[ RadSafe ] Re. prompt criticality and fuel storage

Grant Nixon drgrantnixon at yahoo.com
Tue May 3 09:37:13 CDT 2011


Hi Franz et al:

Please note that Fukushima Daiichi unit 4 had all of its core fuel (some of 
it may have been relatively fresh) stored in its fuel pond at the time of the 
incident. Also, spent fuel within storage pools have configuration management to 
mitigate against the possibility of prompt criticality accidents. Consider that 
the timing for the removal of spent fuel may have as much to do with the 
decreased integrity of the fuel rods at high burnup (i.e., the desire to avoid 
fuel cladding failures) as it does with neutron poisons and the reduction of 
fissile material. Even in the case of dry storage, the possibility of water 
ingressing and potentially moderating neutrons also requires controls and design 
mitigation to avoid criticality incidents. Similarly, when disolved uranium 
forms part of waste liquid in other types of nuclear facilities (e.g. fuel 
analysis and/or reprocessing), there are controls in place to help ensure that 
the disolved uranium in the effluent holding tanks does not precipitate-out and 
form a critical mass. In short, the point I wish to make is that criticality 
issues, spent fuel or not, can pose real concerns for which mitigation 
strategies are applied.

Some have speculated that a prompt criticality incident may have taken place in 
the spent fuel pond of unit 3 at Fukushima Daiichi. As a member of the public at 
large, we do not have many facts at our disposal, nor an isotopic analysis of 
the emitted plume (xenon ratios), nor an isotopic analysis of the debris field. 
In a well-beyond design basis accident, such an occurence is not beyond the 
realm of possibility.

Best regards, Grant Nixon, Ph.D., P.Phys. 




________________________________
From: "radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu" 
<radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Fri, April 29, 2011 12:39:43 PM
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 614, Issue 1

Send RadSafe mailing list submissions to
    radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
    radsafe-owner at health.phys.iit.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RadSafe digest..."


Important!

To keep threads/discussions more easily readable PLEASE observe the following 
guideline when replying to a message or digest:

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

Thanks!_______________________________________________


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: Psychic effects of radiohysteria? (Franz    Schoenhofer)
      (Stabin, Michael)
  2. Re: Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews on    Russia
      Today and Floods the Net (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  3. Re: Psychocological effects of radiohysteria (Dan W McCarn)
  4. Re: NCR nonsense (Sandgren, Peter)
  5. Re: NCR nonsense (Conklin, Al  (DOH))
  6. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  7. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  8. Re: Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews on
      RussiaToday and Floods the Net (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  9. Re: NCR nonsense (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  10. Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress
      caused by the fear mongering (Clayton J Bradt)
  11. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Richard Gallego)
  12. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Richard Gallego)
  13. Re: Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear    and
      stress caused by the fear mongering (Franz Sch?nhofer)
  14. Re: Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear    and
      stress caused by the fear mongering (Doug Aitken)
  15. Forwarded to the list (Jeff Terry)
  16. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Steven Dapra)
  17. Question regarding explosion characterization. (Robert Bradley)
  18. Re: Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews on Russia
      Today and Floods the Net (Steven Dapra)
  19. Arnie Gundersen in the popular press (thread re-named)
      (Steven Dapra)
  20. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Richard Gallego)
  21. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Richard Gallego)
  22. Court Hears Arguments on Los Alamos Plutonium Lab (Maury Siskel)
  23. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Steven Dapra)
  24. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Bill Prestwich)
  25. Usa of CT Scans in the Disaster in Alabama (Dan W McCarn)
  26. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Richard Gallego)
  27. Re: Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl (Richard Gallego)


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

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:21:49 -0500
From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychic effects of radiohysteria? (Franz
    Schoenhofer)
To: "radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
    <AE2199B600823B4A9CC19B6E88BE050213405A23B2 at its-hcwnem04.ds.Vanderbilt.edu>
    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> So my question to RADSAFE is, whether there are any investigations known about 
>the psychological effects of the sensational exaggerations of the massmedia and 
>the constant absurd indoctrination with fear for life and health.


Not to my knowledge, either, but this is a study that is badly needed. I have 
suggested at times over the years that much of the fear and hysteria promoted by 
some with an agenda for funding low-dose investigations or transmitted (I think 
more rarely than created) by the media may be responsible for real cases of 
harmful stress, possibly cancers (I'm not entirely joking here) and other 
maladies. Someone should fund this. I often complain to my friends about weekly 
that a new study has appeared that proved something so completely obvious and 
stupid that it was a crime for it to receive funding while other worthy research 
is refused for funding. An example (true) - they showed people pictures of other 
people and fed them drinks over time, and voila, after a few drinks people found 
the people in the photos more attractive. Anyone who has visited a tavern is 
familiar with this phenomenon (nicknamed the 'Coyote Ugly' effect). A recent one 
found that men watching newscasts with att
ractive female hosts picked up somewhat fewer details about the news presented 
than those who watched the same newscast with an unattractive female or a male 
host. No! Really? Even if this were not ridiculously obvious, it still does not 
warrant funding, what is the value of this information? The idea that Franz 
suggests needs to be funded. If anyone finds a study, I would be very keen to 
see it. If anyone thinks it could be funded I would be thrilled to see a joint 
US-European effort to obtain the data! If we could prove that mass media false 
hysteria causes cancer, there would be a class action suit that about 4 billion 
people could join.



Mike

Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-4628
Fax?? (615) 322-3764
e-mail???? michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
internet?? www.doseinfo-radar.com



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

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:33:38 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews
    on    Russia Today and Floods the Net
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <DCF2204466B44A529DFC2F76FAB18DEF at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Tom,

This are just other claims by completely laypeople, neglecting the most
basic principles of nuclear reactions, but gaining attention by the mass
media,  because they satisfy the need of readers and spectators for some
adrenaline. 

I suppose that with the term "fuel storage" the usual storage pond for used
fuel rods is addressed. I have seen several such in many parts of the world.
There are - contrary to some mass media reports - no fresh and unused fuel
rods stored in such a pond, actually, as I remember, any contact with steam
or water is strictly prohibited for unused fuel rods. The fuel rods cooled
in the storage ponds are used ones, which means that their content of U-235
is heavily depleted. The original unused fuel rods with slightly enriched
uranium cannot trigger a nuclear reaction or explosion. Sophisticated
techniques are necessary to start a chain reaction. Even more this is true
for used fuel rods with considerably lower U-235 concentration - otherwise
they would be still used and their potential would not be disregarded!
People who think of a nuclear reaction from used fuel have obviously read to
much about criticallity accidents with highly enriched or bomb-grade fuel!!!

Therefore I believe that these news are the same bogus as 90% of the
distributed news about the Fukushima accident. It is in the interest of mass
media, "environmentalist" groups and especially groups who employ the horror
stories commercially (Greenpeace). 

I suppose that there are much more competent persons on RADSAFE on that
topic - I am not a mathematician, not a biologist, not a psychologist, but a
very simple chemist, who has worked for more than 30 years with
radiochemistry and radioactivity. I therefore ask you humbly to excuse my
lack of knowledge.........

Best wishes!

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Tom Simpson
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. April 2011 14:43
An: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews on
Russia Today and Floods the Net

Arnie Gundersen has been all over the web and the news sharing his 
opinions on just what is going on.

I am not a nuclear engineer, but most of what he says seems plausible 
enough to me.  The actual claim was that a hydrogen gas explosion in 
Unit 3's fuel storage pond banged enough fuel rods into each other to 
initiate a prompt criticality, which resulted in another 
near-simultaneous blast, which made for a much larger event than it 
otherwise would have been.

