[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 575, Issue 3
Conrad Sherman
conradsherman at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 20:59:52 CDT 2011
Yes, that's what you do
Make cheese
No joke
You can freeze or can spinach for I. Not cesium
Btw
White smoke means that a new pope was just elected
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 21, 2011, at 6:06 PM, radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu wrote:
> 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. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Yoss, Robert)
> 2. Relative Radiation Dose Chart (Russ, Ray)
> 3. Re: Japan death toll estimates (Jerry Cohen)
> 4. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Sandra Matzkin)
> 5. Re: Japan death toll estimates (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
> 6. Re: Japan death toll estimates (Glenn R. Marshall)
> 7. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (Theodore Wentworth)
> 8. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (Bourquin, Marty)
> 9. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (Bailly, Helen A)
> 10. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (UNCLASSIFIED)
> (Wallace, Lloyd J Mr CIV USA FORSCOM)
> 11. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Cary Renquist)
> 12. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Lemieux, Bryan P)
> 13. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Sandra Matzkin)
> 14. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (King/Rich)
> 15. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
> 16. Re: Ann Coulter on Hormesis (John Gerald Center, Jr)
> 17. Backup Power Requirements for GE BWR (Dan W McCarn)
> 18. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Cary Renquist)
> 19. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Ted de Castro)
> 20. Nuclear safety: Five recent 'near miss' incidents at US
> nuclear power plants (doctorbill at post.harvard.edu)
> 21. Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis
> (doctorbill at post.harvard.edu)
> 22. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Jerry Cohen)
> 23. Re: Japan death toll estimates (Howard)
> 24. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Howard)
> 25. Re: xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart (Howard)
> 26. Re: Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits (Howard)
> 27. Re: Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits (Howard)
> 28. Latest NEI Update (Jeff Terry)
> 29. US ABC Evening News Again (Roger Helbig)
> 30. Iodine-131 at Fukushima (Roger Helbig)
> 31. Re: US ABC Evening News Again (Robert Bradley)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:30:12 -0500
> From: "Yoss, Robert" <ryoss at mcw.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <7425FF2CEF06504886EB51A3F5FB033BA223BC2C6E at MCWMBX.mcwcorp.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>
> Rob Yoss
> FMLH/MCW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>
> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Cary
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 2
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:07:13 -0700
> From: "Russ, Ray" <rruss at slac.stanford.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose Chart
> To: "radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <87527F6ADEF5624697FCF65CDCB23E0701683A47D25B at EXCHCLUSTER1-04.win.slac.stanford.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The URL below links to a graphic which describes quite well relative radiation doses in Sieverts (Sv). I'm passing it on to this list as it may be of some interest to readers in describing to others the risks associated with various acute and chronic exposures to whole body ionizing radiation.
>
>
> http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png
>
>
>
>
> Ray Russ
> Radiation Protection Department
> SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
> Menlo Park, Ca, 94025, USA
> Tel: 650 926 4082
> Fax: 650 926 2837
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <388435.65937.qm at web82708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>> From this morning's news:
>
> Latest death toll estimate from earthquake, tsunami, and reactor accident:
> ~18,000
>
> from reactor accident : ~ 5
>
> Somehow, from the news coverage, It get the impression that release of
> radioactivity is the major problem. Hmmmmm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:37:40 -0300
> From: Sandra Matzkin <matzkin at invap.com.ar>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <20110321183742.6E0E9A6B018 at micron.invap.com.ar>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
> how this link was established?
>
> Regards
>
> Sandra Matzkin
> Radiation Transport
> INVAP SE
> Bariloche
> Argentina
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>
>> Rob Yoss
>> FMLH/MCW
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>
>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>
>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Cary
>>
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 5
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:41:20 -0700
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
> To: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>, "The International Radiation
> Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D036BD7CF at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> A major difference between the estimates is that death toll from the
> earthquake and tsunami are very real, with names and in most cases
> actual bodies, and the toll from the reactor accident may well be
> hypothetical, at least in the general public.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:35 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
>
>> From this morning's news:
>
> Latest death toll estimate from earthquake, tsunami, and reactor
> accident:
> ~18,000
>
> from reactor accident : ~ 5
>
> Somehow, from the news coverage, It get the impression that release of
> radioactivity is the major problem. Hmmmmm
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:49:14 -0400
> From: "Glenn R. Marshall" <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <597B927DD5BB0840957B5A8D9FBC8FDD1CED5D7306 at TNOR-FPE3.philotechnics.int>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> People are still dying as a result of the tsunami--whether at the nuclear plant or refinery, or at the bottom of a pile of rubble, or from exposure and dehydration.
