was
> being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and
(2)
> since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
> original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they
should
> publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
> gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
> publications.
> 
>  
> 
> Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.
> 
>  
> 
> Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
> method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the
> hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to
determine if
> there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things
would be
> done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
> benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
> conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other
than
> what the study was designed to detect.
> 
>  
> 
> I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
> copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
> binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.
If
> you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
> scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.
> 
>  
> 
> Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
> 
> Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>
> 
> On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
>> Hash: SHA1
> 
>>
> 
>> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of
> 
>> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'
> 
>>
> 
>> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.
> 
>>
> 
>> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:
> 
>>> Sandy,
> 
>>>
> 
>>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear
> 
>>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
> at
> 
>>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the
> 
>>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
> these
> 
>>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of
> 
>>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study
was
> 
>>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost
20
> 
>>> years after analysis of the data.)
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
> 
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> Caveats: NONE
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNpLnDAAoJEIpOLnult3mgKp0IALHPyWW5TRW4JA7/ZgEdAXpP
KBoRb0EE2KgVdKtvVNyT/obxzahhZBm7NU/cG1gdzvumkK2QvVfhPCVdZZKkHrQz
hOQaGn3QiphpWgN1OYNtMZM0BjsFkhwSgD5hhpTfkU2ePabd3mNoC3HBwqNNtEsq
7UPPY0BUYFWy13B07ENtEwV4ZtslYgzycRBCPnI4lokALd5rqkhjPBev5DkvWg7O
qFp/elmlGiRAiKpudaRUpq7SV0h55g/yOrYN8gkN9ADHvvWqUbYytZ6YcMqGKVJl
9tMzCNye7FTRqhUpr/lIQofbAR69Dko2/1tg5Bn/eRAvzjLv8Aa/VWTB3BIiess=
=BNxO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Serendipity
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <926766.70824.qm at web82702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

It's a good thing Sir Alexander Fleming did not ignore the antibiotic
effect of 
the penicillium fungus because that was not what he was looking for.
Jerry Cohen



________________________________
From: Douglas Minnema <douglasm at DNFSB.GOV>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 1:34:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.

No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the
fact that 
the study had been done in a different era than today.  The healthy
worker 
effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no further
explanation was 
deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done by an operational group
(Naval 
Reactors) that was concerned about ensuring that their workers were safe

enough.  They were primarily military and civilian engineers, not a
bunch 
scientists looking for statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any
other 
theory of the day.  Concern over the adequacy of safety programs appears
to have 
been the norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.

I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some 
significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss
did note 
that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to publish
the study 
so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps they did not try as
hard as 
we would have liked them to today. 


No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society, not 
individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what is
actually 
likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any particular
group or 
individual failed to do what we, as Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would
have done 
in the same situation.  As an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is still
the 
model that other nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their
focus was 
safety in design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion
systems, not 
epidemiology. 


Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
Doug,



What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers appear
to
have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that one
of
the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this attitude?
Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their heads
No?



Just curious,



Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, Inc.

Maumelle, AR



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A
Dr
CIV USA MEDCOM PHC
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:34 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE



All,



I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I
got it
from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR):
https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I could
not
find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.



There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
data:



Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx



The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers at
the
PNS located in Kittery, Maine.

These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic
investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.



Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires
additional
authorization.

Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS
release
form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf



Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.



Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers



Matanoski et al.

Journal of Radiation Research

Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91



http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf



Enjoy,

Jerry



--------------------------

Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP

Army Institute of Public Health





-----Original Message-----

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM

To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart







Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
address these allegations.



During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him about
why
it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time
the
study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody
was
being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2)
since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should
publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
publications.



Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.



Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the
hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to determine
if
there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things would
be
done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than
what the study was designed to detect.



I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.
If
you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.



Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board





>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>

On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

> 

> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of

> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'

> 

> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.

> 

> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

>> Sandy,

>> 

>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear

>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
at

>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the

>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
these

>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of

>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study was

>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost
20

>> years after analysis of the data.)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> 

<snip>

_______________________________________________

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

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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: 11
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:07:10 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Serendipity
To: "'Jerry Cohen'" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,	"'The International
	Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)	MailingList'"
	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <8F7C9820B1634136B3EA673B4F485D25 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Sorry, Jerry, to interfere with your reasoning. According to what I read
(it
might be completely wrong!), Alexander Fleming did not really realize
the
potential of "penicillium". This does by no way mean that we should not
be
grateful for this discovery, which has spared millions of people from
death
- including me. 

We should be grateful for the progress of science and especially
medicine,
taking a few extra nanoSv into account to find out by CT about whether
severe fractions in the body occurred or not. This again includes me. 

Food for thought.

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 Jerry Cohen
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 23:38
An: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Serendipity

It's a good thing Sir Alexander Fleming did not ignore the antibiotic
effect
of 
the penicillium fungus because that was not what he was looking for.
Jerry Cohen



________________________________
From: Douglas Minnema <douglasm at DNFSB.GOV>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 1:34:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.

