[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 795, Issue 1

Mon Nov 7 10:40:28 CST 2011

Darn WELL SAID HP Ed Johnson.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 10:00 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 795, 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: (no subject) (Ted de Castro)
   2. Re: DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U (Busby, Chris)
   3. Re: DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
      (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at)
   4. Re: DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
      (franz.schoenhofer at chello.at)
   5. Re: DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U (Witold Matysiak)
   6. Sealed source activity limits for stability class A dry
      active waste (Kulp, Jeffrey B)
   7. Re: (no subject) (Ed Johnson)
   8. At first I thought this completely off topic --on third
      thought I'm no longer so sure. (Maury)
   9. Re: articule in JapanTimes on criticality reached	recently at
      Fukushima (Felipe Gaitan)

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

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:19:57 -0700
From: Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] (no subject)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <4EB42CCD.8000606 at xrayted.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

It was said well by the character Gill Grissom in a CSI episode:

To loosely paraphrase:

There are those who become concerned at every sound in the dark/night 
and those that don't - we are here today because our ancestors are the 
ones who did.

On 11/4/2011 9:28 AM, Douglas Minnema wrote:
> This reminds me...
>
> I read a good book a few years ago called "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.  It discussed the debate about how much of our personality and behaviors come from "hard-wired" genetics versus environment and parenting.  I am not trying to start up a debate here on this subject, but wanted to share one of Pinker's conclusions that is relevant to this comment.
>
> If one accepts that "hard-wired traits" play a role, then one comes to the conclusion that there are certain topics where a society will never reach a common understanding because of the way the various hard-wired traits influence the individuals' worldviews.  Pinker provided a few examples, two of which I'm sure you all can guess - religion and politics.  But interestingly, he also added nuclear power to that list.  His view was that in these areas, the members of a society would just have to get to the point where they agree to disagree.
>
> Given that, I think that tossing the facts out and letting them draw their own conclusions is probably the most realistic approach.
>
> By the way, (and staying on the topic of nuclear applications) if correct, this view of the world would have significant implications for things like safety culture and conduct of operations, where individual attitudes and values play an important part in ensuring safe operations.
>
> Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
>
>>>> "Miller, Jason"<jmill11 at entergy.com>  11/04/11 2:21 AM>>>
> I have been following this mailing list for a while, and thus is why I have come to ask for a little help. I work at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station here in Vernon, Vt. I am an Aux operator here. The public opinion is not to high regarding the power plant, moreover I tend to be drawn to a public board that a few anti nukes also post on. I have pretty much exhausted all my efforts to not really convince but to just toss the facts out there and let them draw their own conclusions. This is why I turn to the tried and true professionals, especially in the HP field! This board is kind of a lost cause but I still find the need to set the record straight. If nothing else it gets pretty funny at times reading it. Thanks in advance.
>
> Jason M.
>
> http://www.topix.com/city/brattleboro-vt
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 2
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:06:24 -0000
From: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
To: "Witold Matysiak" <matysiw at mcmaster.ca>,	"The International
	Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Message-ID:
	<33024CCAFFB61C429DF9581DDE814DF40510B67F at MAILSERVICE.ad.ulster.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

You are missing the point. There are more atoms of U238 per unit dose than atoms of U235. So comparison on a dose basis (which was what started this discussion)is not the point. Both have the same photoelectron emission buthete will be more photoelectrons because there is more U238 for teh same dose.
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca]
Sent: Thu 03/11/2011 16:39
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
"Uranium absorbs natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its
high atomic number, the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium
is greater, dose for dose, U238 that U235 since there"

I may be missing the point here, but U238 and U235 have the same atomic
numbers so based on the standard theory photoelectric cross-sections are
equal for both.
What effects related with mass number should be included in PE X-section?