>
>
> Glenn Marshall, CHP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:41 PM
> To: Jerry Cohen; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
>
> A major difference between the estimates is that death toll from the
> earthquake and tsunami are very real, with names and in most cases
> actual bodies, and the toll from the reactor accident may well be
> hypothetical, at least in the general public.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:35 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
>
>> From this morning's news:
>
> Latest death toll estimate from earthquake, tsunami, and reactor
> accident:
> ~18,000
>
> from reactor accident : ~ 5
>
> Somehow, from the news coverage, It get the impression that release of
> radioactivity is the major problem. Hmmmmm
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 7
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:35:33 -0400
> From: "Theodore Wentworth" <wentwortht at michigan.gov>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
> To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <4D877045.F4F4.00AE.0 at michigan.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636
>
>>>> "Joel C." <cehn at aol.com> 3/18/2011 7:15 PM >>>
>
> A hormesis review from an unlikely source. This lady thinks outside the box. Gotta love her.
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/
>
>
>
>
> Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>
> joelc at alum.wpi.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:43:50 -0400
> From: "Bourquin, Marty" <Marty.Bourquin at grace.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <3873DE2F608BB54D89403CB1A47B111B04AECA32 at NAMDCO096.gracead.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Let's not get carried away. One article that makes sense does not
> change her portfolio of work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theodore
> Wentworth
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:36 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636
>
>>>> "Joel C." <cehn at aol.com> 3/18/2011 7:15 PM >>>
>
> A hormesis review from an unlikely source. This lady thinks outside the
> box. Gotta love her.
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/
>
>
>
>
> Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>
> joelc at alum.wpi.edu
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:10:10 +0000
> From: "Bailly, Helen A" <Helen.Bailly at icp.doe.gov>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <A817EBE3E4D1994AAF4DC93FA76EAA8E04A8C2 at EXSTORE13.icp.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Not sure if even Ann's mama has gotta lover her
>
>
> helen Bailly
> Radiation Dosimetry & Records
> Senior Dosimetry Technician
> INL
> (208) 533-0730
> ?
> Life is short -?Break the rules! ?Forgive quickly! ?Kiss slowly! Love truly! Laugh uncontrollably!... And never regret anything that made you smile.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bourquin, Marty
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 1:44 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
> Let's not get carried away. One article that makes sense does not
> change her portfolio of work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theodore
> Wentworth
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:36 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636
>
>>>> "Joel C." <cehn at aol.com> 3/18/2011 7:15 PM >>>
>
> A hormesis review from an unlikely source. This lady thinks outside the
> box. Gotta love her.
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/
>
>
>
>
> Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>
> joelc at alum.wpi.edu
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:16:21 -0400
> From: "Wallace, Lloyd J Mr CIV USA FORSCOM"
> <lloyd.james.wallace at us.army.mil>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis (UNCLASSIFIED)
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <D1B6DF429C798743BAA82B693EA8367EB32F3B at DDCOBE010HUB006.nae.ds.army.mil>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> I especially like your signature statement!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bailly, Helen A
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 4:10 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
> Not sure if even Ann's mama has gotta lover her
>
>
> helen Bailly
> Radiation Dosimetry & Records
> Senior Dosimetry Technician
> INL
> (208) 533-0730
> ?
> Life is short -?Break the rules! ?Forgive quickly! ?Kiss slowly! Love truly! Laugh uncontrollably!... And never regret anything that made you smile.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bourquin, Marty
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 1:44 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
> Let's not get carried away. One article that makes sense does not
> change her portfolio of work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theodore
> Wentworth
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:36 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636
>
>>>> "Joel C." <cehn at aol.com> 3/18/2011 7:15 PM >>>
>
> A hormesis review from an unlikely source. This lady thinks outside the
> box. Gotta love her.
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/
>
>
>
>
> Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>
> joelc at alum.wpi.edu
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://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
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:28:20 -0700
> From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A0070F50B2 at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Looking at his references,
> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>
> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
> effects from radiation
> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
> connect radiation
> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
> become apparent.
>
> And at the NRC tritium page:
> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
> and genetic abnormalities
> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
> occurrence of these health
> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
> how this link was established?
>
> Regards
>
> Sandra Matzkin
> Radiation Transport
> INVAP SE
> Bariloche
> Argentina
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>
>> Rob Yoss
>> FMLH/MCW
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>
>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>
>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Cary
>>
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:32:36 -0500
> From: "Lemieux, Bryan P" <blemieux at uthsc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <D25C2A79BB18DA429013C776BE9EF55109316392 at EXCHANGEVS1.uthsc.tennessee.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> There is also a Health Physics Society position paper.
>
> http://hps.org/documents/risk_ps010-2.pdf
>
> Bryan Lemieux, M.S., CHP
> Radiation Safety Officer
> University of Tennessee Health Science Center
> 3 N Dunlap St. S110 Van Vleet Bldg
> Memphis, TN 38163
> Phone:? 901-448-6114
> Fax:????? 901-448-7774
>
> Please note my new email address: blemieux at uthsc.edu
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:28 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> Looking at his references,
> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>
> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
> effects from radiation
> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
> connect radiation
> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
> become apparent.
>
> And at the NRC tritium page:
> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
> and genetic abnormalities
> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
> occurrence of these health
> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
> how this link was established?