No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the
fact
that 
the study had been done in a different era than today.  The healthy
worker 
effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no further
explanation
was 
deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done by an operational group
(Naval 
Reactors) that was concerned about ensuring that their workers were safe

enough.  They were primarily military and civilian engineers, not a
bunch 
scientists looking for statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any
other 
theory of the day.  Concern over the adequacy of safety programs appears
to
have 
been the norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.

I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some 
significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss
did
note 
that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to publish
the
study 
so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps they did not try as
hard
as 
we would have liked them to today. 


No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society, not 
individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what is
actually 
likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any particular
group or

individual failed to do what we, as Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would
have
done 
in the same situation.  As an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is still
the 
model that other nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their
focus
was 
safety in design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion
systems,
not 
epidemiology. 


Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
Doug,



What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers appear
to
have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that one
of
the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this attitude?
Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their heads
No?



Just curious,



Ed Hiserodt

Controls & Power, Inc.

Maumelle, AR



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A
Dr
CIV USA MEDCOM PHC
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:34 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)



Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE



All,



I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I
got it
from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR):
https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I could
not
find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.



There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
data:



Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx



The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers at
the
PNS located in Kittery, Maine.

These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic
investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.



Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires
additional
authorization.

Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS
release
form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf



Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.



Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers



Matanoski et al.

Journal of Radiation Research

Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91



http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf



Enjoy,

Jerry



--------------------------

Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP

Army Institute of Public Health





-----Original Message-----

From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Minnema

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM

To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart







Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to
address these allegations.



During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had
chartered
and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him about
why
it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time
the
study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be
significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody
was
being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2)
since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in
the
original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should
publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had
already
gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the
publications.



Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.



Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the
scientific
method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the
hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to determine
if
there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things would
be
done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess
benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the
conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than
what the study was designed to detect.



I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other
copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm)
3-ring
binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.
If
you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost
to
scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.



Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board





>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>

On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Hash: SHA1

> 

> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects
of

> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'

> 

> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I
know.

> 

> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:

>> Sandy,

>> 

>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear

>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were
paired
at

>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the

>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under
these

>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality
Ratio of

>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study was

>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost
20

>> years after analysis of the data.)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> 

<snip>

_______________________________________________

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

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE



_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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: 12
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:44:06 +0000
From: "Guilmette, Todd" <tguilme at sandia.gov>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<752013FBA2B30947861A051F90F2109C012C41 at EXMB04.srn.sandia.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Did anyone notice this in Busby's resume:

2004 Leader of Science Policy for( EU) Policy Information Network for
Child Health and Environment PINCHE 
based in Arnhem, TheNetherlands

Does anyone speak Spanish here?  This is hilarious! (The acronym above
is the interesting part)

Thanks,
?
Todd Guilmette

Radiological Control Technician, Org 4128?
Apple One contractor for
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800, MS 1050
Albuquerque, NM 87185
(505) 844-5915
tguilme at sandia.gov
?
"All my tubes and wires and careful notes and antiquated notions.."

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:54 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
andColleagues

April 11

         Okay, Chris, since you want 'us people' to examine the 
evidence, let's see some citations to the epidemiology, and to the 
"laboratory and theoretical science" that has "dismantled" the risk 
model 'us people' use.  You claim there are "hundreds" of peer 
reviewed papers.  Be forthcoming.

         I'm the one who said " 'nuff said".  Permit me to inform you 
that I don't drink --- at least not beer, and I don't hang out in 
"saloons" in any case.  As to "level of discourse" . . .  well, go 
look in a mirror.

Steven Dapra


At 02:49 AM 4/11/2011, you wrote:
>The piece at junksciencewatch is a lot of nonsense and vitriolic 
>misinformation believed by most to be the work of Richard Wakeford 
>ex head of research at British Nuclear Fuels. Check out 
>www.chrisbusbyexposed.org
>You people need to examine the evidence rather than writing knee 
>jerk (and not very original) attacks. Your risk model has been 
>dismantled by epidemiology and by laboratory and theoretical 
>science. There are hundreds of peer review papers which show this to 
>be the case. Ad hominem attacks on me wont change that. In addition, 
>cases are being won regularly in courts on the basis of the 
>uselessness of the ICRP model which you believe in. You can even see 
>Dr Jack Valentin, the editor and secretary of ICRP admitting that 
>his risk model is wrong and cannot be used for internal exposures on 
>vimeo.com. Just google valentin+busby+vimeo for the whole video 
>proceedings in Stockholm in 2009. I am happy to discuss all this 
>with you on a scientific level, but it seems that none of you are 
>scientists in the philosophical sense. I challenge you to show that 
>your risk model is not in pieces. UNSCEAR and ICRP just cherry pick 
>their supporting papers, all the A-Bomb stuff. They fail to cite any
>  thing that shows they are wrong. Check out www.euradcom.org for 
> the Lesvos Declaration. But you wont look at the research: you will 
> just attack everyone and say they are making a living out of 
> scaring people. Or some other attempt to deny what you must know in 
> your hearts to be true.
>If your most scientific analytical response is "nuff said" then 
>better get back to the kindergarten or the local beer saloon where 
>this is the level of discourse.
>Best wishes
>Chris Busby
>
>Berlin
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Mon 11/04/2011 04:49
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
>Mangano andColleagues
>
>April 10
>
>          Chris Busby at Wikipedia:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby
>
>          He's a chemist who has a lot to say about ionizing radiation.
>
>          Chris Busby at Junk Science Watch:
>
>http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/
>
>          Chris Busby's article at Counterpunch:
>
>http://www.counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html
>
>          He invokes Steve Wing and John Gofman.  'Nuff said.
>
>Steven Dapra

[edit]


_______________________________________________
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: 13
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:54:43 -0500
From: Doug Huffman <doug.huffman at wildblue.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4DA4D833.6070406 at wildblue.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I no longer speak it for too many years away from Santa Clara.