The question I have of Mr. Gundersens and his assertion is, assuming we 
did have a prompt criticality in part of the fuel stored there, how does 
that result in such a violent explosion? That would get us a lot of heat 
and radiation, for sure, but how does that translate into an explosion 
unless there is some other vector present like water to flash into steam 
(and it does not look much like a steam explosion to me)?

-Tom



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

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:51:07 -0600
From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychocological effects of radiohysteria
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <C4CE0074B7F540AA835BA833255F0633 at DocHolidayII>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Mike:

Several years ago I wrote in RadSafe about a Russian study that my old IAEA
Russian boss, Alexander Nechaev (St. Petersburg) referred to on the
psychological effects of the Chernobyl accident.  The study compared all
medical issues of relocated residents from within the 30 km exclusion zone
to residents remaining along the boundaries of the zone.  The results
demonstrated that the relocated individuals suffered from several diseases
at a significantly higher rate than the people who remained in the area.
These include in order of importance 1) Suicide; 2) Drug / Alcohol abuse; 3)
Diabetes; 4) Heart Disease and 5) Stroke. Note that cancer is not in this
list!

I will try to get / find the paper (in Russian).

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


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Stabin, Michael
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:22
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychic effects of radiohysteria?
(FranzSchoenhofer)

> So my question to RADSAFE is, whether there are any investigations known
about the psychological effects of the sensational exaggerations of the
massmedia and the constant absurd indoctrination with fear for life and
health.


Not to my knowledge, either, but this is a study that is badly needed. I
have suggested at times over the years that much of the fear and hysteria
promoted by some with an agenda for funding low-dose investigations or
transmitted (I think more rarely than created) by the media may be
responsible for real cases of harmful stress, possibly cancers (I'm not
entirely joking here) and other maladies. Someone should fund this. I often
complain to my friends about weekly that a new study has appeared that
proved something so completely obvious and stupid that it was a crime for it
to receive funding while other worthy research is refused for funding. An
example (true) - they showed people pictures of other people and fed them
drinks over time, and voila, after a few drinks people found the people in
the photos more attractive. Anyone who has visited a tavern is familiar with
this phenomenon (nicknamed the 'Coyote Ugly' effect). A recent one found
that men watching newscasts with attractive female hosts picked up somewhat
fewer details about the news presented than those who watched the same
newscast with an unattractive female or a male host. No! Really? Even if
this were not ridiculously obvious, it still does not warrant funding, what
is the value of this information? The idea that Franz suggests needs to be
funded. If anyone finds a study, I would be very keen to see it. If anyone
thinks it could be funded I would be thrilled to see a joint US-European
effort to obtain the data! If we could prove that mass media false hysteria
causes cancer, there would be a class action suit that about 4 billion
people could join.



Mike

Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-4628
Fax?? (615) 322-3764
e-mail???? michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
internet?? www.doseinfo-radar.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: 4
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:18:54 -0400
From: "Sandgren, Peter" <Peter.Sandgren at ct.gov>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
    <CDBC44AFEF0BD4429D22D868CF722F27D5F3580F13 at DOIT-EX702.exec.ds.state.ct.us>
    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Is NCR a religious site?  Our state filtering system blocks me from viewing this 
(which may be for the best) with the reason "religion."

Peter N. Sandgren
Connecticut Emergency Mgmt. Homeland Security
Radiological Planning (REP)
GIS Coordinator
25 Sigourney St., Hartford, CT 06106
phone 860-256-0875; fax 860-256-0819
peter.sandgren at ct.gov

Lorem ipsum

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Miller
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:22 PM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense

The article is B.S., but the blog entries are good.

<http://ncronline.org/news/global/nuclear-power-warnings-are-clear>
http://ncronline.org/news/global/nuclear-power-warnings-are-clear











_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:17:07 -0700
From: "Conklin, Al  (DOH)" <Al.Conklin at DOH.WA.GOV>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
    MailingList"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
    <4BB6F4B160DF2B48B7B811DE62D3B74503EB49F1 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"

NCR = National Catholic Reporter.

Al Conklin
Lead Trainer and Health Physicist
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Section
Office of Radiation Protection
Department of Health
office: 360-236-3261
cell: 360-239-1237
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Sandgren,
Peter
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:19 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense

Is NCR a religious site?  Our state filtering system blocks me from
viewing this (which may be for the best) with the reason "religion."

Peter N. Sandgren
Connecticut Emergency Mgmt. Homeland Security
Radiological Planning (REP)
GIS Coordinator
25 Sigourney St., Hartford, CT 06106
phone 860-256-0875; fax 860-256-0819
peter.sandgren at ct.gov

Lorem ipsum

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Miller
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:22 PM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense

The article is B.S., but the blog entries are good.

<http://ncronline.org/news/global/nuclear-power-warnings-are-clear>
http://ncronline.org/news/global/nuclear-power-warnings-are-clear











_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu



_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu


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

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:39:05 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <A19C8B4FBCFF41089CFB7991A9CC120F at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Leo and RADSAFErs,

I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt your
statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even higher". 

Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very high
numbers of abortions. Recently there was one of his unbelievable claims even
on RADSAFE, where he cites "Countries having been most affected by the
Chernobyl contamination". I missed Austria among them, which was one of the
by far most affected countries, not because of direct precipitation
contamination, but because of contamination of food. Well, this is Chris
Busby at his best. Why does he still get space on RADSAFE?

In the course of my work for the official first report on the consequences
of Chernobyl on Austria I tried to find some data about abortions. I could
not get any, neither through official nor unofficial channels, simply
because there were none about additional abortions. 

Since the cited papers are not available to me, I do not want to question
the data, but I clearly can state the following:

Greece was very little affected by the Chernobyl contamination, local small
enhancements of background radiation were found as everywhere in Europe, but
there was nothing of concern. 

Regarding Denmark I am much more suspicious. Like other parts of Europe
(Netherlands, Hungary, and many parts of other countries) Denmark was not
the slightest bit affected by the Chernobyl accident (they might have found
some traces). Therefore the abortions were not at all justified because of
radiation fear. It might have been used to justify officially and mentally
the abortion. It might have been used as an auxilliary argument. I was
rather shortly after the accident at a conference in Lund, Sweden, which had
to be turned halfways into a "Chernobyl conference", because so many
scientists involved in this accident were present, but I could not feel any
real concern either in Danish, Swedish or any other participants. 

If the data were correct, then the question is still unanswered, why women
chose abortion, though there was no reason to suspect damage to fetusses.

How easy would be this world for scientists without journalists trying to
distribute the most horrifying stories to enhance their impact factor! 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Leo M. Lowe
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. April 2011 20:34
An: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Hello Rich,

Relative to your question copied below, one measure of the real 
impacts of the fear and stress caused by Chernobyl is the number of 
induced abortions brought about by perceived potential birth 
defects.  The number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to 
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even 
higher.  For example, see:

1.  Trichopoulos et al "The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced 
abortions after the accident" Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;295;1100.

  2. LB Knudsen "Legally-induced abortions in Denmark after 
Chernobyl" - Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy (1991) 45:229-231.

These were real lives lost, just out of fear of what could happen 
from "radiation".  Better information given to those exposed 
post-Chernobyl about the real risks of radiation could have saved 
many of these lives.

L. Lowe
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:09:42 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Busby and Kaku - Two Scientific Alarmists -
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>


Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress caused by the
fear mongering of articles like these? The Los Angeles Times had an article
this past Sunday on Chernobyl and it appeared that suicide and depression
were not insignificant effects of the accident. One has to wonder what
effect these exaggerated and erroneous proclamations have on the people
living close to the damaged reactors.