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> There is such a way. Since U238 is slightly less intrinsically radioactive
> than U235, the quantity of U238 per Becquerel is greater, so for the same
> implicit activity (alpha decay of the parent nuclide) there are more atoms
> of Uranium in the same calculated dose from teh U.  Since Uranium absorbs
> natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its high atomic number,
> the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium is greater, dose for
> dose, U238 that U235 since there are more atoms.
> Furthemore, you havent taken into consideration the daughter nuclides, the
> betas from Pa234m and Th234, two betas before U234. In the case of U235
> there is only Th231, one beta. Therefore the total dose, U238 + two fast
> daughters is greater than U235 +1 fast daughter.
> Hows that?
> I mean its no big deal, but you do have to be careful here.
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
> Sent: Mon 31/10/2011 18:30
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>
> James,
>
> While I can see an argument that DU is LESS toxic, radiologically, than
> uranium that has not had the shortest half-life, and thus highest
> specific activity, isotopes removed, I assume that is not what you wish
> to imply.  If you have an argument for how something with a lower
> activity (by weight or per atom) is more toxic, I would be interested.
> If you are saying that the chemical properties of U238 are sufficiently
> different from those of U235 and U234 as to be detectable in the way
> organisms are affected, I would like to see the model and the evidence.
>
>
> I do, however, see a problem with you citing evidence, as your record of
> citing relevant items that actually support your position is not good.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:35 AM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>
> Mark Sonter wrote:
>
> > DU *must* be toxicologically identical to non D-U.
>
> That is not consistent with the translocation graph shown in the
> Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English
> translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental
> Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305,
> Figure 3-1, "Retention and translocation of inhaled uranyl nitrate,"
> from J.E. Ballou, R.A. Gies, and N.A. Wagman in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp.
> 379-380 (1978.)
>
> If I owe Bob Cherry an apology for not knowing about genotoxicity when
> he made statements to federal officials on the health aspects of
> uranium fume inhalation, or for getting his title wrong, then I
> apologize.  I remain of the opinion that a more appropriate title
> would involve a Quantico detainee number for decades followed by
> "Defendant" in a medical expense loss recovery class action suit, and
> I appreciate all the work the military does to defend my right to
> express such opinions.
>
> Sincerely,
> James Salsman
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>

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

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:17:30 +0100
From: <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>, Witold Matysiak
	<matysiw at mcmaster.ca>, 	"The International Radiation Protection
	(Health Physics) MailingList"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20111104211731.U3J22.122514.root at viefep21.chello.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

RADSAFERs, including prof, prof. prof. dr. dr. dr. Busby,

Your reasoning is so much ridiculous for experts - even for me, who does not claim myself an ultimate expert, that I wonder how you dare to distribute such nonsense on a pr?fessional list. You are desperately trying to find pseudoarguments to support your ridiculous, unacceptable opinions -  none of them ever held. You are desperate to find your name in the Internet and being able to distribute you funny and ridiculous mails as being So it is rather you who misses the point, not only the oint but the whole issue.

Again you try to split hairs, but your "results" are again ridiculous, which is shown over and over again. But a person like you, obviously affected by severe mental problems ( watch my coming up mail forwarding the diagnosis of my family doctor ) - is sure not fit to comment seriously. 

Best regards, 

Franz ("The Rude" - copyright Chris Busby, prof. prof. prof. Dr, Dr, Dr and the worlds ultimate authority on radioactivity, contamination, its effects, radioecology, and all kind of bla-bla-bla. 