'Pinche' is  puncture.

On 4/12/2011 17:44, Guilmette, Todd wrote:
> Did anyone notice this in Busby's resume:
> 
> 2004 Leader of Science Policy for( EU) Policy Information Network for
Child Health and Environment PINCHE 
> based in Arnhem, TheNetherlands
> 
> Does anyone speak Spanish here?  This is hilarious! (The acronym above
is the interesting part)
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> Todd Guilmette
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNpNgyAAoJEIpOLnult3mg+X8IAN82lXHgNSBqBfGaY6gBbLJC
uv0pmyohv0xsDQD65RWpCuY/mkD0i7JOIU+AVWL5hVwU0lAPkWB7wo8zwqVCsHYu
RE5dLqSdEz8bX/kRNIaoey0+OVAXbuGNaHz0wkWWxdfNyj0tjfefnGhihqgATqnU
WCV7Rdc9kFbYy/99ULcWXjg7M7jyMaOB4naqw3mX6EizIvdLGIc+g+3deyqhtUZZ
FEO0ptPP57/w4ek/WylBzvO7ku7en7pZ+lNOwivQle0v/elN6VKoJnPdSctDgVC3
urEj8W9VmNKsQYvM2dhS6aThRLkHQix6mv81nary9rIS5LGfD7Le5pRLmPSOg4c=
=8r8R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:40:28 -0700
From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Serendipity
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,	"The International Radiation
	Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <94B7ECAE-E964-4996-AB40-76D5AAA5D6E6 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii

Jerry, Doug, Ed and all,
Unexpected benefit (serendipity) disrupts the status quo.  Patience will
prevail.

Analogous to Cameron's disrupting discovery of much lower cancer and
total death rates among nuclear shipyard workers receiving over 0.5 cSv
more gamma than similarly healthy workers (p 0.005), and slow
utilization of that knowledge, is my own experience with care of low
back pain.  

We phoned 40 patients I had infiltrated deep into sacroiliac tender
points with cortisone in lidocaine and discovered not a single
recurrence of pain in the same location! Serendipity.
Many had seen chiropracters repeatedly, a few had disc surgery and all
had the standard opiates and physiotherapy required by the new PPACA
czar dictates (that I work to repeal).
Experience since with hundreds of patients (slightly different
tenderness locations), likewise. Established organizations (doctors
working for hospitals, chiropracters, NIH, etc) have refused to publish
or practice this safer, thriftier cure that would displace their work.

Sound familiar? Limiting Hanford clean-up to a 10cSv/yr dose for
potential residents and workers would defund most work there - as would
choice of back bursitis treatment defund most chiropractic, back surgery
and back disability business. Authoritarian capitalists and
authoritarian socialists obstruct patient power - choice promoted by
Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity (prefunded high deductible for patient
choice of care).

"Life will find a way" Michael Crichton MD, (in Jurasic Park)

Howard Long

On Apr 12, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:y

> It's a good thing Sir Alexander Fleming did not ignore the antibiotic
effect of 
> the penicillium fungus because that was not what he was looking for.
> Jerry Cohen
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Minnema <douglasm at DNFSB.GOV>
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 1:34:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
> 
> Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.
> 
> No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the
fact that 
> the study had been done in a different era than today.  The healthy
worker 
> effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no further
explanation was 
> deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done by an operational
group (Naval 
> Reactors) that was concerned about ensuring that their workers were
safe 
> enough.  They were primarily military and civilian engineers, not a
bunch 
> scientists looking for statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any
other 
> theory of the day.  Concern over the adequacy of safety programs
appears to have 
> been the norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.
> 
> I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some

> significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss
did note 
> that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to publish
the study 
> so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps they did not try as
hard as 
> we would have liked them to today. 
> 
> 
> No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society,
not 
> individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what is
actually 
> likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any particular
group or 
> individual failed to do what we, as Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would
have done 
> in the same situation.  As an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is
still the 
> model that other nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their
focus was 
> safety in design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion
systems, not 
> epidemiology. 
> Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
> 
>>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
> Doug,
> What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers
appear to
> have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that
one of
> the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
> gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
> Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
> for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
> Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this
attitude?
> Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their
heads No?
> Just curious,
> 
> Ed Hiserodt
> Controls & Power, Inc.
> Maumelle, AR
> 
> 
> 
> -----


------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:40:28 -0700
From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Serendipity
To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>,	"The International Radiation
	Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <94B7ECAE-E964-4996-AB40-76D5AAA5D6E6 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii

Jerry, Doug, Ed and all,
Unexpected benefit (serendipity) disrupts the status quo.  Patience will
prevail.