Rich Gallego

_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:39:05 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <A19C8B4FBCFF41089CFB7991A9CC120F at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Leo and RADSAFErs,

I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt your
statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even higher". 

Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very high
numbers of abortions. Recently there was one of his unbelievable claims even
on RADSAFE, where he cites "Countries having been most affected by the
Chernobyl contamination". I missed Austria among them, which was one of the
by far most affected countries, not because of direct precipitation
contamination, but because of contamination of food. Well, this is Chris
Busby at his best. Why does he still get space on RADSAFE?

In the course of my work for the official first report on the consequences
of Chernobyl on Austria I tried to find some data about abortions. I could
not get any, neither through official nor unofficial channels, simply
because there were none about additional abortions. 

Since the cited papers are not available to me, I do not want to question
the data, but I clearly can state the following:

Greece was very little affected by the Chernobyl contamination, local small
enhancements of background radiation were found as everywhere in Europe, but
there was nothing of concern. 

Regarding Denmark I am much more suspicious. Like other parts of Europe
(Netherlands, Hungary, and many parts of other countries) Denmark was not
the slightest bit affected by the Chernobyl accident (they might have found
some traces). Therefore the abortions were not at all justified because of
radiation fear. It might have been used to justify officially and mentally
the abortion. It might have been used as an auxilliary argument. I was
rather shortly after the accident at a conference in Lund, Sweden, which had
to be turned halfways into a "Chernobyl conference", because so many
scientists involved in this accident were present, but I could not feel any
real concern either in Danish, Swedish or any other participants. 

If the data were correct, then the question is still unanswered, why women
chose abortion, though there was no reason to suspect damage to fetusses.

How easy would be this world for scientists without journalists trying to
distribute the most horrifying stories to enhance their impact factor! 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Leo M. Lowe
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. April 2011 20:34
An: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Hello Rich,

Relative to your question copied below, one measure of the real 
impacts of the fear and stress caused by Chernobyl is the number of 
induced abortions brought about by perceived potential birth 
defects.  The number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to 
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even 
higher.  For example, see:

1.  Trichopoulos et al "The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced 
abortions after the accident" Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;295;1100.

  2. LB Knudsen "Legally-induced abortions in Denmark after 
Chernobyl" - Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy (1991) 45:229-231.

These were real lives lost, just out of fear of what could happen 
from "radiation".  Better information given to those exposed 
post-Chernobyl about the real risks of radiation could have saved 
many of these lives.

L. Lowe
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:09:42 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Busby and Kaku - Two Scientific Alarmists -
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>


Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress caused by the
fear mongering of articles like these? The Los Angeles Times had an article
this past Sunday on Chernobyl and it appeared that suicide and depression
were not insignificant effects of the accident. One has to wonder what
effect these exaggerated and erroneous proclamations have on the people
living close to the damaged reactors.

Rich Gallego

_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:49:04 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews
    on    RussiaToday and Floods the Net
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <7DF6EB89FD254B6087D5B1E676E02E94 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Roger,

Why are people so critical about the credentials of Chris Busby? (I am not
critical about his credentials, but about the nonsense he distributes,
obviously to make money.) The people on Faire Wind Associates you attack are
obviously as I understand from their web-site working for some advocates,
their background as high-school teachers etc. being so unbelievable low,
that Chris Busby would be compared to them a nobel prize winner! 

Why do you not ridicule such people? I experienced that this is sometimes a
good strategy - and a honest one!

Best regards,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Roger Helbig
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. April 2011 09:41
An: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews on
RussiaToday and Floods the Net

Does anyone know anything about this claimed nuclear engineer who postulates
a criticality incident as causing Reactor #3 explosion at this video link -
several other videos from Faire Wind Associates - another new voice in the
game - http://vimeo.com/22865967

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/who-we-are



Roger Helbig

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu



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

Message: 9
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:00:30 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <2B5D7A26C2E44F73952D680C9A898067 at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Peter,

Maybe you could discuss this with your computer department and not
distributing it to RADSAFE, where thousands of participants expect
contributions about radiation protection issues. 

Maybe you can complain about this "anti-US" message of mine to Jeff!

Best regards anyway,

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Sandgren, Peter
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. April 2011 18:19
An: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense

Is NCR a religious site?  Our state filtering system blocks me from viewing
this (which may be for the best) with the reason "religion."

Peter N. Sandgren
Connecticut Emergency Mgmt. Homeland Security
Radiological Planning (REP)
GIS Coordinator
25 Sigourney St., Hartford, CT 06106
phone 860-256-0875; fax 860-256-0819
peter.sandgren at ct.gov

Lorem ipsum

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Miller
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:22 PM
To: RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] NCR nonsense

The article is B.S., but the blog entries are good.

<http://ncronline.org/news/global/nuclear-power-warnings-are-clear>
http://ncronline.org/news/global/nuclear-power-warnings-are-clear











_______________________________________________
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: 10
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:00:45 -0400
From: Clayton J Bradt <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear
    and stress caused by the fear mongering
To: rich at tgainc.com,    llowe at senes.ca,    franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID:
    
<OFFF36DEDB.75028F89-ON85257880.006401EC-85257880.00687055 at notes.health.state.ny.us>

    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

I would like to respond to three related posts:

Rich Gallego:                  "Is there a way to quantify the effect of 
the fear and stress caused by the
                                        fear mongering of articles like 
these? The Los Angeles Times had an article
                                        this past Sunday on Chernobyl and 
it appeared that suicide and depression
                                        were not insignificant effects of 
the accident. One has to wonder what
                                        effect these exaggerated and 
erroneous proclamations have on the people
                                        living close to the damaged 
reactors."




Franz Schoenhofer:      "So my question to RADSAFE is, whether there are 
any investigations known
                                        about the psychological effects of 
the sensational exaggerations of the
                                        massmedia and the constant absurd 
indoctrination with fear for life and
                                        health. I cannot find anything 
like that in the two US papers I read daily
                                        on the internet (Washington Post 
and USA Today), neither on Swedish
                                        newspapers." 



Leo M. Lowe:                    "... one measure of the real impacts of 
the fear and stress caused 
                                        by Chernobyl is the number of 
                                        induced abortions brought about by 
perceived potential birth 
                                        defects.  The number of excess 
induced abortions in Europe due to 
                                        this fear has been estimated in 
the tens of thousands, and even 
                                        higher." 


Rich, Franz, and Leo,

        I did my undergraduate work and a year of grad school in 
psychology - before I wised up and eventually switched to physics - so I 
feel somewhat qualified to opine a little on the subject of psychological 
"measurement". The quotation marks are significant here because any 
measurement of psychological data, that is behavior, can never claim more 
than nominal scale status.  Psychologists often attempt to measure 
behavior by counting events, such as the number of abortions in a given 
population over a defined time frame, and by doing so claim to have 
achieved ordinal scale data thus allowing comparisons between populations 
and time frames. The more abortions under conditions x,y,z, the greater 
the effect, etc.  But this is an act of self-deception on the 
psychologists' part because, continuing with our example, each abortion is 
a unique event resulting ultimately from a singular set of circumstances, 
motivations, stresses, etc. In order to count events, objects, apples or 
oranges they must belong within a category of identicals.  Human behaviors 
(at least) are each a singular event because behavior is determined by 
perception and perception is ultimately context dependent. No two events 
occur in exactly the same context and therefore cannot be counted as 
repetitions from the same class of object. 

In short, there is no legitimate way to quantify the psychological effects 
of scare mongering or of any other behavior.  Scare mongering, and the 
spreading of dis-information are best handled with the tools of moral 
philosophy, not science.

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509

518-474-1993

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or 
sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise 
protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. 
If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it 
to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please 
notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. 
Thank you for your cooperation. 