---- "Busby schrieb:
> You are missing the point. There are more atoms of U238 per unit dose than atoms of U235. So comparison on a dose basis (which was what started this discussion)is not the point. Both have the same photoelectron emission buthete will be more photoelectrons because there is more U238 for teh same dose.
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca]
> Sent: Thu 03/11/2011 16:39
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>  
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Uranium absorbs natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its
> high atomic number, the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium
> is greater, dose for dose, U238 that U235 since there"
> 
> I may be missing the point here, but U238 and U235 have the same atomic
> numbers so based on the standard theory photoelectric cross-sections are
> equal for both.
> What effects related with mass number should be included in PE X-section?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > There is such a way. Since U238 is slightly less intrinsically radioactive
> > than U235, the quantity of U238 per Becquerel is greater, so for the same
> > implicit activity (alpha decay of the parent nuclide) there are more atoms
> > of Uranium in the same calculated dose from teh U.  Since Uranium absorbs
> > natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its high atomic number,
> > the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium is greater, dose for
> > dose, U238 that U235 since there are more atoms.
> > Furthemore, you havent taken into consideration the daughter nuclides, the
> > betas from Pa234m and Th234, two betas before U234. In the case of U235
> > there is only Th231, one beta. Therefore the total dose, U238 + two fast
> > daughters is greater than U235 +1 fast daughter.
> > Hows that?
> > I mean its no big deal, but you do have to be careful here.
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
> > Sent: Mon 31/10/2011 18:30
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
> >
> > James,
> >
> > While I can see an argument that DU is LESS toxic, radiologically, than
> > uranium that has not had the shortest half-life, and thus highest
> > specific activity, isotopes removed, I assume that is not what you wish
> > to imply.  If you have an argument for how something with a lower
> > activity (by weight or per atom) is more toxic, I would be interested.
> > If you are saying that the chemical properties of U238 are sufficiently
> > different from those of U235 and U234 as to be detectable in the way
> > organisms are affected, I would like to see the model and the evidence.
> >
> >
> > I do, however, see a problem with you citing evidence, as your record of
> > citing relevant items that actually support your position is not good.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:35 AM
> > To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
> >
> > Mark Sonter wrote:
> >
> > > DU *must* be toxicologically identical to non D-U.
> >
> > That is not consistent with the translocation graph shown in the
> > Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English
> > translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental
> > Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305,
> > Figure 3-1, "Retention and translocation of inhaled uranyl nitrate,"
> > from J.E. Ballou, R.A. Gies, and N.A. Wagman in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp.
> > 379-380 (1978.)
> >
> > If I owe Bob Cherry an apology for not knowing about genotoxicity when
> > he made statements to federal officials on the health aspects of
> > uranium fume inhalation, or for getting his title wrong, then I
> > apologize.  I remain of the opinion that a more appropriate title
> > would involve a Quantico detainee number for decades followed by
> > "Defendant" in a medical expense loss recovery class action suit, and
> > I appreciate all the work the military does to defend my right to
> > express such opinions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > James Salsman
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

--
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227

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

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:17:30 +0100
From: <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>, Witold Matysiak
	<matysiw at mcmaster.ca>, 	"The International Radiation Protection
	(Health Physics) MailingList"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20111104211731.U3J22.122514.root at viefep21.chello.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

RADSAFERs, including prof, prof. prof. dr. dr. dr. Busby,

Your reasoning is so much ridiculous for experts - even for me, who does not claim myself an ultimate expert, that I wonder how you dare to distribute such nonsense on a pr?fessional list. You are desperately trying to find pseudoarguments to support your ridiculous, unacceptable opinions -  none of them ever held. You are desperate to find your name in the Internet and being able to distribute you funny and ridiculous mails as being So it is rather you who misses the point, not only the oint but the whole issue.

Again you try to split hairs, but your "results" are again ridiculous, which is shown over and over again. But a person like you, obviously affected by severe mental problems ( watch my coming up mail forwarding the diagnosis of my family doctor ) - is sure not fit to comment seriously. 

Best regards, 

Franz ("The Rude" - copyright Chris Busby, prof. prof. prof. Dr, Dr, Dr and the worlds ultimate authority on radioactivity, contamination, its effects, radioecology, and all kind of bla-bla-bla. 