Analogous to Cameron's disrupting discovery of much lower cancer and
total death rates among nuclear shipyard workers receiving over 0.5 cSv
more gamma than similarly healthy workers (p 0.005), and slow
utilization of that knowledge, is my own experience with care of low
back pain.  

We phoned 40 patients I had infiltrated deep into sacroiliac tender
points with cortisone in lidocaine and discovered not a single
recurrence of pain in the same location! Serendipity.
Many had seen chiropracters repeatedly, a few had disc surgery and all
had the standard opiates and physiotherapy required by the new PPACA
czar dictates (that I work to repeal).
Experience since with hundreds of patients (slightly different
tenderness locations), likewise. Established organizations (doctors
working for hospitals, chiropracters, NIH, etc) have refused to publish
or practice this safer, thriftier cure that would displace their work.

Sound familiar? Limiting Hanford clean-up to a 10cSv/yr dose for
potential residents and workers would defund most work there - as would
choice of back bursitis treatment defund most chiropractic, back surgery
and back disability business. Authoritarian capitalists and
authoritarian socialists obstruct patient power - choice promoted by
Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity (prefunded high deductible for patient
choice of care).

"Life will find a way" Michael Crichton MD, (in Jurasic Park)

Howard Long

On Apr 12, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:y

> It's a good thing Sir Alexander Fleming did not ignore the antibiotic
effect of 
> the penicillium fungus because that was not what he was looking for.
> Jerry Cohen
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Minnema <douglasm at DNFSB.GOV>
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 1:34:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
> 
> Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.
> 
> No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the
fact that 
> the study had been done in a different era than today.  The healthy
worker 
> effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no further
explanation was 
> deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done by an operational
group (Naval 
> Reactors) that was concerned about ensuring that their workers were
safe 
> enough.  They were primarily military and civilian engineers, not a
bunch 
> scientists looking for statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any
other 
> theory of the day.  Concern over the adequacy of safety programs
appears to have 
> been the norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.
> 
> I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some

> significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss
did note 
> that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to publish
the study 
> so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps they did not try as
hard as 
> we would have liked them to today. 
> 
> 
> No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society,
not 
> individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what is
actually 
> likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any particular
group or 
> individual failed to do what we, as Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would
have done 
> in the same situation.  As an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is
still the 
> model that other nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their
focus was 
> safety in design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion
systems, not 
> epidemiology. 
> Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
> 
>>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
> Doug,
> What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers
appear to
> have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that
one of
> the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:
"My
> gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
> Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a
prophylactic
> for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went
home.
> Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this
attitude?
> Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their
heads No?
> Just curious,
> 
> Ed Hiserodt
> Controls & Power, Inc.
> Maumelle, AR
> 
> 
> 
> -----


------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:04:45 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104130004.p3D04cxr002804 at ame7.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

April 12

         Send citations, not word groups for Google searches.

Steven Dapra


At 02:40 AM 4/12/2011, you wrote:
>Good.
>Lets start with the Chernobyl infant leukemias.The results are 
>summarised in my paper in IJERPH last year: google busby infant 
>leukemia chernobyl picks it up. Lest stay withthat one for now.
>So the question is, how is it that there are these infant leukemias 
>in those childrne in the womb at the time of the Chernobyl accident. 
>The doses were well below natural background. These 5 studies are on 
>their own unequivocal evidence . There is no other explanation 
>andthere are 5 different groups all reporting from different 
>countries the same thing. The only exposure was internal radiation 
>contamination from Chernobyl.
>If you cant find the paper email back and ill dig it out. I am in 
>Berlin on another computer at the moment.
>Chris
>
>________________________________
>
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Tue 12/04/2011 02:53
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
>Mangano andColleagues
>
>
>
>April 11
>
>          Okay, Chris, since you want 'us people' to examine the
>evidence, let's see some citations to the epidemiology, and to the
>"laboratory and theoretical science" that has "dismantled" the risk
>model 'us people' use.  You claim there are "hundreds" of peer
>reviewed papers.  Be forthcoming.
>
>          I'm the one who said " 'nuff said".  Permit me to inform you
>that I don't drink --- at least not beer, and I don't hang out in
>"saloons" in any case.  As to "level of discourse" . . .  well, go
>look in a mirror.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 02:49 AM 4/11/2011, you wrote:
> >The piece at junksciencewatch is a lot of nonsense and vitriolic
> >misinformation believed by most to be the work of Richard Wakeford
> >ex head of research at British Nuclear Fuels. Check out
> >www.chrisbusbyexposed.org
> >You people need to examine the evidence rather than writing knee
> >jerk (and not very original) attacks. Your risk model has been
> >dismantled by epidemiology and by laboratory and theoretical
> >science. There are hundreds of peer review papers which show this to
> >be the case. Ad hominem attacks on me wont change that. In addition,
> >cases are being won regularly in courts on the basis of the
> >uselessness of the ICRP model which you believe in. You can even see
> >Dr Jack Valentin, the editor and secretary of ICRP admitting that
> >his risk model is wrong and cannot be used for internal exposures on
> >vimeo.com. Just google valentin+busby+vimeo for the whole video
> >proceedings in Stockholm in 2009. I am happy to discuss all this
> >with you on a scientific level, but it seems that none of you are
> >scientists in the philosophical sense. I challenge you to show that
> >your risk model is not in pieces. UNSCEAR and ICRP just cherry pick
> >their supporting papers, all the A-Bomb stuff. They fail to cite any
> >  thing that shows they are wrong. Check out www.euradcom.org for
> > the Lesvos Declaration. But you wont look at the research: you will
> > just attack everyone and say they are making a living out of
> > scaring people. Or some other attempt to deny what you must know in
> > your hearts to be true.
> >If your most scientific analytical response is "nuff said" then
> >better get back to the kindergarten or the local beer saloon where
> >this is the level of discourse.
> >Best wishes
> >Chris Busby
> >
> >Berlin