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

Message: 11
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:00:27 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4db9bd0b.9d7bdc0a.7396.1933 at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Franz,

You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be much
less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent points of
view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a good enough job
of educating the world on the benefits and true risks related to the
peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr. Busby have rushed in
to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.

Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList';
radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Leo and RADSAFErs,

I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt your
statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even higher". 

Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very high
numbers of abortions. Recently there was one of his unbelievable claims even
on RADSAFE, where he cites "Countries having been most affected by the
Chernobyl contamination". I missed Austria among them, which was one of the
by far most affected countries, not because of direct precipitation
contamination, but because of contamination of food. Well, this is Chris
Busby at his best. Why does he still get space on RADSAFE?

In the course of my work for the official first report on the consequences
of Chernobyl on Austria I tried to find some data about abortions. I could
not get any, neither through official nor unofficial channels, simply
because there were none about additional abortions. 

Since the cited papers are not available to me, I do not want to question
the data, but I clearly can state the following:

Greece was very little affected by the Chernobyl contamination, local small
enhancements of background radiation were found as everywhere in Europe, but
there was nothing of concern. 

Regarding Denmark I am much more suspicious. Like other parts of Europe
(Netherlands, Hungary, and many parts of other countries) Denmark was not
the slightest bit affected by the Chernobyl accident (they might have found
some traces). Therefore the abortions were not at all justified because of
radiation fear. It might have been used to justify officially and mentally
the abortion. It might have been used as an auxilliary argument. I was
rather shortly after the accident at a conference in Lund, Sweden, which had
to be turned halfways into a "Chernobyl conference", because so many
scientists involved in this accident were present, but I could not feel any
real concern either in Danish, Swedish or any other participants. 

If the data were correct, then the question is still unanswered, why women
chose abortion, though there was no reason to suspect damage to fetusses.

How easy would be this world for scientists without journalists trying to
distribute the most horrifying stories to enhance their impact factor! 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Leo M. Lowe
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. April 2011 20:34
An: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Hello Rich,

Relative to your question copied below, one measure of the real impacts of
the fear and stress caused by Chernobyl is the number of induced abortions
brought about by perceived potential birth defects.  The number of excess
induced abortions in Europe due to this fear has been estimated in the tens
of thousands, and even higher.  For example, see:

1.  Trichopoulos et al "The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced
abortions after the accident" Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;295;1100.

  2. LB Knudsen "Legally-induced abortions in Denmark after Chernobyl" -
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy (1991) 45:229-231.

These were real lives lost, just out of fear of what could happen from
"radiation".  Better information given to those exposed post-Chernobyl about
the real risks of radiation could have saved many of these lives.

L. Lowe
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:09:42 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Busby and Kaku - Two Scientific Alarmists -
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>


Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress caused by the
fear mongering of articles like these? The Los Angeles Times had an article
this past Sunday on Chernobyl and it appeared that suicide and depression
were not insignificant effects of the accident. One has to wonder what
effect these exaggerated and erroneous proclamations have on the people
living close to the damaged reactors.

Rich Gallego

_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:00:27 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4db9bd0b.9d7bdc0a.7396.1933 at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Franz,

You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be much
less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent points of
view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a good enough job
of educating the world on the benefits and true risks related to the
peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr. Busby have rushed in
to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.

Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList';
radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Leo and RADSAFErs,

I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt your
statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even higher". 

Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very high
numbers of abortions. Recently there was one of his unbelievable claims even
on RADSAFE, where he cites "Countries having been most affected by the
Chernobyl contamination". I missed Austria among them, which was one of the
by far most affected countries, not because of direct precipitation
contamination, but because of contamination of food. Well, this is Chris
Busby at his best. Why does he still get space on RADSAFE?

In the course of my work for the official first report on the consequences
of Chernobyl on Austria I tried to find some data about abortions. I could
not get any, neither through official nor unofficial channels, simply
because there were none about additional abortions. 

Since the cited papers are not available to me, I do not want to question
the data, but I clearly can state the following:

Greece was very little affected by the Chernobyl contamination, local small
enhancements of background radiation were found as everywhere in Europe, but
there was nothing of concern. 

Regarding Denmark I am much more suspicious. Like other parts of Europe
(Netherlands, Hungary, and many parts of other countries) Denmark was not
the slightest bit affected by the Chernobyl accident (they might have found
some traces). Therefore the abortions were not at all justified because of
radiation fear. It might have been used to justify officially and mentally
the abortion. It might have been used as an auxilliary argument. I was
rather shortly after the accident at a conference in Lund, Sweden, which had
to be turned halfways into a "Chernobyl conference", because so many
scientists involved in this accident were present, but I could not feel any
real concern either in Danish, Swedish or any other participants. 

If the data were correct, then the question is still unanswered, why women
chose abortion, though there was no reason to suspect damage to fetusses.

How easy would be this world for scientists without journalists trying to
distribute the most horrifying stories to enhance their impact factor! 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Leo M. Lowe
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. April 2011 20:34
An: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Hello Rich,

Relative to your question copied below, one measure of the real impacts of
the fear and stress caused by Chernobyl is the number of induced abortions
brought about by perceived potential birth defects.  The number of excess
induced abortions in Europe due to this fear has been estimated in the tens
of thousands, and even higher.  For example, see:

1.  Trichopoulos et al "The victims of Chernobyl in Greece: induced
abortions after the accident" Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;295;1100.

  2. LB Knudsen "Legally-induced abortions in Denmark after Chernobyl" -
Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy (1991) 45:229-231.

These were real lives lost, just out of fear of what could happen from
"radiation".  Better information given to those exposed post-Chernobyl about
the real risks of radiation could have saved many of these lives.

L. Lowe
____________________________________________________________________________
____
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:09:42 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Busby and Kaku - Two Scientific Alarmists -
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>


Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress caused by the
fear mongering of articles like these? The Los Angeles Times had an article
this past Sunday on Chernobyl and it appeared that suicide and depression
were not insignificant effects of the accident. One has to wonder what
effect these exaggerated and erroneous proclamations have on the people
living close to the damaged reactors.

Rich Gallego

_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:31:58 +0200
From: Franz Sch?nhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is there a way to quantify the effect of the
    fear    and stress caused by the fear mongering
To: "'Clayton J Bradt'" <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>, <rich at tgainc.com>,
    <llowe at senes.ca>
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <C0B2AC1C8B0D4D3292D59A42F54DB6DE at pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Clayton,



Thank you so much for your mail. This is one of the most valuable and
thoughtful ones I received on RADSAFE. I believe you can live with it, that
I (or others) do not support your ideas in all details ? but for me, the
objections are really tiny!



I am happy anyway that during the discussion about Chris Busby the ?good old
RADSAFE? has been revived, with clear discussions, statements, answers and
replies to them and nobody seems to be insulted because of a different view!



In the case of abortion I agree with you. One of your underlying facts seems
to be that probably the number of women being in such a situation is much
lower than the number of people exposed to poverty, alcoholism,
malnutrition, hopeless living circumstances in the closely affected areas.
Western Europe (including the former the Eastern block) cannot be compared
to the area of Ukraine or Bjelorussia. I would understand abortions in those
Eastern parts much better than in Western Europe. I do not know of any data,
and I would not be surprised if they were not available. Do not forget the
factor of education!!! 



There are so many other factors underlying the decision for abortion ?
especially fear for social degradation, rising living costs and as mentioned
irrational fears distributed by mass media.



Thanks again!



Franz



Franz Schoenhofer, PhD

MinRat i.R.