---- "Busby schrieb:
> You are missing the point. There are more atoms of U238 per unit dose than atoms of U235. So comparison on a dose basis (which was what started this discussion)is not the point. Both have the same photoelectron emission buthete will be more photoelectrons because there is more U238 for teh same dose.
> Chris
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca]
> Sent: Thu 03/11/2011 16:39
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>  
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Uranium absorbs natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its
> high atomic number, the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium
> is greater, dose for dose, U238 that U235 since there"
> 
> I may be missing the point here, but U238 and U235 have the same atomic
> numbers so based on the standard theory photoelectric cross-sections are
> equal for both.
> What effects related with mass number should be included in PE X-section?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > There is such a way. Since U238 is slightly less intrinsically radioactive
> > than U235, the quantity of U238 per Becquerel is greater, so for the same
> > implicit activity (alpha decay of the parent nuclide) there are more atoms
> > of Uranium in the same calculated dose from teh U.  Since Uranium absorbs
> > natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its high atomic number,
> > the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium is greater, dose for
> > dose, U238 that U235 since there are more atoms.
> > Furthemore, you havent taken into consideration the daughter nuclides, the
> > betas from Pa234m and Th234, two betas before U234. In the case of U235
> > there is only Th231, one beta. Therefore the total dose, U238 + two fast
> > daughters is greater than U235 +1 fast daughter.
> > Hows that?
> > I mean its no big deal, but you do have to be careful here.
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
> > Sent: Mon 31/10/2011 18:30
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
> >
> > James,
> >
> > While I can see an argument that DU is LESS toxic, radiologically, than
> > uranium that has not had the shortest half-life, and thus highest
> > specific activity, isotopes removed, I assume that is not what you wish
> > to imply.  If you have an argument for how something with a lower
> > activity (by weight or per atom) is more toxic, I would be interested.
> > If you are saying that the chemical properties of U238 are sufficiently
> > different from those of U235 and U234 as to be detectable in the way
> > organisms are affected, I would like to see the model and the evidence.
> >
> >
> > I do, however, see a problem with you citing evidence, as your record of
> > citing relevant items that actually support your position is not good.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:35 AM
> > To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
> >
> > Mark Sonter wrote:
> >
> > > DU *must* be toxicologically identical to non D-U.
> >
> > That is not consistent with the translocation graph shown in the
> > Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English
> > translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental
> > Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305,
> > Figure 3-1, "Retention and translocation of inhaled uranyl nitrate,"
> > from J.E. Ballou, R.A. Gies, and N.A. Wagman in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp.
> > 379-380 (1978.)
> >
> > If I owe Bob Cherry an apology for not knowing about genotoxicity when
> > he made statements to federal officials on the health aspects of
> > uranium fume inhalation, or for getting his title wrong, then I
> > apologize.  I remain of the opinion that a more appropriate title
> > would involve a Quantico detainee number for decades followed by
> > "Defendant" in a medical expense loss recovery class action suit, and
> > I appreciate all the work the military does to defend my right to
> > express such opinions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > James Salsman
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

--
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227

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

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:18:58 -0400
From: Witold Matysiak <matysiw at mcmaster.ca>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
To: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>,	"The International
	Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<CAAVXLTxQfnTzCBvUpwvS-nJLzvdKqW+Bx_JG+e_5rVbz1mEdGw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
"Since U238 is slightly less intrinsically radioactive than U235, the
quantity of U238 per Becquerel is greater"