[edit]



------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:46:42 +0000
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't
	exist
To: RadSafers Forum <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT119-W33158704C5FFC3793A8ADDA9AA0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"


Yesterday I posted the following:
"Notice - under 1.4 Editorial Boards (current) at:
http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf
 
Sort of interesting..."
 
 
I am surprised that almost no Radsafer reacted - because:
 
This "journal" (European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics) was
to my knowledge never found in scientific library.
CB probably was a cofounder of the corresponding website. 
The "articles" were probably only peer reviewed by the authors
themselves - CB had at least about half a dozen articles there
(including uranium-DNA stuff). If I recall correctly - one was
coauthored with Roger Coghill - a phenomenon himself with Kirlian
photography and other "unusual stuff". The sample article of the
"journal" was by Roger Coghill BTW.
Three of the CB articles have been used in the ECRR report (by CB,
Bertell et al.).
The website ( http://www.ebab.eu.com/ ) seems to be gone - the articles
can according to my understanding not be found at scientific libraries.
CB:s CV states that he is a current editor of the "journal".
 
Wakeford wrote about this mess as it was in Febr. 2008:
"As a brief aside, it is of some interest that, possibly in an effort to
counter the criticism that he does not submit his work to be technically
assessed for suitability for publication in the peerreviewed scientific
literature, Chris Busby has recently had a rash of papers ?published? in
the ?web-journal?, European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics
(www.ebab.eu.com) ?a curious
entity that was launched in 2005 and claims to publish peer-reviewed
papers, but which,
after five issues of Volume 1, appears to have run out of steam after
Issue 1 of Volume 2
in 2006. I shall let you be the judge of just what might be going on
here by pointing out
that Busby, a member of the Editorial Board, is an author of no fewer
than eight papers in
the currently existing (as of February 2008) six issues of the journal!
European Biology and
Bioelectromagnetics raises another important matter that I cannot pursue
here, and that is
the question of what should constitute the recognised scientific
literature and how any given
journal can be inferred reasonably to be a part of this literature. This
is a complex question
that goes to the heart of what the public might consider to be a genuine
scientific (rather than,
say, political) publication."
 
Source:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/28/1/E03/pdf/0952-4746_28_1_E03.pdf
 
 
My personal initiative only,
 
Bjorn Cedervall
PS. Notice also ref. 13 here:
http://hir.nu/Publications.htm
For more strange stuff - check out:
http://hir.nu/
A gold mine for teachers in epidemiology (Sternglass level) - look at
this for instance:
http://sgll.nu/Bilder/AlzDeaths.gif
 
  		 	   		  

------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:46:42 +0000
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't
	exist
To: RadSafers Forum <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT119-W33158704C5FFC3793A8ADDA9AA0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"


Yesterday I posted the following:
"Notice - under 1.4 Editorial Boards (current) at:
http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf
 
Sort of interesting..."
 
 
I am surprised that almost no Radsafer reacted - because:
 
This "journal" (European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics) was
to my knowledge never found in scientific library.
CB probably was a cofounder of the corresponding website. 
The "articles" were probably only peer reviewed by the authors
themselves - CB had at least about half a dozen articles there
(including uranium-DNA stuff). If I recall correctly - one was
coauthored with Roger Coghill - a phenomenon himself with Kirlian
photography and other "unusual stuff". The sample article of the
"journal" was by Roger Coghill BTW.
Three of the CB articles have been used in the ECRR report (by CB,
Bertell et al.).
The website ( http://www.ebab.eu.com/ ) seems to be gone - the articles
can according to my understanding not be found at scientific libraries.
CB:s CV states that he is a current editor of the "journal".
 
Wakeford wrote about this mess as it was in Febr. 2008:
"As a brief aside, it is of some interest that, possibly in an effort to
counter the criticism that he does not submit his work to be technically
assessed for suitability for publication in the peerreviewed scientific
literature, Chris Busby has recently had a rash of papers ?published? in
the ?web-journal?, European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics
(www.ebab.eu.com) ?a curious
entity that was launched in 2005 and claims to publish peer-reviewed
papers, but which,
after five issues of Volume 1, appears to have run out of steam after
Issue 1 of Volume 2
in 2006. I shall let you be the judge of just what might be going on
here by pointing out
that Busby, a member of the Editorial Board, is an author of no fewer
than eight papers in
the currently existing (as of February 2008) six issues of the journal!
European Biology and
Bioelectromagnetics raises another important matter that I cannot pursue
here, and that is
the question of what should constitute the recognised scientific
literature and how any given
journal can be inferred reasonably to be a part of this literature. This
is a complex question
that goes to the heart of what the public might consider to be a genuine
scientific (rather than,
say, political) publication."
 