>
> Regards
>
> Sandra Matzkin
> Radiation Transport
> INVAP SE
> Bariloche
> Argentina
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>
>> Rob Yoss
>> FMLH/MCW
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>
>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>
>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Cary
>>
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 13
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:52:38 -0300
> From: Sandra Matzkin <matzkin at invap.com.ar>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <20110321205240.EECC5A6AE14 at micron.invap.com.ar>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Yes, I am aware that this 100 mSv value is considered to be a
> threshold above which the probability of cancer increases linearly
> with dose. I believe it is based on epidemiological studies carried
> out on some populations (Hiroshima and Mayak among them). However, I
> cannot find out how these studies were conducted or which other
> radiological exposed populations were analyzed.
>
> It would be interesting to see both LNT and non-LNT supporters' take on this.
>
> Sandra
>
> At 05:28 PM 3/21/2011, you wrote:
>> Looking at his references,
>> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>>
>> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
>> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
>> effects from radiation
>> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
>> connect radiation
>> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
>> become apparent.
>>
>> And at the NRC tritium page:
>> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
>> and genetic abnormalities
>> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
>> occurrence of these health
>> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
>> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
>> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>
>> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
>> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
>> how this link was established?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sandra Matzkin
>> Radiation Transport
>> INVAP SE
>> Bariloche
>> Argentina
>>
>>
>> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>>
>>> Rob Yoss
>>> FMLH/MCW
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>
>>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Cary
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cary Renquist
>>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: 14
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:57:50 -0700
> From: "King/Rich" <kingr at san.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <E4EDAF894C3C4A7E93097195A4B33387 at king2f68f1d66a>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Exactly the point, gotta love her more now.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Bourquin, Marty" <Marty.Bourquin at grace.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
>> Let's not get carried away. One article that makes sense does not
>> change her portfolio of work.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theodore
>> Wentworth
>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:36 PM
>> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636
>>
>>>>> "Joel C." <cehn at aol.com> 3/18/2011 7:15 PM >>>
>>
>> A hormesis review from an unlikely source. This lady thinks outside the
>> box. Gotta love her.
>>
>> http://www.anncoulter.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>>
>> joelc at alum.wpi.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
>> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:02:07 -0700
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D036BD7D0 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> To paraphrase one of my Chiefs from my Navy years; "I wouldn't 'love'
> her with your ___"
>
> Ann Coulter is not pro-hormesis because she has made a fair and balanced
> study of the evidence, after becoming familiar with the underlying
> subjects biology, physics, and statistics, and concluded that the weight
> of evidence supports hormesis. Rather, I suspect that her
> anti-regulation stance leads here to believe that anything that argues
> against the validity of any regulation should be embraced.
>
> Bear in mind that I have said on RadSafe on numerous occasions that I
> have no attachment to LNT, and am quite willing to accept a threshold,
> or hormesis, if convincing, well thought-out studies are conducted, I
> can be convinced. But Coulter's support of a position I believe in, let
> alone one that I still need to be convinced of, is not a factor. She
> may turn out to be right, but as my Chief also said, "Even a blind
> squirrel sometimes finds a nut."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theodore
> Wentworth
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:36 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
>
>
>
>
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=11636
>
>>>> "Joel C." <cehn at aol.com> 3/18/2011 7:15 PM >>>
>
> A hormesis review from an unlikely source. This lady thinks outside the
> box. Gotta love her.
>
> http://www.anncoulter.com/
>
>
>
>
> Joel I. Cehn, CHP
>
> joelc at alum.wpi.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://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: 16
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:34:25 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "John Gerald Center, Jr" <john.center at wmich.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Ann Coulter on Hormesis
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <998688621.1551154.1300743265983.JavaMail.root at wmu-mailstore05>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On a personal basis, I except the theory of hormesis. But as a someone in the Radiation Safety/Protection field, I fully embrace LNT. Why chance any undo exposure if you can avoid it?
> John
>
> John G. Center, Jr.
> Radiation Safety Officer
> 3922 Wood Hall
> Western Michigan University
> 1903 W. Michigan Ave.
> Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5410
>
> Office (269) 387-5933
> Cell (269) 744-0996
> E-mail: john.center at wmich.edu
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:45:50 -0600
> From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Backup Power Requirements for GE BWR
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> MailingList'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <B887A92D275B494D932B1C1ACF37A88D at DocHolidayII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
>
>
> I've been rather confused since the start of this accident why a backup
> generator could not be airlifted to the reactors immediately following the
> tsunami. Based on the lift capacity of the Chinook (CH-47) helicopter
> (around 12,000Kg), a 1020 Kw Diesel Generator (1275 KVA) weighs about 10,000
> kg, well within the helicopter's lift capacity.
>
>
>
> Is 1020 Kw (1 Megawatt) enough to operate the cooling systems of a reactor?
>
>
>
> Dan ii
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
>
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
>
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
>
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
>
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
>
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:41:14 -0700
> From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A0070F51BC at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The sole reference for the HPS position statement (which is likely the
> basis for the other statements) is NCRP 126.