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Wien/Vienna

AUSTRIA



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Clayton J Bradt [mailto:CJB01 at health.state.ny.us] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. April 2011 21:01
An: rich at tgainc.com; llowe at senes.ca; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress caused
by the fear mongering



I would like to respond to three related posts:

Rich Gallego: "Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress
caused by the
fear mongering of articles like these? The Los Angeles Times had an article
this past Sunday on Chernobyl and it appeared that suicide and depression
were not insignificant effects of the accident. One has to wonder what
effect these exaggerated and erroneous proclamations have on the people
living close to the damaged reactors."




Franz Schoenhofer: "So my question to RADSAFE is, whether there are any
investigations known
about the psychological effects of the sensational exaggerations of the
massmedia and the constant absurd indoctrination with fear for life and
health. I cannot find anything like that in the two US papers I read daily
on the internet (Washington Post and USA Today), neither on Swedish
newspapers." 



Leo M. Lowe: "... one measure of the real impacts of the fear and stress
caused 
by Chernobyl is the number of 
induced abortions brought about by perceived potential birth 
defects.  The number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to 
this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even 
higher."  


Rich, Franz, and Leo,

I did my undergraduate work and a year of grad school in psychology - before
I wised up and eventually switched to physics - so I feel somewhat qualified
to opine a little on the subject of psychological "measurement". The
quotation marks are significant here because any measurement of
psychological data, that is behavior, can never claim more than nominal
scale status. Psychologists often attempt to measure behavior by counting
events, such as the number of abortions in a given population over a defined
time frame, and by doing so claim to have achieved ordinal scale data thus
allowing comparisons between populations and time frames. The more abortions
under conditions x,y,z, the greater the effect, etc. But this is an act of
self-deception on the psychologists' part because, continuing with our
example, each abortion is a unique event resulting ultimately from a
singular set of circumstances, motivations, stresses, etc. In order to count
events, objects, apples or oranges they must belong within a category of
identicals. Human behaviors (at least) are each a singular event because
behavior is determined by perception and perception is ultimately context
dependent. No two events occur in exactly the same context and therefore
cannot be counted as repetitions from the same class of object. 

In short, there is no legitimate way to quantify the psychological effects
of scare mongering or of any other behavior. Scare mongering, and the
spreading of dis-information are best handled with the tools of moral
philosophy, not science.

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509

518-474-1993

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or
otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for
the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not
authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or
any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 


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

Message: 14
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:52:10 -0500
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is there a way to quantify the effect of the
    fear    and stress caused by the fear mongering
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
    List'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,    'Clayton J Bradt'
    <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>,     rich at tgainc.com, llowe at senes.ca
Message-ID:
    <006901cc05dd$c31c12d0$49543870$@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

And I think it has been mentioned that the "fear of radiological damage to
the fetus" could be a useful (or convenient) justification when there are
many other underlying reasons..... 

That being said, the other day I heard a very interesting interview on NPR
(Franz: National Public Radio here in the States) on the anniversary of
Chernobyl with a young lady whose family lived in Kiev at the time of the
incident. She explained that it was only recently, with the increased
attention to Chernobyl, that her mother finally got the courage and admitted
to her daughter that, at that time, she was carrying the girl in her womb
and there was a lot of talk of the possible effects of the radiation on
young people and especially those still in the womb. Her mother strongly
considered abortion, that apparently was being advised (whether by
authorities or scaremongers was not, unfortunately, clarified). 

The family did, however, move away from the area and the mother, thankfully,
decided against abortion. They eventually moved the states, where the young
lady is leading a highly productive life without (need it be said) any ill
effects of radiation exposure......

What is not known, however, is if this rational behavior was the norm or the
exception!

Regards
Doug

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



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 2:32 PM
To: 'Clayton J Bradt'; rich at tgainc.com; llowe at senes.ca
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear
and stress caused by the fear mongering

Clayton,



Thank you so much for your mail. This is one of the most valuable and
thoughtful ones I received on RADSAFE. I believe you can live with it, that
I (or others) do not support your ideas in all details ? but for me, the
objections are really tiny!



I am happy anyway that during the discussion about Chris Busby the ?good old
RADSAFE? has been revived, with clear discussions, statements, answers and
replies to them and nobody seems to be insulted because of a different view!



In the case of abortion I agree with you. One of your underlying facts seems
to be that probably the number of women being in such a situation is much
lower than the number of people exposed to poverty, alcoholism,
malnutrition, hopeless living circumstances in the closely affected areas.
Western Europe (including the former the Eastern block) cannot be compared
to the area of Ukraine or Bjelorussia. I would understand abortions in those
Eastern parts much better than in Western Europe. I do not know of any data,
and I would not be surprised if they were not available. Do not forget the
factor of education!!! 



There are so many other factors underlying the decision for abortion ?
especially fear for social degradation, rising living costs and as mentioned
irrational fears distributed by mass media.



Thanks again!



Franz



Franz Schoenhofer, PhD

MinRat i.R.

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Wien/Vienna

AUSTRIA



-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Clayton J Bradt [mailto:CJB01 at health.state.ny.us]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. April 2011 21:01
An: rich at tgainc.com; llowe at senes.ca; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress caused
by the fear mongering



I would like to respond to three related posts:

Rich Gallego: "Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress
caused by the fear mongering of articles like these? The Los Angeles Times
had an article this past Sunday on Chernobyl and it appeared that suicide
and depression were not insignificant effects of the accident. One has to
wonder what effect these exaggerated and erroneous proclamations have on the
people living close to the damaged reactors."




Franz Schoenhofer: "So my question to RADSAFE is, whether there are any
investigations known about the psychological effects of the sensational
exaggerations of the massmedia and the constant absurd indoctrination with
fear for life and health. I cannot find anything like that in the two US
papers I read daily on the internet (Washington Post and USA Today), neither
on Swedish newspapers." 



Leo M. Lowe: "... one measure of the real impacts of the fear and stress
caused by Chernobyl is the number of induced abortions brought about by
perceived potential birth defects.  The number of excess induced abortions
in Europe due to this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and
even higher."  


Rich, Franz, and Leo,

I did my undergraduate work and a year of grad school in psychology - before
I wised up and eventually switched to physics - so I feel somewhat qualified
to opine a little on the subject of psychological "measurement". The
quotation marks are significant here because any measurement of
psychological data, that is behavior, can never claim more than nominal
scale status. Psychologists often attempt to measure behavior by counting
events, such as the number of abortions in a given population over a defined
time frame, and by doing so claim to have achieved ordinal scale data thus
allowing comparisons between populations and time frames. The more abortions
under conditions x,y,z, the greater the effect, etc. But this is an act of
self-deception on the psychologists' part because, continuing with our
example, each abortion is a unique event resulting ultimately from a
singular set of circumstances, motivations, stresses, etc. In order to count
events, objects, apples or oranges they must belong within a category of
identicals. Human behaviors (at least) are each a singular event because
behavior is determined by perception and perception is ultimately context
dependent. No two events occur in exactly the same context and therefore
cannot be counted as repetitions from the same class of object. 

In short, there is no legitimate way to quantify the psychological effects
of scare mongering or of any other behavior. Scare mongering, and the
spreading of dis-information are best handled with the tools of moral
philosophy, not science.