Source:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/28/1/E03/pdf/0952-4746_28_1_E03.pdf
 
 
My personal initiative only,
 
Bjorn Cedervall
PS. Notice also ref. 13 here:
http://hir.nu/Publications.htm
For more strange stuff - check out:
http://hir.nu/
A gold mine for teachers in epidemiology (Sternglass level) - look at
this for instance:
http://sgll.nu/Bilder/AlzDeaths.gif
 
  		 	   		  

------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:16:42 -0500
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute	Mangano
	andColleagues
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<001e01cbf989$371240d0$a536c270$@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Well....
Not quite in colloquial S. American Spanish!
It is a somewhat derogatory term....
Can be used as an adjective: "mi pinche coche...." = my ***** car"
(insert
your favorite expletive adjective for *****) 
or as a noun: "este pinche me robo.. = " this ###### robbed me" (insert
your
favorite perjorative as ######).

In classic Spanish, it is generally translated as a cooks assistant or
scullery maid.

Regards
Doug (somewhat fluent in s American Spanish....)

Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor, Schlumberger D&M Operations Support
Cell Phone: 713-562-8585
(alternate e-mail: doug.aitken at slb.com )
Mail: c/o Therese Wigzell,
Schlumberger,
Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:55 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
andColleagues

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I no longer speak it for too many years away from Santa Clara.

'Pinche' is  puncture.

On 4/12/2011 17:44, Guilmette, Todd wrote:
> Did anyone notice this in Busby's resume:
> 
> 2004 Leader of Science Policy for( EU) Policy Information Network for 
> Child Health and Environment PINCHE based in Arnhem, TheNetherlands
> 
> Does anyone speak Spanish here?  This is hilarious! (The acronym above

> is the interesting part)
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> Todd Guilmette
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNpNgyAAoJEIpOLnult3mg+X8IAN82lXHgNSBqBfGaY6gBbLJC
uv0pmyohv0xsDQD65RWpCuY/mkD0i7JOIU+AVWL5hVwU0lAPkWB7wo8zwqVCsHYu
RE5dLqSdEz8bX/kRNIaoey0+OVAXbuGNaHz0wkWWxdfNyj0tjfefnGhihqgATqnU
WCV7Rdc9kFbYy/99ULcWXjg7M7jyMaOB4naqw3mX6EizIvdLGIc+g+3deyqhtUZZ
FEO0ptPP57/w4ek/WylBzvO7ku7en7pZ+lNOwivQle0v/elN6VKoJnPdSctDgVC3
urEj8W9VmNKsQYvM2dhS6aThRLkHQix6mv81nary9rIS5LGfD7Le5pRLmPSOg4c=
=8r8R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
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: 20
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:18:09 +0000
From: Bjorn Cedervall <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] The Economist" conducts international online
	debate on the future of nuclear power
To: RadSafers Forum <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <SNT119-W306C87D3905A64CDB95E6A9AA0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"


FYI, Bjorn Cedervall
------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: Stuart Cloke wna at world-nuclear.org
>
> View email in your browser.
>
>
[http://gallery.mailchimp.com/140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9/images/wna_lette
r.jpg]
>

> Dear colleagues
>
> This is to inform you that ?The Economist? is conducting an online
> debate on nuclear power ? in which online voting is invited.
>
> WNA?s Ian Hore-Lacy is presenting the pro-nuclear case by opposing the
> motion that ?This house believes that the world would be better off
> without nuclear power?. The anti-nuclear case is being presented by
Tom
> Burke, formerly of Friends of the Earth.
>
> The debate can be found at
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/681.
> To vote, click on ?Vote Now or Add Your View?.
>
> Closing statements will be published on 13 April, and voting closes on
> 14 April.
>
> If you vote, remember that the anti-nuclear vote is for the motion,
and
> the pro-nuclear vote is against the motion!
>
> With kind regards,
>
>
[http://gallery.mailchimp.com/140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9/images/StuartClo
ke1.png]
>
>
> WNA Director of Administration and Finance
>
>
> Copyright ? 2011 World Nuclear Association, All rights reserved.
> World Nuclear News
> Our mailing address is:
> World Nuclear Association
> Carlton House, 22a St James's Square
> London, Westminster SW1Y4JH
>
>
> 		 	   		  

------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:07:26 -0700
From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at sfo.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: [abolition-caucus] Supposedly "Independent"
	French	Commission Claims Radiation risks from Fukushima to
Europe	are
	no longer negligible
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
	Mailing	List'"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <sig.9084b43374.002401cbf9ba$36df7ac0$a49e7040$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="utf-8"

I rather think that this is pure alarmism and hysteria ? but the
anti-nukes are already making hay off of it ?