>
> National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Uncertainties
> in fatal cancer risk estimates used in radiation protection. Bethesda,
> MD: NCRP; NCRP Report No. 126; 1997.
>
> I don't have a copy of NCRP 126, they dance around the 100 mSv value in
> NCRP 136
> e.g.
> Hoel and Li (1998) recently modeled the dose-response relationship
> for various cancer incidence and mortality endpoints for the
> atomic-bomb survivor data, comparing linear and dose-threshold
> curves. For total solid tumors they found that the fit of the linear
> curve and curves with a threshold of 100 mSv fit about equally well
> for the incidence data but the linear curve provided a somewhat
> better fit for the mortality data. Thresholds above about 100 mSv
> fit more poorly than a linear curve. A similar conclusion was reached
> by Kellerer and Nekolla (1997), based on evaluation of the influence
> of dose-dependent errors in the neutron dosimetry at Hiroshima.
>
> The most recent analyses of the Japanese atomic-bomb data indicate that
> the data for solid
> tumors are highly compatible with nonthreshold linearity of the
> dose-response curve in the aggregate and for major subgroups of
> cancer types (Pierce et al., 1996; Thompson et al., 1994). On the
> other hand, Hoel and Li (1998) recently showed that the data for
> several cancer endpoints could be fit about equally well with a dose
> response
> model having a dose threshold at around 50 to 100 mSv.
> However, they did not evaluate the fit of a linear-quadratic model
> versus a threshold model.
>
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 13:53
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> Yes, I am aware that this 100 mSv value is considered to be a
> threshold above which the probability of cancer increases linearly
> with dose. I believe it is based on epidemiological studies carried
> out on some populations (Hiroshima and Mayak among them). However, I
> cannot find out how these studies were conducted or which other
> radiological exposed populations were analyzed.
>
> It would be interesting to see both LNT and non-LNT supporters' take on
> this.
>
> Sandra
>
> At 05:28 PM 3/21/2011, you wrote:
>> Looking at his references,
>> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>>
>> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
>> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
>> effects from radiation
>> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
>> connect radiation
>> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
>> become apparent.
>>
>> And at the NRC tritium page:
>> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
>> and genetic abnormalities
>> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
>> occurrence of these health
>> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
>> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra
> Matzkin
>> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>
>> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
>> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
>> how this link was established?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sandra Matzkin
>> Radiation Transport
>> INVAP SE
>> Bariloche
>> Argentina
>>
>>
>> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>>
>>> Rob Yoss
>>> FMLH/MCW
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary
> Renquist
>>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList
>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>
>>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Cary
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cary Renquist
>>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 19
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:42:25 -0700
> From: Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <4D87D451.7030200 at xrayted.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Yes but - its like 1984 Newspeak ......
>
> the Sv is defined as a risk based unit and is not only therefore not
> measurable BUT it is also a linear unit and starts at 0 and nano, pico
> and even femto prefixes are acceptable. Therefore LNTH and the Sv
> define and validate each other.
>
> On 3/21/2011 1:52 PM, Sandra Matzkin wrote:
>> Yes, I am aware that this 100 mSv value is considered to be a
>> threshold above which the probability of cancer increases linearly
>> with dose. I believe it is based on epidemiological studies carried
>> out on some populations (Hiroshima and Mayak among them). However, I
>> cannot find out how these studies were conducted or which other
>> radiological exposed populations were analyzed.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see both LNT and non-LNT supporters' take
>> on this.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>> At 05:28 PM 3/21/2011, you wrote:
>>> Looking at his references,
>>> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>>>
>>> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
>>> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
>>> effects from radiation
>>> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
>>> connect radiation
>>> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
>>> become apparent.
>>>
>>> And at the NRC tritium page:
>>> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
>>> and genetic abnormalities
>>> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
>>> occurrence of these health
>>> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
>>> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cary Renquist
>>> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
>>> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>
>>> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
>>> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
>>> how this link was established?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sandra Matzkin
>>> Radiation Transport
>>> INVAP SE
>>> Bariloche
>>> Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>>>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>>>
>>>> Rob Yoss
>>>> FMLH/MCW
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>>
>>>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>>>
>>>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Cary
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cary Renquist
>>>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:58:55 -0400
> From: doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear safety: Five recent 'near miss' incidents
> at US nuclear power plants
> To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID:
> <95848698.872236.1300744735228.JavaMail.brainiac at v0101-06.clearspring.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The attached article in the "Christian Science Monitor" is worth reading.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0318/Nuclear-safety-Five-recent-near-miss-incidents-at-US-nuclear-power-plants?cmpid=addthis_email&sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d87ca1fbb3eb31c%2C0
>
> ---
> This message was sent by doctorbill at post.harvard.edu via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.