It's trivial to note that if we calculate this, call it "Photoelectric
effect dose enhancement per intrinsic activity" factor, it will be the
highest for stable elements.
If nothing else, it misses the point of being a well behaved dosimetric
quantity.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> **
>
> You are missing the point. There are more atoms of U238 per unit dose than
> atoms of U235. So comparison on a dose basis (which was what started this
> discussion)is not the point. Both have the same photoelectron emission
> buthete will be more photoelectrons because there is more U238 for teh same
> dose.
> Chris
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Witold Matysiak [mailto:matysiw at mcmaster.ca <matysiw at mcmaster.ca>]
> Sent: Thu 03/11/2011 16:39
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Cc: C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Uranium absorbs natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its
> high atomic number, the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium
> is greater, dose for dose, U238 that U235 since there"
>
> I may be missing the point here, but U238 and U235 have the same atomic
> numbers so based on the standard theory photoelectric cross-sections are
> equal for both.
> What effects related with mass number should be included in PE X-section?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > There is such a way. Since U238 is slightly less intrinsically
> radioactive
> > than U235, the quantity of U238 per Becquerel is greater, so for the same
> > implicit activity (alpha decay of the parent nuclide) there are more
> atoms
> > of Uranium in the same calculated dose from teh U.  Since Uranium absorbs
> > natural background gamma radiation on the basis of its high atomic
> number,
> > the photoelectron flux at the position of the uranium is greater, dose
> for
> > dose, U238 that U235 since there are more atoms.
> > Furthemore, you havent taken into consideration the daughter nuclides,
> the
> > betas from Pa234m and Th234, two betas before U234. In the case of U235
> > there is only Th231, one beta. Therefore the total dose, U238 + two fast
> > daughters is greater than U235 +1 fast daughter.
> > Hows that?
> > I mean its no big deal, but you do have to be careful here.
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
> (DOH)
> > Sent: Mon 31/10/2011 18:30
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
> >
> > James,
> >
> > While I can see an argument that DU is LESS toxic, radiologically, than
> > uranium that has not had the shortest half-life, and thus highest
> > specific activity, isotopes removed, I assume that is not what you wish
> > to imply.  If you have an argument for how something with a lower
> > activity (by weight or per atom) is more toxic, I would be interested.
> > If you are saying that the chemical properties of U238 are sufficiently
> > different from those of U235 and U234 as to be detectable in the way
> > organisms are affected, I would like to see the model and the evidence.
> >
> >
> > I do, however, see a problem with you citing evidence, as your record of
> > citing relevant items that actually support your position is not good.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu<radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>]
> On Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:35 AM
> > To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] DU not toxicologically identical to non D-U
> >
> > Mark Sonter wrote:
> >
> > > DU *must* be toxicologically identical to non D-U.
> >
> > That is not consistent with the translocation graph shown in the
> > Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th Edition, English
> > translation (Springer-Verlag, 1982), Title U -- Uranium, Supplemental
> > Volume A7 -- Biology, Section 3 -- Metabolism: Absorption, page 305,
> > Figure 3-1, "Retention and translocation of inhaled uranyl nitrate,"
> > from J.E. Ballou, R.A. Gies, and N.A. Wagman in BNWL-2500, Part 1, pp.
> > 379-380 (1978.)
> >
> > If I owe Bob Cherry an apology for not knowing about genotoxicity when
> > he made statements to federal officials on the health aspects of
> > uranium fume inhalation, or for getting his title wrong, then I
> > apologize.  I remain of the opinion that a more appropriate title
> > would involve a Quantico detainee number for decades followed by
> > "Defendant" in a medical expense loss recovery class action suit, and
> > I appreciate all the work the military does to defend my right to
> > express such opinions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > James Salsman
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
>
>

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

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 20:39:02 +0000
From: "Kulp, Jeffrey B" <kulpjb at wsu.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sealed source activity limits for stability class
	A dry	active waste
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<2C4CCCAD7A852F4BB10809598B5AF16D024943 at EXMB-07.ad.wsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"

Hello Radsafers,

I was wondering if anyone out there has a copy of the NRC document that states the maximum activity of sealed sources allowed to be disposed in class A unstable dry waste is 100 ?Ci; I had a copy of the document, but I either deleted it or it's in a "really safe place"

Thanks,

Jeff Kulp
Washington State University
Radiation Safety Office
Pullman, WA 99164-1302
(509) 335-8175

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

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 00:28:55 -0600
From: Ed Johnson <cejjr56 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] (no subject)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<CAP2i9Cp9jYU00O7q2i_T02H9DF2V0Xw8jfZdCFTCj_CT5qz-RQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

There is little doubt that reactions based on fear were indeed an
adaptation that contributed to our survival as a species over the course of
tens of thousands of years, and for millions of years before that in our
predecessor species.  The genes that code for the complex protein
structures that collectively are expressed as survival instinct behavior
are certainly deeply ingrained in our genome.  So it is likely that this
inherited behavior is also a contributor to what seems to us (the experts)
to be an over-reaction to the hazards that accompany the generation of
nuclear power which are not detectable by the five senses (i.e., Ted de
Castro has a valid point).