 

Roger

 

From: abolition-caucus at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:abolition-caucus at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sukla Sen
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:06 PM
To: Bill Smirnow; abolition-caucus
Subject: Re: [abolition-caucus] Radiation risks from Fukushima no longer
negligible

This clearly shows up that nuclear power cannot be treated as exclusive
concerns of individual nation-states. It's a global concern. 

Needs be tackled globally. If needs be, overriding the issues of
"national sovereignty".

 

Sukla

On 13 April 2011 11:31, Bill Smirnow <smirnowb at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

  

-----Forwarded Message----- 
From: Lorna Salzman 
Sent: Apr 12, 2011 6:58 PM 
To: Lorna Salzman 
Subject: [IPSEC1] Radiation risks from Fukushima no longer negligible 

  


Radiation risks from Fukushima 'no longer negligible' 


Independent French radiation commission warns Europe that health risk
from Fukushima fallout is ?no longer negligible? ? Says US west coast
has 8-10 times more contamination

Published: 11 April 2011
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negli
gible-news-503947 

The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe are no
longer "negligible," according to CRIIRAD, a French research body on
radioactivity. The NGO is advising pregnant women and infants against
"risky behaviour," such as consuming fresh milk or vegetables with large
leaves.


Background


After the radioactive cloud emanating from Japan's stricken Fukushima
nuclear power plant reached Europe in late March, CRIIRAD
<http://www.criirad.org/> , a French research body on radioactivity, an
NGO, said it had detected
<http://94.23.16.204/criirad_telechargement_pdf/eau_de_pluie_iode_131.pd
f>  radioactive iodine-131 in rainwater in south-eastern France.

In parallel testing, the French Institute for Radiological Protection
and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), the national public institution monitoring
nuclear and radiological risks, found iodine 131 in milk. 

In normal times, no trace of iodine-131 should be detectable in
rainwater or milk.

The Euratom Directive
<http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9629
_en.pdf>  of 13 May 1996 establishes the general principles and safety
standards on radiation protection in Europe.


More on this topic


News:France detects radioactive iodine in rainwater, milk
<http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/france-detects-radioactive-iodine-rainwa
ter-milk-news-503756> 

News:EU checks imports amid Japan food safety fears
<http://www.euractiv.com/en/food/eu-checks-imports-amid-japan-food-safet
y-fears-news-503708> 

In response to thousands of inquiries from citizens concerned about
fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Europe, CRIIRAD has
compiled an information package on the risks of radioactive iodine-131
contamination in Europe.

The document,
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/risques_en_france_v
5.pdf>  published on 7 April, advises against consuming rainwater and
says vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant or breastfeeding
women should avoid consuming vegetables with large leaves, fresh milk
and creamy cheese.

The risks related to prolonged contamination among vulnerable groups of
the population can no longer be considered "negligible" and it is now
necessary to avoid "risky behaviour," CRIIRAD claimed. 

However, the institute underlines that there is absolutely no need to
lock oneself indoors or take iodine tablets.

CRIIRAD says its information note is not limited to the situation in
France and is applicable to other European countries, as the level of
air contamination is currently the same
<http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_Film-Global_8avril.
aspx>  in Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, for instance.

Data for the west coast of the United States, which received the
Fukushima radioactive fallout 6-10 days before France, reveals that
levels of radioactive iodine-131 concentration are 8-10 times higher
there, the institute says.

Rain water and tap water

According to CRIIRAD, a huge proportion of the inquiries it has received
concern the risks associated with rainwater and drinking tap water.

The institute stresses that there is no risk whatsoever, even for
children, of standing in the rain without protection. But consumption of
rainwater as a primary source of drinking water should be avoided,
particularly among children, it said.

As for tap water, underground catchments or large rivers should not
present any problem. But the institute suggests that the situation of
water from reservoirs that collect rainwater from one or more
watersheds, such as hillside lakes, should be examined more closely.

As for watering one's garden with collected rainwater, CRIIRAD advises
watering only the earth and not the leaves of vegetables, as absorption
is faster and more significant on leaf surfaces than through roots.

Food chain

Spinach, salads, cabbage and other vegetables with large surface areas
are among those food products that are particularly sensitive to
iodine-131 contamination, if they are cultivated outside and exposed to
rainwater. Washing vegetables does not help, as iodine-131 is quickly
metabolised by the plants, CRIIRAD notes.

Fresh milk and creamy cheeses, as well as meat from cattle that have
been outside eating grass, are categorised as foods that may have been
indirectly contaminated and must also be monitored. Contamination of
milk and cheese from goats and sheep may be of a greater magnitude than
that of produce from cows.

Level of a risky dose

The Euratom Directive
<http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9629
_en.pdf>  of 13 May 1996 establishes general principles and safety
standards on radiation protection in Europe.

According to the directive, the impact of nuclear activity can be
considered negligible if doses of radiation do not exceed ten micro
sieverts (mSv) per year. Beyond this value, possible measures should be
considered to reduce exposure, it says.

While radioactive iodine-131 is mostly present in the air in the form of
gas, CRIIRAD notes that in the case of the Fukushima fallout, the main
issue is to limit ingestion of iodine-131.