>
> Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar: http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=e8P0r.K956jjju6r56Lypqi.7rf14O.n8uDjqvM in your web browser.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:05:55 -0400
> From: doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan
> nuclear crisis
> To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> Message-ID:
> <1755457874.867810.1300745155437.JavaMail.brainiac at v0104-08.clearspring.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> This is painful, but necessary reading. I'm especially concerned about the BWR Mark 1 fuel pools, especially those with high density racks.
> Bill Lipton
> doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
>
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0316/Reports-Lax-oversight-greed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis?cmpid=addthis_email&sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d87cbc399fcd8af%2C0
>
> ---
> This message was sent by doctorbill at post.harvard.edu via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.
>
> Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar: http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=1KOtz7vdvsi67rfLvsKrxvHet9esgLbHq4C6yqo in your web browser.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <875200.67555.qm at web82704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> We infidels who believe in hormesis think that? radiation exposures up to ~10
> rem/a? are likely to be good for you (ie beneficial in nature). Hurrah for Ann
> Coultre!
> jerry Cohen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cary Renquist <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, March 21, 2011 1:28:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> Looking at his references,
> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>
> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
> ? The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
> effects from radiation
> ? become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
> connect radiation
> ? dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
> become apparent.
>
> And at the NRC tritium page:
> ? Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
> and genetic abnormalities
> ? in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
> occurrence of these health
> ? risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates -? below
> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>
> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
> how this link was established?
>
> Regards
>
> Sandra Matzkin
> Radiation Transport
> INVAP SE
> Bariloche
> Argentina
>
>
> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>
>> Rob Yoss
>> FMLH/MCW
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>
>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>
>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Cary
>>
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 23
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:15:57 -0700
> From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Japan death toll estimates
> To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>, "The International Radiation
> Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <1982AD6D-709F-4DA5-828B-F02CB4441579 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Jerry
> Are any of those deaths from radiation?
> I understood them to be from explosion of hydrogen -
> related to production of nuclear plant hit by 30' tsunami, but not from "radiation".
>
> Howard Long
>
> On Mar 21, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> From this morning's news:
>>
>> Latest death toll estimate from earthquake, tsunami, and reactor accident:
>> ~18,000
>>
>> from reactor accident : ~ 5
>>
>> Somehow, from the news coverage, It get the impression that release of
>> radioactivity is the major problem. Hmmmmm
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 24
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:29:14 -0700
> From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "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: <62230C30-39B0-40A5-B661-6C67EF55D3AA at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The ZEP point, where dose of gamma or x ray does more harm than good, is about 250 mSv, according to Luckey in his well referenced book, Radiation Hormesis.
>
> Howard Long
>
> On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Sandra Matzkin <matzkin at invap.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am aware that this 100 mSv value is considered to be a threshold above which the probability of cancer increases linearly with dose. I believe it is based on epidemiological studies carried out on some populations (Hiroshima and Mayak among them). However, I cannot find out how these studies were conducted or which other radiological exposed populations were analyzed.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see both LNT and non-LNT supporters' take on this.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>> At 05:28 PM 3/21/2011, you wrote:
>>> Looking at his references,
>>> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>>>
>>> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
>>> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
>>> effects from radiation
>>> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
>>> connect radiation
>>> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
>>> become apparent.
>>>
>>> And at the NRC tritium page:
>>> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
>>> and genetic abnormalities
>>> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
>>> occurrence of these health
>>> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
>>> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cary Renquist
>>> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
>>> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>
>>> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
>>> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
>>> how this link was established?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sandra Matzkin
>>> Radiation Transport
>>> INVAP SE
>>> Bariloche
>>> Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>>>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>>>
>>>> Rob Yoss
>>>> FMLH/MCW
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>>
>>>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>>>
>>>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Cary
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cary Renquist
>>>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 25
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:29:14 -0700
> From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
> To: "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: <62230C30-39B0-40A5-B661-6C67EF55D3AA at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> The ZEP point, where dose of gamma or x ray does more harm than good, is about 250 mSv, according to Luckey in his well referenced book, Radiation Hormesis.
>
> Howard Long
>
> On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Sandra Matzkin <matzkin at invap.com.ar> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am aware that this 100 mSv value is considered to be a threshold above which the probability of cancer increases linearly with dose. I believe it is based on epidemiological studies carried out on some populations (Hiroshima and Mayak among them). However, I cannot find out how these studies were conducted or which other radiological exposed populations were analyzed.
>>
>> It would be interesting to see both LNT and non-LNT supporters' take on this.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>> At 05:28 PM 3/21/2011, you wrote:
>>> Looking at his references,
>>> http://j.mp/ek8QYy
>>>
>>> I see the following statement at the MIT site:
>>> The 100 millisievert level is roughly the point at which health
>>> effects from radiation
>>> become more likely. Below this it is statistically difficult to
>>> connect radiation
>>> dose to cancer rates, but above this the relationship starts to
>>> become apparent.