But it is also true that such behavior was dominant before our species
engaged its intellect into high gear.  And there lies the heart of the
problem.  The growth of our technology from "stone knives and bear skins"
(thank you Mr. Spock) up to the present day's zillions of applications that
have resulted from an understanding of the quantum chromodynamic nature of
our universe did not happen because people remained stuck in the "fear
gear."  The rise and acceleration of abstract and reasoned thought by bold
and gifted individuals is what propelled technology to its current state.
Those less gifted applied their intellect by trusting the intellect and
uncommon abilities of the innovators, and went along with new technologies
because they were immediately and personally beneficial, even though they
remained ignorant of the details.  This lead-and-follow pattern is still
with us, but the current masses are not trusting the captains of our
industry to lead them into reliance on what has become an extremely
operationally safe and reliable energy source.

There are numerous influential factors that have resulted in the masses of
Western cultures not engaging their intellect to trust the leaders on this
issue.  Here are a few that I have noted over the course of my career in
health physics:  1) the associated hazards are undetectable by the senses,
2) an ignorance/lack of education about the multitude of beneficial and
life-saving applications of nuclear power (e.g., not just electricity
generation, but also medical diagnostics and therapeutics, radio-labeling
in bio research, food and materials sterilization, self-powered lighting,
smoke detection, deep space probe power sources, and many other industrial
applications), 3) an ignorance of the current state of highly refined and
successful methods and practice of both reactor plant and radiation
protection operations, 4) fear-mongoring-for-advertising-dollars by the
media who also are uneducated on the subject, 5) the very loud, organized,
and ignorant anti-nuke minority who are manipulated and falsely led
by their leaders, but who are a perfect setup for the media referenced in
4) above,  6) the inappropriate and frustrating, but inevitable link with
nuclear weapons by the media and the antis (it's just irresponsible
journalism, which has become the standard in the U.S.), 7) oversight by a
federal agency (AEC/NRC) that has also played the role of promoting the
industry (yeah, that really fosters trust), 8) TMI and Chernobyl, even
though depth-in-defense engineering of the TMI reactor vessel held up under
the high temp of the largely melted core, and the Chernobyl plant's
graphite moderated design is not, to my knowledge, used in any operating
Western power plant--not to mention the fact that their engineers foolishly
and purposely defeated the plant's safeguards to run a push-it-to-the-limit
test, 9) let's face it, nuclear engineers and health physicists are
perceived by the public as nerdy (myself included), and are not good
promoters of their craft--I mean, really, how many of us have the
telepresence of Michiu Kaku (love him or hate him) or Brian Greene, and
last, but certainly not least, 10) political gain:  politicos will say
anything, and I mean anything, to turn the camera eye their way and get a
vote.  I have personally witnessed this many times:  "Don't bother me with
the truth, son, can't you see the camera is on and my lips are movin'."

After many years of observing these factors, I have concluded that what
underlies the fear and distrust reactions to anything nuclear is that
people are responding via the emotional centers of their brain and not
their intellect, and this relates to Doug Minnema's point taken from
Pinker's book.  We are hard-wired both for emotionally driven response and
reasoned thought, but most folks' behavior is dominated by one or the
other.  It seems that when the individual's processing of and response
to any issue is dominated by emotion, e.g., when he/she is in "fear
gear," his/her intellect is suspended.

I certainly don't want to be discouraging, but this, Jason, is the paradigm
of Western society that must be overcome if nuke power is to prevail.  I
respect your noble effort to educate people on this issue; laying out the
facts might lead some people to shift their opinion.  They have to apply
their intellect, however, even if it's only to reason that we know what
we're doing and can be trusted not to fail them.

Carl Ed Johnson, Jr.
Still sometimes HP, unaffiliated
505-463-6685
cejjr56 at gmail.com

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com> wrote:

> It was said well by the character Gill Grissom in a CSI episode:
>
> To loosely paraphrase:
>
> There are those who become concerned at every sound in the dark/night and
> those that don't - we are here today because our ancestors are the ones who
> did.
>
>
> On 11/4/2011 9:28 AM, Douglas Minnema wrote:
>
>> This reminds me...
>>
>> I read a good book a few years ago called "The Blank Slate" by Steven
>> Pinker.  It discussed the debate about how much of our personality and
>> behaviors come from "hard-wired" genetics versus environment and parenting.
>>  I am not trying to start up a debate here on this subject, but wanted to
>> share one of Pinker's conclusions that is relevant to this comment.
>>
>> If one accepts that "hard-wired traits" play a role, then one comes to
>> the conclusion that there are certain topics where a society will never
>> reach a common understanding because of the way the various hard-wired
>> traits influence the individuals' worldviews.  Pinker provided a few
>> examples, two of which I'm sure you all can guess - religion and politics.
>>  But interestingly, he also added nuclear power to that list.  His view was
>> that in these areas, the members of a society would just have to get to the
>> point where they agree to disagree.
>>
>> Given that, I think that tossing the facts out and letting them draw
>> their own conclusions is probably the most realistic approach.
>>
>> By the way, (and staying on the topic of nuclear applications) if
>> correct, this view of the world would have significant implications for
>> things like safety culture and conduct of operations, where individual
>> attitudes and values play an important part in ensuring safe operations.
>>
>> Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
>>
>>  "Miller, Jason"<jmill11 at entergy.com>  11/04/11 2:21 AM>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I have been following this mailing list for a while, and thus is why I
>> have come to ask for a little help. I work at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
>> Station here in Vernon, Vt. I am an Aux operator here. The public opinion
>> is not to high regarding the power plant, moreover I tend to be drawn to a
>> public board that a few anti nukes also post on. I have pretty much
>> exhausted all my efforts to not really convince but to just toss the facts
>> out there and let them draw their own conclusions. This is why I turn to
>> the tried and true professionals, especially in the HP field! This board is
>> kind of a lost cause but I still find the need to set the record straight.
>> If nothing else it gets pretty funny at times reading it. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Jason M.
>>
>> http://www.topix.com/city/**brattleboro-vt<http://www.topix.com/city/brattleboro-vt>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> 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 <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 <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 <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: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 06:05:14 -0500
From: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] At first I thought this completely off topic --on
	third thought I'm no longer so sure.
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID: <4EB5186A.2020604 at peoplepc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Ed, please don't be offended by this -- it is not aimed at you but 
rather is shared with you for the humorous perspective I thought it 
might shed on this thread. Your email and the Barnum story just happened 
along together at about the same time ... along with a whiff of  $75 
bottles of anti-radiation pills; an inevitable aspect of our humanity 
that seems also a permanent part of us..
__________________________
The Brick Man

Barnum knew the power of mystery. An unemployed man came to his museum 
and asked Barnum for a job. Barnum handed the man five bricks and 
instructed him to solemnly place the bricks in five specific places 
around the outside of the museum. As he went from spot to spot, he was 
to replace the brick at each spot with another one that he was carrying. 
He was to answer no questions, speak to no one, and seem to be deaf and 
dumb. Once an hour, he was to enter the museum, walk right next to the 
ticket taker, seem to pay the fee, and then proceed through the museum 
and out the door. A crowd began to form, watching the man and wondering 
what he was doing. Many of the crowds followed him into the museum just 
to see what was going on. In fact, the police had to ask Barnum to stop 
the man, because the crowds that he was creating were stopping traffic.
___________________________

Best,
Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com]