CRIIRAD notes that the amount of iodine-131 capable of delivering a dose
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/iode_131_dose_inges
tion.pdf>  of 10 mSv varies greatly depending on the age of consumers.
Children up to two years old are the most vulnerable and ingestion of 50
becquerel (Bq) is enough to deliver to the body a dose of 10 mSv,
according to the institute.

If the foods (leafy vegetables, milk etc.) contain between one and 10 Bq
per kg or more, it is possible that the reference level of 10 mSv may be
exceeded within two to three weeks, the institute added.  

Radioactive iodine-131 values
<http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/201103_situati
on_en_france.aspx#1>  measured by the French Institute for Radiological
Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) in recent days show the following,
varying levels of contamination: 0,08 Bq/kg in salad, spinach and leeks
in Aix-en-Provence, 0,17 Bq per litre in milk in Lourdes and 2,1 Bq per
litre in goats milk in Clansayes.

Contamination to continue over coming weeks

CRIIRAD notes that "huge amounts of radioactive material have been
released by the Fukushima Daiichi plant since Saturday 12 March 2011. On
Tuesday 5 April, 24 days after the accident, the releases continue. This
means that the contaminated airborne masses in Europe will last just as
long, with a delay linked to the movement of radioactive aerosol gases
over some 15,000 km."

It also cited a technical report from the operating company (TEPCO) and
the Japanese nuclear safety authorities (NISA) which "fear releases over
several more days, even weeks".

If more fires are reported or if the operators are forced to release
more steam in order to prevent hydrogen explosions, new massive waste
releases will occur, the institute warned.


Links


EU official documents 

*	Council Directive laying down basic safety standards for the
protection of the health of workers and the general public against the
dangers arising from ionizing radiation
<http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9629
_en.pdf>  (13 May 1996) [FR]
<http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9629
_fr.pdf>  

Governments 

*	French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety
(IRSN): Cons?quences en France de l'accident nucl?aire au Japon
<http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/201103_situati
on_en_france.aspx#1>  
*	French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety
(IRSN): Mod?lisation de la dispersion des rejets radioactifs dans
l?atmosph?re ? l??chelle globale - 8 avril 2011
<http://www.irsn.fr/FR/popup/Pages/irsn-meteo-france_Film-Global_8avril.
aspx> 

NGOs and Think-Tanks 

*	CRIIRAD: Doses re?ues par INGESTION d'iode 131
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/iode_131_dose_inges
tion.pdf>  (7 Avril 2011) [EN - Ingestion of 131 iodine : Bq and doses]
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/en_anglais/iode_131
_ingestion_En.pdf>  
*	CRIIRAD: Accidents nucl?aires au Japon : dossier sp?cial
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/sommaire.html>  
*	CRIIRAD: Contamination de la France par les rejets de la
centrale de Fukushima Daiichi QUELS SONT LES RISQUES ?
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/risques_en_france.p
df>  (7 Avril 2011) (corrected version)
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/risques_en_france_v
5.pdf>  [EN - risk in France (and Europe)]
<http://www.criirad.org/actualites/dossier2011/japon/risks_in_France_v4.
pdf>  

Press articles 

*	EurActiv Slovakia: Riziko radi?cie v Eur?pe ?nie je
zanedbate?n??
<http://www.euractiv.sk/zdravotnictvo/clanok/riziko-radiacie-v-europe-ni
e-je-zanedbatelne-016924>  



------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:40:40 -0400
From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Unplanned Radiation Exposures at Cooper Nuclear
	Plant
To: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <BANLkTinKTdOhpLtm=7-nxXqCD48-Snw4bw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

Here's a recent NRC press release regarding an incident at Cooper.  It
is
receiving media coverage.  I'd be interested in the results of the
investigation, in particular:  Was the job poorly planned? or Did the
workers not follow procedures?  Since most plants plan work down to the
man-millirem, I suspect the latter.

*NRC SENDS SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO COOPER NUCLEAR STATION
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at
the
Cooper Nuclear Station to review the circumstances surrounding a
maintenance
procedure that led to unplanned radiation exposures to three workers.
The
plant, located near Brownville, Neb., is operated by the Nebraska Public
Power District (NPPD).
Inspectors, who began their work Monday, will look at the circumstances
and
decision-making by NPPD officials that led to the exposures, review the
licensee?s response to the event, calculate the exposures the workers
received and review corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence.
The incident occurred on April 3, when workers removed a long tube
contaminated with highly radioactive material through the bottom of the
reactor vessel, rather than through the top as is usually done,
triggering
radiation alarms. The workers set the tube down and immediately left the
area. The licensee does not believe the workers received radiation
exposures
in excess of NRC limits.
?We want to understand why normal work practices were not followed,
resulting in unplanned radiation exposures to three workers,? said
Region IV
Administrator Elmo E. Collins. ?We want to take a look at the
decision-making that contributed to this event.?
The team consisting of two NRC inspectors, began work Monday and will
probably spend several days at the plant. They will write an inspection
report on their findings within 45 days of the end of the inspection
that
will be made publicly available.*

Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe


End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 598, Issue 1
***************************************


More information about the RadSafe mailing list