>>>
>>> And at the NRC tritium page:
>>> Although high doses and high dose rates may cause cancer in humans
>>> and genetic abnormalities
>>> in an embryo or fetus, public health data have not established the
>>> occurrence of these health
>>> risks following exposure to low doses and low dose rates - below
>>> about 10,000 millirem (mrem).
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Cary Renquist
>>> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra Matzkin
>>> Sent: Monday, 21 March 2011 11:38
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>
>>> About the assertion "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased
>>> cancer risk" (100 mSv), can anyone comment or provide references on
>>> how this link was established?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Sandra Matzkin
>>> Radiation Transport
>>> INVAP SE
>>> Bariloche
>>> Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>> At 02:30 PM 3/21/2011, Yoss, Robert wrote:
>>>> For a chuckle note the last lines at the bottom.
>>>>
>>>> Rob Yoss
>>>> FMLH/MCW
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Cary Renquist
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 11:45 AM
>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] xkcd: Relative Radiation Dose chart
>>>>
>>>> Surprised that nobody has pointed this out yet...
>>>>
>>>> http://j.mp/fklO6J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Cary
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cary Renquist
>>>> crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 26
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:23:21 -0700
> From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
> To: "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: <C38A008F-D828-42F5-B764-907AB9C0483E at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Larry and Ed,
> Centrifugal vs centripetal government, big biz demon vs big gov demon, physicist vs engineer -
> Like Tevya, I must say, "You are both right".
>
> Currently, central planning centrifigal force seems excessive to me, judging by the borrowing from our grandchildren. We won't have credit capacity to back new reactor financing.
>
> Elitists ("ignorant"?) don't trust the market to best set standards and prices,
> so excessive regulation impedes nuclear energy
> (see Rockwell, Creating the New world).
>
> Why not discuss on Radsafe how much regulation is good (or bad)
> just like how much radiation itself is good (or bad)?
>
> Howard Long
>
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 7:22 PM, "Larry Addis" <ajess at clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>> I have a few friends that I see every day, PhDs. Economist, Engineers -
>> (Mechanical, Chemical, Civil), at least three Health physicist, Political
>> Scientist, History Professors, Chemist, Entomologist, all are published and
>> successful - some retired. Believe me they will take exception with your
>> opinion there.
>>
>> Ignorant? Ouch that left a mark. I'll let em what you said tomorrow.
>>
>> Lenin's prescription?? .......Really?
>>
>> Not sure this is the venue to vent that type political rhetoric/ideology.
>>
>> But, feel free to send me a personal email any time, Ed.
>>
>> Hope you are well otherwise,
>> Larry Addis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Hiserodt
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 3:39 PM
>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
>>
>> If one is so ignorant of basic economics NOT to see that the Obama
>> administration is indeed destroying the county per Lenin's prescription
>> (debauching the currency), then one is living in a dream world. With the
>> country goes all those research projects, not to mention our children's and
>> grandchildren's futures. Prevention of that disaster is the reason Robinson
>> ran for Congress. Only fitting that he is honest about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed Hiserodt
>>
>> Maumelle AR
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Addis
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:42 PM
>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
>>
>>
>>
>> No Howard, your point is well taken - I am with you there. I think you and I
>>
>> and all on the list would agree that neither political nor theological
>>
>> ideology or money should come into play. Academic freedom and ethics should
>>
>> trump when it comes to this serious question/conflict.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said, hopefully before it's all over the students will get an open,
>>
>> fair and unobstructed opportunity to finish their academic pursuits. I'd
>>
>> like to think this wouldn't happen at my University, but from this distance
>>
>> I can't be a fair judge either way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that ..... I would give my and your eye teeth for a $10,000,000
>>
>> earmark for my university night now. Times are TOUGH. Eye teeth yes,
>>
>> personal integrity and people's careers and professional futures - NO WAY.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said all that, I was a little disappointed to read something WHOLLY
>>
>> political in the FIRST line of Art Robinson's article:
>>
>>
>>
>> "In an effort to do my part in rescuing our country from the out-of-control
>>
>> Obama administration, last year I ran for Congress in Oregon's 4th District"
>>
>>
>>
>> Just sets too much of an ideological tone or flavor rather than serious
>>
>> academic/ethical. "Rescue our country"? or Rescue these kids?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> LA
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:35 PM
>>
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>
>> Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>>
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> I must have omitted the motivation: $10,000,000 earmark for political
>>
>> supporters.
>>
>>
>>
>> At Clemson, would you deny access (to a PhD student with highest grades) to
>>
>> reactor equipment the student himself had constructed, in order to give that
>>
>> equipment to students more politically favored and in order for faculty to
>>
>> sell?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would not trust any health physics graduate from such a program.
>>
>> Participants in Doctors for Disaster programs hosted by Dr Robinson (Linus
>>
>> Pauling's partner) and readers of his Access to Energy, please comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Distrust of current info from Japan foretells decline of the whole health
>>
>> physics profession if it cannot stop this corruption at OSU. Do try to get
>>
>> the OSU view
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 1:33 PM, "Larry Addis" <ajess at clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Howard,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You need not help me understand the situation you referred to. The first
>>
>>> thing I read by Art Robinson was that he was:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "rescuing our country from the out-of-control Obama administration".