====================================================
On 11/5/2011 1:28 AM, Ed Johnson wrote:
> There is little doubt that reactions based on fear were indeed an adaptation that contributed to our survival as a species over the course of tens of thousands of years, and for millions of years before that in our predecessor species.  The genes that code for the complex protein structures that collectively are expressed as survival instinct behavior are certainly deeply ingrained in our genome.  So it is likely that this inherited behavior is also a contributor to what seems to us (the experts) to be an over-reaction to the hazards that accompany the generation of nuclear power which are not detectable by the five senses (i.e., Ted de Castro has a valid point).
>
> But it is also true that such behavior was dominant before our species engaged its intellect into high gear.  And there lies the heart of the problem.  The growth of our technology from "stone knives and bear skins" (thank you Mr. Spock) up to the present day's zillions of applications that have resulted from an understanding of the quantum chromodynamic nature of our universe did not happen because people remained stuck in the "fear gear."  The rise and acceleration of abstract and reasoned thought by bold and gifted individuals is what propelled technology to its current state. Those less gifted applied their intellect by trusting the intellect and uncommon abilities of the innovators, and went along with new technologies because they were immediately and personally beneficial, even though they remained ignorant of the details.  This lead-and-follow pattern is still with us, but the current masses are not trusting the captains of our industry to lead them into reliance on
  what has become an extremely operationally safe and reliable energy source.
>
> There are numerous influential factors that have resulted in the masses of Western cultures not engaging their intellect to trust the leaders on this issue.  Here are a few that I have noted over the course of my career in health physics:  1) the associated hazards are undetectable by the senses, 2) an ignorance/lack of education about the multitude of beneficial and life-saving applications of nuclear power (e.g., not just electricity generation, but also medical diagnostics and therapeutics, radio-labeling in bio research, food and materials sterilization, self-powered lighting, smoke detection, deep space probe power sources, and many other industrial applications), 3) an ignorance of the current state of highly refined and successful methods and practice of both reactor plant and radiation protection operations, 4) fear-mongoring-for-advertising-dollars by the media who also are uneducated on the subject, 5) the very loud, organized, and ignorant anti-nuke minority who 
 are manipulated and falsely led by their leaders, but who are a perfect setup for the media referenced in 4) above,  6) the inappropriate and frustrating, but inevitable link with nuclear weapons by the media and the antis (it's just irresponsible journalism, which has become the standard in the U.S.), 7) oversight by a federal agency (AEC/NRC) that has also played the role of promoting the industry (yeah, that really fosters trust), 8) TMI and Chernobyl, even though depth-in-defense engineering of the TMI reactor vessel held up under the high temp of the largely melted core, and the Chernobyl plant's graphite moderated design is not, to my knowledge, used in any operating Western power plant--not to mention the fact that their engineers foolishly and purposely defeated the plant's safeguards to run a push-it-to-the-limit test, 9) let's face it, nuclear engineers and health physicists are perceived by the public as nerdy (myself included), and are not good promoters of their
  craft--I mean, really, how many of us have the telepresence of Michiu Kaku (love him or hate him) or Brian Greene, and last, but certainly not least, 10) political gain:  politicos will say anything, and I mean anything, to turn the camera eye their way and get a vote.  I have personally witnessed this many times:  "Don't bother me with the truth, son, can't you see the camera is on and my lips are movin'."
>
> After many years of observing these factors, I have concluded that what underlies the fear and distrust reactions to anything nuclear is that people are responding via the emotional centers of their brain and not their intellect, and this relates to Doug Minnema's point taken from Pinker's book.  We are hard-wired both for emotionally driven response and reasoned thought, but most folks' behavior is dominated by one or the other.  It seems that when the individual's processing of and response to any issue is dominated by emotion, e.g., when he/she is in "fear gear," his/her intellect is suspended.
>
> I certainly don't want to be discouraging, but this, Jason, is the paradigm of Western society that must be overcome if nuke power is to prevail.  I respect your noble effort to educate people on this issue; laying out the facts might lead some people to shift their opinion.  They have to applynntheir intellect, however, even if it's only to reason that we know what we're doing and can be trusted not to fail them.
>
> Carl Ed Johnson, Jr.
> Still sometimes HP, unaffiliated
> 505-463-6685
> cejjr56 at gmail.com
----------------------------snipped-----------

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

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 09:37:10 -0700
From: Felipe Gaitan <gaitan at impulsedevices.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] articule in JapanTimes on criticality reached
	recently at Fukushima
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
	MailingList"	<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <995937C5-DD48-4C9C-AC6C-C409FE245126 at impulsedevices.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii

Dear Radsafers - Somebody sent me this article from the Japan Times newspaper (I assume) opinion page with an obvious anti-nuke bias. It refers to a recent report that criticality had been reached on reactor #2 based on measurements of Xenon-133 and Xenon-135 (which, according to the article, have lifetimes of days) by Tepco.  Does anybody know the accuracy of this report? Thx, Felipe

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20111104a1.html

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

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

End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 795, Issue 1
***************************************