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509

518-474-1993

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or
otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for
the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not
authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or
any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. 
_______________________________________________
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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:43:08 -0500
From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Forwarded to the list
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <1E3AB81A-0AC9-4DFB-975C-591CB2782ACA at iit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Clayton J Bradt <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>
> Date: April 28, 2011 3:44:00 PM CDT
> To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Fw: AW: Is there a way to quantify the effect of the fear and stress 
>caused by the fear mongering
> 
> 
> I only used the example of abortion as a behavior because it was already 
>introduced into the discussion. My comments apply to the attempted 
>quantification of any human behavior. Since two individuals will perceive the 
>same stimuli differently, their responses to them are not comparable. Every act 
>must be evaluated according to the antecedent events and contextual givens - as 
>perceived from the individual's perspective - and by what the individual intends 
>to accomplish by the act. Every act is the test of an hypothesis. 
>
> 
> 
> Clayton J. Bradt
> Principal Radiophysicist
> NYS Dept. of Health
> Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
> Empire State Plaza
> Albany, NY 12201-0509
> 
> 518-474-1993
> 



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

Message: 16
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:10:37 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104290008.p3T08UYT072272 at ame8.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed

April 28

        Chris Busby talks nonsense and is 
reluctant to substantiate any of his claims.  He 
is a chemist, not a health physicist.  He 
considers himself to be more of an authority on 
radioactivity than is the ICRP.  He finally gave 
a few citations, some of them to Nature.  Then, 
in another e-mail he called Nature a "rag."

        He complained loud and long that no one 
would address his claims about infant leukemias 
in the aftermath of Chernobyl.  When I posted a 
message here directly addressing his claims about 
said leukemias he dropped out of sight.  Does 
that sound like a "debate", much less an "honest debate"?

        In my estimation, calling Nature a 
"rag," or claiming the Fukushima accident will 
lead to hundreds of thousands of additional 
cancers, does not exactly constitute "divergent points of view."

        The "fact of the matter is" that most of 
the world does not care about the benefits or 
risks of the peaceful use of radioactive 
materials.  One can't even lead this horse to 
water, let alone make him drink.

        Busby and his fellow travelers are not 
filling any void of inadequate education.  What 
they are doing is spewing more hogwash into an already vast ocean of hogwash.

        And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.

Steven Dapra


At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Franz,
>
>You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be much
>less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent points of
>view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a good enough job
>of educating the world on the benefits and true risks related to the
>peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr. Busby have rushed in
>to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
>
>Rich Gallego
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Sch?nhofer
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList';
>radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>
>Leo and RADSAFErs,
>
>I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt your
>statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to
>this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even higher".
>
>Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very high
>numbers of abortions.

[edit]




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

Message: 17
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:10:04 -0400
From: Robert Bradley <rpb.bradley at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Question regarding explosion characterization.
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <BANLkTino7ep=PY9ub2HH1jouoBbhqK3Zgw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Just finished reading an article and viewing videos on "PhysOrg.com"
regarding a comet impacted by a smaller object.  Fascinating but puzzled by
one comment on the first video.  The impact of the smaller object on Comet
Scheila was characterized as equal to a "100kT nuclear bomb".  Have I
forgotten something, but I thought the nuclear bomb (NB) equivalents
referred to the equivalent amount of TNT for the NB explosion, so why the
need to state NB here?  Wouldn't 100kT TNT be correct?.  Disappointing if
this is in error because it was produced by NASA and is the result of
analysis of data from Hubble and Swift.

-    -  RPB
Health Canada, retired


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

Message: 18
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:42:59 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen - Another One Who Interviews
    on Russia Today and Floods the Net
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104290040.p3T0ep0F016504 at ame7.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

April 28

        I scrolled through the Fukushima Updates at the Fairewinds 
website (link below).  I can't comment on the technical claims of 
Fairewinds or of Gunderson.  I did notice four revealing things.

        First Gunderson discussed "the consequences of the Fukushima 
radioactive fallout on Japan, the USA, and the world." with Steve 
Wing.  Enough said on that point.

        Second, when talking about levels of exposure, he used 
disintegrations per second, thus making it possible to use very large 
numbers --- once 900,000 dps, and once 2,000,000 dps.

        Third, he repeated the standard cliches about a coverup by 
the Japanese government,

        Fourth, he discusses "how Governments are once again 
limiting public access to accurate radiation dose information."

        Does any of this sound like the standard no-nuke hokum?

        According to the e-mail below, Gunderson claimed that the 
hydrogen explosion forced enough fuel rods together to cause a prompt 
criticality and another explosion.  Based on what I have read about 
atomic bomb design I find this hard to believe.  Isn't one of the 
biggest problems in bomb design a problem of getting the two 
sub-critical masses to stay together long enough to cause an 
explosion?  Even if a hydrogen explosion could force some fuel rods 
close together what is going to keep them together long enough to 
allow an explosion to occur?  Wouldn't they merely bounce apart as 
soon as they made contact?  Or even if an explosion could began, 
wouldn't it blow the rods apart and make the make the criticality 
event into a fizzle?

        I'm not a bomb designer or a nuclear engineer, nevertheless 
to me this prompt criticality" claim sounds rather unlikely.  I could 
stand to be corrected on any or all of my speculations.

Steven Dapra



At 06:42 AM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Arnie Gundersen has been all over the web and the news sharing his 
>opinions on just what is going on.
>
>I am not a nuclear engineer, but most of what he says seems 
>plausible enough to me.  The actual claim was that a hydrogen gas 
>explosion in Unit 3's fuel storage pond banged enough fuel rods into 
>each other to initiate a prompt criticality, which resulted in 
>another near-simultaneous blast, which made for a much larger event 
>than it otherwise would have been.
>
>The question I have of Mr. Gundersens and his assertion is, assuming 
>we did have a prompt criticality in part of the fuel stored there, 
>how does that result in such a violent explosion? That would get us 
>a lot of heat and radiation, for sure, but how does that translate 
>into an explosion unless there is some other vector present like 
>water to flash into steam (and it does not look much like a steam 
>explosion to me)?
>
>-Tom
>
>
>On 04/28/2011 03:41 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
>>Does anyone know anything about this claimed nuclear engineer who postulates
>>a criticality incident as causing Reactor #3 explosion at this video link -
>>several other videos from Faire Wind Associates - another new voice in the
>>game - http://vimeo.com/22865967
>>
>>http://www.fairewinds.com/content/who-we-are




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

Message: 19
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:50:26 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Arnie Gundersen in the popular press (thread
    re-named)
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104290048.p3T0mJkC024525 at ame7.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

April 28

        Arnie Gunderson and Fairewinds in the popular press.

http://www.fairewinds.com/news

Steven Dapra



At 06:42 AM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Arnie Gundersen has been all over the web and the news sharing his 
>opinions on just what is going on.

[edit]




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

Message: 20
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:37:44 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,     "'The International
    Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing    List'"
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4dba0c18.274a640a.2f23.11dc at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Steve,

I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked by
experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we fail to
respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If nothing else is
accomplished, most of us now know what his views are and the arguments
against them.

Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:11 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

April 28

        Chris Busby talks nonsense and is reluctant to substantiate any of
his claims.  He is a chemist, not a health physicist.  He considers himself
to be more of an authority on radioactivity than is the ICRP.  He finally
gave a few citations, some of them to Nature.  Then, in another e-mail he
called Nature a "rag."

        He complained loud and long that no one would address his claims
about infant leukemias in the aftermath of Chernobyl.  When I posted a
message here directly addressing his claims about said leukemias he dropped
out of sight.  Does that sound like a "debate", much less an "honest
debate"?

        In my estimation, calling Nature a "rag," or claiming the Fukushima
accident will lead to hundreds of thousands of additional cancers, does not
exactly constitute "divergent points of view."

        The "fact of the matter is" that most of the world does not care
about the benefits or risks of the peaceful use of radioactive materials.
One can't even lead this horse to water, let alone make him drink.

        Busby and his fellow travelers are not filling any void of
inadequate education.  What they are doing is spewing more hogwash into an
already vast ocean of hogwash.

        And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.