>>
>> Sounds
>>
>>> like political ideology to me.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I read all the materials presented on the "Outrage" by Art Robinson and
>>
>> saw
>>
>>> nothing relating to radiation protection and little to academic pursuits.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I did see terms like:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> home schooling, and Christian, drunken parties of OSU nuclear engineering
>>
>>> students during taxpayer-financed trips to scientific meetings.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Politics should have NO place on either side of an academic issue. Nor
>>
>>> should the other things mentioned.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I feel sorry for the students. I hope this all gets resolved and
>>
>> otherwise
>>
>>> deserving students get an open, fair and unobstructed opportunity to
>>
>> finish
>>
>>> their academic pursuits.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> LA
>>
>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 27
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:23:21 -0700
> From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
> To: "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: <C38A008F-D828-42F5-B764-907AB9C0483E at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Larry and Ed,
> Centrifugal vs centripetal government, big biz demon vs big gov demon, physicist vs engineer -
> Like Tevya, I must say, "You are both right".
>
> Currently, central planning centrifigal force seems excessive to me, judging by the borrowing from our grandchildren. We won't have credit capacity to back new reactor financing.
>
> Elitists ("ignorant"?) don't trust the market to best set standards and prices,
> so excessive regulation impedes nuclear energy
> (see Rockwell, Creating the New world).
>
> Why not discuss on Radsafe how much regulation is good (or bad)
> just like how much radiation itself is good (or bad)?
>
> Howard Long
>
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 7:22 PM, "Larry Addis" <ajess at clemson.edu> wrote:
>
>> I have a few friends that I see every day, PhDs. Economist, Engineers -
>> (Mechanical, Chemical, Civil), at least three Health physicist, Political
>> Scientist, History Professors, Chemist, Entomologist, all are published and
>> successful - some retired. Believe me they will take exception with your
>> opinion there.
>>
>> Ignorant? Ouch that left a mark. I'll let em what you said tomorrow.
>>
>> Lenin's prescription?? .......Really?
>>
>> Not sure this is the venue to vent that type political rhetoric/ideology.
>>
>> But, feel free to send me a personal email any time, Ed.
>>
>> Hope you are well otherwise,
>> Larry Addis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Hiserodt
>> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 3:39 PM
>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
>>
>> If one is so ignorant of basic economics NOT to see that the Obama
>> administration is indeed destroying the county per Lenin's prescription
>> (debauching the currency), then one is living in a dream world. With the
>> country goes all those research projects, not to mention our children's and
>> grandchildren's futures. Prevention of that disaster is the reason Robinson
>> ran for Congress. Only fitting that he is honest about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed Hiserodt
>>
>> Maumelle AR
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Addis
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:42 PM
>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
>>
>>
>>
>> No Howard, your point is well taken - I am with you there. I think you and I
>>
>> and all on the list would agree that neither political nor theological
>>
>> ideology or money should come into play. Academic freedom and ethics should
>>
>> trump when it comes to this serious question/conflict.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said, hopefully before it's all over the students will get an open,
>>
>> fair and unobstructed opportunity to finish their academic pursuits. I'd
>>
>> like to think this wouldn't happen at my University, but from this distance
>>
>> I can't be a fair judge either way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that ..... I would give my and your eye teeth for a $10,000,000
>>
>> earmark for my university night now. Times are TOUGH. Eye teeth yes,
>>
>> personal integrity and people's careers and professional futures - NO WAY.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said all that, I was a little disappointed to read something WHOLLY
>>
>> political in the FIRST line of Art Robinson's article:
>>
>>
>>
>> "In an effort to do my part in rescuing our country from the out-of-control
>>
>> Obama administration, last year I ran for Congress in Oregon's 4th District"
>>
>>
>>
>> Just sets too much of an ideological tone or flavor rather than serious
>>
>> academic/ethical. "Rescue our country"? or Rescue these kids?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> LA
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:35 PM
>>
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>
>> Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>>
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Radiation Protection and Academic Pursuits
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> I must have omitted the motivation: $10,000,000 earmark for political
>>
>> supporters.
>>
>>
>>
>> At Clemson, would you deny access (to a PhD student with highest grades) to
>>
>> reactor equipment the student himself had constructed, in order to give that
>>
>> equipment to students more politically favored and in order for faculty to
>>
>> sell?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would not trust any health physics graduate from such a program.
>>
>> Participants in Doctors for Disaster programs hosted by Dr Robinson (Linus
>>
>> Pauling's partner) and readers of his Access to Energy, please comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Distrust of current info from Japan foretells decline of the whole health
>>
>> physics profession if it cannot stop this corruption at OSU. Do try to get
>>
>> the OSU view
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 1:33 PM, "Larry Addis" <ajess at clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Howard,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> You need not help me understand the situation you referred to. The first
>>
>>> thing I read by Art Robinson was that he was:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "rescuing our country from the out-of-control Obama administration".