Steven Dapra


At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Franz,
>
>You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be 
>much less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent 
>points of view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a 
>good enough job of educating the world on the benefits and true risks 
>related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr. 
>Busby have rushed in to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
>
>Rich Gallego
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz 
>Sch?nhofer
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
>MailingList'; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>
>Leo and RADSAFErs,
>
>I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt 
>your statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe 
>due to this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even
higher".
>
>Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very 
>high numbers of abortions.

[edit]


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu



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

Message: 21
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:37:44 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,     "'The International
    Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing    List'"
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4dba0c18.274a640a.2f23.11dc at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Steve,

I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked by
experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we fail to
respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If nothing else is
accomplished, most of us now know what his views are and the arguments
against them.

Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:11 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

April 28

        Chris Busby talks nonsense and is reluctant to substantiate any of
his claims.  He is a chemist, not a health physicist.  He considers himself
to be more of an authority on radioactivity than is the ICRP.  He finally
gave a few citations, some of them to Nature.  Then, in another e-mail he
called Nature a "rag."

        He complained loud and long that no one would address his claims
about infant leukemias in the aftermath of Chernobyl.  When I posted a
message here directly addressing his claims about said leukemias he dropped
out of sight.  Does that sound like a "debate", much less an "honest
debate"?

        In my estimation, calling Nature a "rag," or claiming the Fukushima
accident will lead to hundreds of thousands of additional cancers, does not
exactly constitute "divergent points of view."

        The "fact of the matter is" that most of the world does not care
about the benefits or risks of the peaceful use of radioactive materials.
One can't even lead this horse to water, let alone make him drink.

        Busby and his fellow travelers are not filling any void of
inadequate education.  What they are doing is spewing more hogwash into an
already vast ocean of hogwash.

        And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.

Steven Dapra


At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Franz,
>
>You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be 
>much less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent 
>points of view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a 
>good enough job of educating the world on the benefits and true risks 
>related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr. 
>Busby have rushed in to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
>
>Rich Gallego
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz 
>Sch?nhofer
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
>MailingList'; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>
>Leo and RADSAFErs,
>
>I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt 
>your statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe 
>due to this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even
higher".
>
>Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very 
>high numbers of abortions.

[edit]


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu



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

Message: 22
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:02:37 -0500
From: Maury Siskel <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Court Hears Arguments on Los Alamos Plutonium Lab
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4DBAA8DD.7000208 at peoplepc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

"They" are still at it ....
Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com
============================
Court Hears Arguments on Los Alamos Plutonium Lab
Global Security Newswire
Activist organizations in court arguments on Wednesday urged a federal 
judge to suspend work on a new plutonium facility at the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory in New Mexico, Reuters reported (see GSN, April 19). 
The Los Alamos Study Group is seeking a ...


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

Message: 23
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:30:38 -0600
From: Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
    List"    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <201104291230.p3TCUdrx057331 at ame8.swcp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed

April 29

        You rather strongly implied that Busby 
and his fellow travelers have rushed in for the 
purpose of "educating the world on the benefits 
and true risks related to the peaceful use of 
radioactive materials."  They are not doing any such thing.

        Now you say it's a "useful exercise" to 
have his claims debunked.  True, but that was not your original argument.

Steven Dapra


At 06:37 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked by
>experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we fail to
>respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If nothing else is
>accomplished, most of us now know what his views are and the arguments
>against them.
>
>Rich Gallego
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:11 PM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>
>April 28
>
>          Chris Busby talks nonsense and is reluctant to substantiate any of
>his claims.  He is a chemist, not a health physicist.  He considers himself
>to be more of an authority on radioactivity than is the ICRP.  He finally
>gave a few citations, some of them to Nature.  Then, in another e-mail he
>called Nature a "rag."
>
>          He complained loud and long that no one would address his claims
>about infant leukemias in the aftermath of Chernobyl.  When I posted a
>message here directly addressing his claims about said leukemias he dropped
>out of sight.  Does that sound like a "debate", much less an "honest
>debate"?
>
>          In my estimation, calling Nature a "rag," or claiming the Fukushima
>accident will lead to hundreds of thousands of additional cancers, does not
>exactly constitute "divergent points of view."
>
>          The "fact of the matter is" that most of the world does not care
>about the benefits or risks of the peaceful use of radioactive materials.
>One can't even lead this horse to water, let alone make him drink.
>
>          Busby and his fellow travelers are not filling any void of
>inadequate education.  What they are doing is spewing more hogwash into an
>already vast ocean of hogwash.
>
>          And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
> >Franz,
> >
> >You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be
> >much less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent
> >points of view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a
> >good enough job of educating the world on the benefits and true risks
> >related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr.
> >Busby have rushed in to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
> >
> >Rich Gallego
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz
> >Sch?nhofer
> >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
> >To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> >MailingList'; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
> >
> >Leo and RADSAFErs,
> >
> >I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt
> >your statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe
> >due to this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even
>higher".
> >
> >Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very
> >high numbers of abortions.
>
>[edit]




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

Message: 24
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:33:26 -0400
From: "Bill Prestwich" <prestwic at mcmaster.ca>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    Mailing    List'"    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <007e01cc067a$666518a0$332f49e0$@ca>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"

I don't claim to be an expert but the following are my thoughts.
Bill

    The following are estimates of probabilities of double hits to cells
in the body from natural radiation. They are based upon the Poisson
distribution which gives the probability for two events as N^2 exp(-N)/2. It
must be emphasized that a "hit" to a cell is itself a complexity of events.
These include ionizations, the rupture of chemical bonds and the production
of highly reactive free radicals.
    K40 in the body emits 4000 beta particles a second with mean energy
of 0.6 MeV. The range of the average beta particle in soft tissue is 2 mm.
Taking a diameter of 20 micrometers for a cell, the beta particle will leave
energy depositions in about 100 cells. This results in 2E10 cells in which
interactions occur in 12 h. For 1E13 cells the expected number of hits per
cell is then 2E-3. The probability for double hits is 2E-6, so from K40
there would be 20 million cells receiving 2 hits in 12 hours. Note that the
energy deposited in a cell from a hit is 6 keV, sufficient to rupture one
thousand bonds.
    From the sea level average muon fluence rate it is estimated that 20
muons per second pass through the body. The average muon energy is 4 GeV and
the range in soft tissue is about 20 m. Hence the muon completely traverses
the body.  A rough estimate of the average chord length in the body is 40 cm
giving 2E4 cells traversed by the muon. This leads to about 2E10 cells
traversed in 12 h, so the hit probability from muons would also be 2E-3. The
probability of two hits in 12 hours would again be 2E-6.
    Of course these isolated examples fail to take into account a beta-
muon combination giving two hits. These could be included by using N=4E-3.
These two examples only represent a small fraction of the million radiation
energy depositions per second from natural radiation. To get a very rough
estimate assume 10 cells are traversed in each event. This leads to N=0.04
and a probability for 2 hits in 12 hours of 8E-4, corresponding to 8 billion
cells.
    The above only involves rough estimates it is true. It also ignores
the large number of DSBs which arise from other sources. For these cells,
only a single radiation interaction would be necessary to produce the same
effect 12 hours after the non-radiative DSB. Moreover for high LET radiation
such as alpha particles the damage is usually complex and very difficult to
repair. In this case only one hit would be necessary to produce irreparable
damage in a normal cell. 
    Based on these considerations together with the fact that misrepair
is at least as deleterious as no repair, I think the scenario of consecutive
decays is not significant.
    Finally, in the case of consecutive beta decays, as has been
mentioned, the chemical properties of the daughter differ from the parent.
It is hard to understand how the chemical bonding could accommodate the
daughter element at the incorporated site.


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Gallego
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:38 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList';
'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

Steve,

I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked by
experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we fail to
respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If nothing else is
accomplished, most of us now know what his views are and the arguments
against them.



_______________________________________________
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: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:50:48 -0600
From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Usa of CT Scans in the Disaster in Alabama
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <63A1CB8A98AE41F495868CE2256702B2 at DocHolidayII>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"

Dear Group:



A classmate of mine wrote the following related to the use of CT scans for
children injured in the Alabama tornado on Wednesday.



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)
<mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com>  <mailto:HotGreenChile at gmail.com>
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com



  _____  

From: Stuart Royal, M.D. [mailto:Stuart.Royal at chsys.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 07:21
To: Undisclosed
Subject: RE: Thinking of you



Here was a message of the CEO of Children's Hospital yesterday. On a usual
night we do 10-15 CT scans. Wed night we did 180 scans- what a wonderful
tool CT is for trauma patients- it certainly saved many lives as we used it.



Stuart



As of 9:45 a.m. this morning, we have admitted 34 patients at Children's and
there are currently 7 more patients in the Emergency Department, certainly
some of whom will be admitted.  Six patients were treated and discharged.
Additionally, one patient was pronounced dead on arrival.  The total number
of children seen is currently 48 but there will likely be more injured
children sent to Children's today. 

Our team continues to function at a very high level and is ready to handle
whatever comes our way.  

Stuart A. Royal, M.S., M.D.

Radiologist-in-Chief

Children's Health System

Harry M. Burns Endowed Chair

Pediatric Radiology

Past President

Society for Pediatric Radiology

sroyal at chsys.org



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

Message: 26
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:23:26 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,     "'The International
    Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing    List'"
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4dbae9bf.8b05ec0a.5b83.767a at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Steven,

If my first post was poorly worded, my apologies. I'll give it another go
here:


In the aftermath of a nuclear power crisis, the world is interested in the
risks/benefits of nuclear power--Busby and his ilk are only too eager and
willing to give their point of view--if we fail to engage him, they will
accept his view simply because they don't know any better and don't have the
resources or knowledge to engage him. 

I'm going to give Busby the benefit of the doubt and believe his motivation
lies in educating the world and he is not just an opportunist looking to
profit by his ideas (no matter how misguided those ideas are) and make a
name for himself. I'm guessing that many on Radsafe disagree with me on
this.


Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:31 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

April 29

        You rather strongly implied that Busby and his fellow travelers
have rushed in for the purpose of "educating the world on the benefits and
true risks related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials."  They are
not doing any such thing.

        Now you say it's a "useful exercise" to have his claims debunked.
True, but that was not your original argument.

Steven Dapra


At 06:37 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked 
>by experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we 
>fail to respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If 
>nothing else is accomplished, most of us now know what his views are 
>and the arguments against them.
>
>Rich Gallego
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:11 PM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>
>April 28
>
>          Chris Busby talks nonsense and is reluctant to substantiate 
>any of his claims.  He is a chemist, not a health physicist.  He 
>considers himself to be more of an authority on radioactivity than is 
>the ICRP.  He finally gave a few citations, some of them to Nature.  
>Then, in another e-mail he called Nature a "rag."
>
>          He complained loud and long that no one would address his 
>claims about infant leukemias in the aftermath of Chernobyl.  When I 
>posted a message here directly addressing his claims about said 
>leukemias he dropped out of sight.  Does that sound like a "debate", 
>much less an "honest debate"?
>
>          In my estimation, calling Nature a "rag," or claiming the 
>Fukushima accident will lead to hundreds of thousands of additional 
>cancers, does not exactly constitute "divergent points of view."
>
>          The "fact of the matter is" that most of the world does not 
>care about the benefits or risks of the peaceful use of radioactive
materials.
>One can't even lead this horse to water, let alone make him drink.
>
>          Busby and his fellow travelers are not filling any void of 
>inadequate education.  What they are doing is spewing more hogwash into 
>an already vast ocean of hogwash.
>
>          And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
> >Franz,
> >
> >You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be 
> >much less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent 
> >points of view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done 
> >a good enough job of educating the world on the benefits and true 
> >risks related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like
Mr.
> >Busby have rushed in to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
> >
> >Rich Gallego
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz 
> >Sch?nhofer
> >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
> >To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> >MailingList'; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
> >
> >Leo and RADSAFErs,
> >
> >I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt 
> >your statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in 
> >Europe due to this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, 
> >and even
>higher".
> >
> >Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very 
> >high numbers of abortions.
>
>[edit]


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu



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

Message: 27
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:23:26 -0700
From: "Richard Gallego" <rich at tgainc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To: "'The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
    MailingList'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>,     "'The International
    Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing    List'"
    <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4dbae9bf.8b05ec0a.5b83.767a at mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Steven,

If my first post was poorly worded, my apologies. I'll give it another go
here:


In the aftermath of a nuclear power crisis, the world is interested in the
risks/benefits of nuclear power--Busby and his ilk are only too eager and
willing to give their point of view--if we fail to engage him, they will
accept his view simply because they don't know any better and don't have the
resources or knowledge to engage him. 

I'm going to give Busby the benefit of the doubt and believe his motivation
lies in educating the world and he is not just an opportunist looking to
profit by his ideas (no matter how misguided those ideas are) and make a
name for himself. I'm guessing that many on Radsafe disagree with me on
this.


Rich Gallego

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:31 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl

April 29

        You rather strongly implied that Busby and his fellow travelers
have rushed in for the purpose of "educating the world on the benefits and
true risks related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials."  They are
not doing any such thing.

        Now you say it's a "useful exercise" to have his claims debunked.
True, but that was not your original argument.

Steven Dapra


At 06:37 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
>I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked 
>by experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we 
>fail to respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If 
>nothing else is accomplished, most of us now know what his views are 
>and the arguments against them.
>
>Rich Gallego
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:11 PM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>
>April 28
>
>          Chris Busby talks nonsense and is reluctant to substantiate 
>any of his claims.  He is a chemist, not a health physicist.  He 
>considers himself to be more of an authority on radioactivity than is 
>the ICRP.  He finally gave a few citations, some of them to Nature.  
>Then, in another e-mail he called Nature a "rag."
>
>          He complained loud and long that no one would address his 
>claims about infant leukemias in the aftermath of Chernobyl.  When I 
>posted a message here directly addressing his claims about said 
>leukemias he dropped out of sight.  Does that sound like a "debate", 
>much less an "honest debate"?
>
>          In my estimation, calling Nature a "rag," or claiming the 
>Fukushima accident will lead to hundreds of thousands of additional 
>cancers, does not exactly constitute "divergent points of view."
>
>          The "fact of the matter is" that most of the world does not 
>care about the benefits or risks of the peaceful use of radioactive
materials.
>One can't even lead this horse to water, let alone make him drink.
>
>          Busby and his fellow travelers are not filling any void of 
>inadequate education.  What they are doing is spewing more hogwash into 
>an already vast ocean of hogwash.
>
>          And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
> >Franz,
> >
> >You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be 
> >much less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent 
> >points of view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done 
> >a good enough job of educating the world on the benefits and true 
> >risks related to the peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like
Mr.
> >Busby have rushed in to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
> >
> >Rich Gallego
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz 
> >Sch?nhofer
> >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
> >To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> >MailingList'; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
> >
> >Leo and RADSAFErs,
> >
> >I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt 
> >your statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in 
> >Europe due to this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, 
> >and even
>higher".
> >
> >Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very 
> >high numbers of abortions.
>
>[edit]


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu



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

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


End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 614, Issue 1
***************************************


More information about the RadSafe mailing list