>>
>> Sounds
>>
>>> like political ideology to me.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I read all the materials presented on the "Outrage" by Art Robinson and
>>
>> saw
>>
>>> nothing relating to radiation protection and little to academic pursuits.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I did see terms like:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> home schooling, and Christian, drunken parties of OSU nuclear engineering
>>
>>> students during taxpayer-financed trips to scientific meetings.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Politics should have NO place on either side of an academic issue. Nor
>>
>>> should the other things mentioned.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I feel sorry for the students. I hope this all gets resolved and
>>
>> otherwise
>>
>>> deserving students get an open, fair and unobstructed opportunity to
>>
>> finish
>>
>>> their academic pursuits.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> LA
>>
>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 28
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:25:02 -0500
> From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Latest NEI Update
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <00D8A697-BF0C-4D0A-881E-395A32DD111B at iit.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> UPDATE AS OF 8:00 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 21:
> NEI has added a new graphic to its website:Emergency Presparedness: Protecting the Public and Environment.
>
> UPDATE AS OF 6:30 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 21:
>
> Japan?s NHK broadcasting network reported that Tokyo Electric Power Co. confirmed that the March 11 earthquake and tsunami were beyond the Fukushima Daiichi plant?s design standards.
>
> TEPCO believes the tsunami that inundated the Fukushima Daiichi site was 14 meters high, the network said. The design basis tsunami for the site was 5.7 meters, and the reactors and backup power sources were located 10 to 13 meters above sea level. The company reported that the maximum earthquake for which the Fukushima Daiichi plants were designed was magnitude 8. The quake that struck March 11 was magnitude 9.
>
> Smoke seen from Fukushima Daiichi reactor 3 on Monday subsided after about two hours. Water pressure and levels at the reactor were unchanged through the episode, as were radiation levels, the company said.
>
> The site was temporarily cleared of workers after smoke rose from at the secondary containment buildings that house reactors 2 and 3. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the smoke from reactor 2 caused radiation levels downwind to rise for about three and a half hours.
>
> TEPCO continues work to reconnect external power to all six reactors. Connections were made to the distribution line at reactor 1 and 2, and components and circuits at those reactors are being checked. Similar power connections have been made to reactors 5 and 6 and a diesel generator is providing power to a cooling pump for the used fuel pools. Power cable is being laid to reactor 4, and power is expected to be restored to reactors 3 and 4 by Tuesday.
>
> Japan?s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano announced that Prime Minister Kan has ordered the governors of four prefectures near Fukushima to restrict the shipment of spinach and ?kakina,? another leafy vegetable. The shipment of milk from Fukushima prefectures was also restricted. Edano said the order was a precautionary emergency measure.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 29
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:48:02 -0700
> From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at sfo.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] US ABC Evening News Again
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> Mailing List'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
> <GeigerCounterEnthusiasts at yahoogroups.com>
> Message-ID: <sig.00621275fb.002a01cbe82a$d09c5d50$71d517f0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Tonight, they took a Geiger Counter to packages of Fukushima green
> vegetables in a store and sure enough the Geiger counter gave a very low
> reading - I wonder if what they really read was background radiation and
> once again are misleading the public.
>
>
>
> Roger Helbig
>
>
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/radiation-fears-japan-food-water-ocean-conta
> minated-nuclear-reactor-13189131
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 30
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:51:36 -0700
> From: "Roger Helbig" <rhelbig at sfo.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Iodine-131 at Fukushima
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
> Mailing List'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <sig.40621d2462.002f01cbe82b$4dde6790$e99b36b0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Since Iodine-131 has a short half life - would making cheese out of the milk
> render it essentially harmless by the time that the cheese was brought to
> market? Cheese could be stored under refrigeration for years before being
> eaten. Is there any way to filter the iodine out of the milk. It just
> pains me, son of a milkman and cheesemaker, to see milk go down the drain
> and the farmer's livelihood as well.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 31
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:06:27 -0400
> From: Robert Bradley <rpb.bradley at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] US ABC Evening News Again
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=LQuhpoCmbUfYZvOFjA6j=iG_0VjOhng2-mLXA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Very interesting. I was denied access to this video due to contractual
> agreements outside the USA! I'm in a small Caribbean country (not Cuba).
> wonder what the issue is?
>
> - - RPB
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Roger Helbig <rhelbig at sfo.com> wrote:
>
>> Tonight, they took a Geiger Counter to packages of Fukushima green
>> vegetables in a store and sure enough the Geiger counter gave a very low
>> reading - I wonder if what they really read was background radiation and
>> once again are misleading the public.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Helbig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/radiation-fears-japan-food-water-ocean-conta
>> minated-nuclear-reactor-13189131<http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/radiation-fears-japan-food-water-ocean-contaminated-nuclear-reactor-13189131>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> RadSafe mailing list
> RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>
>
> End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 575, Issue 3
> ***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list