[ RadSafe ] Questions. Re: RadSafe Digest, Vol 736, Issue 1
Emil
kerrembaev at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 7 15:53:45 CDT 2011
Is any body knows that is true that SLAC National Laboratory is going into D&D?
I heard something about federal budget cuts and its effect on National Laboratories Program as ALL.
If it is so there could be a lot of money made on SLAC's D&D, perdiem will be a killer in Palo Alto area ;-)
Emil.
From: "radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 10:00 AM
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 736, 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. (no subject) (Cary Renquist)
2. Indian Professors Charged Over Radiation Death (Cary Renquist)
3. New Fukushima-related paper (Scott, Bobby)
4. Geiger Counter Kits (Cary Renquist)
5. Re: New Fukushima-related paper (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
6. Re: Infinite Thickness of KCl (Rahim Ghanooni)
7. Re: New Fukushima-related paper (Howard)
8. Re: New Fukushima-related paper (Ludwig E. Feinendegen)
9. Re: New Fukushima-related paper (radbloom at comcast.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:12:09 -0700
From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] (no subject)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A007C1C24C at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Indian Professors Charged Over Radiation Death - ScienceInsider
http://j.mp/rkeL39
This is related to that Co-60 that turned up at a scrap dealer last
year.
Six senior professors at the University of Delhi face up to 2 years in
prison over their roles in India's first fatality from accidental
exposure to radiation. On 2 September, Delhi police charged the
university's former science dean and five colleagues in the chemistry
department with "causing death by negligence" and violating the Atomic
Energy Act over the improper disposal of a derelict gamma-ray research
device in 2010.
---
Cary Renquist
crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 10:12:54 -0700
From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Indian Professors Charged Over Radiation Death
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A007C1C252 at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(forgot a subject line)
Indian Professors Charged Over Radiation Death - ScienceInsider
http://j.mp/rkeL39
This is related to that Co-60 that turned up at a scrap dealer last
year.
Six senior professors at the University of Delhi face up to 2 years in
prison over their roles in India's first fatality from accidental
exposure to radiation. On 2 September, Delhi police charged the
university's former science dean and five colleagues in the chemistry
department with "causing death by negligence" and violating the Atomic
Energy Act over the improper disposal of a derelict gamma-ray research
device in 2010.
---
Cary Renquist
crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:05:04 -0600
From: "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<83DC77D1B252894EACB8B7D3CE4151060183EE14 at mercado.lobos.lrri.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi All:
A link to my new paper titled "A guide to radiation hazard evaluation,
applied to Fukushima recovery workers" follows:
http://www.jpands.org/vol16no3/scott.pdf
The paper was just published in the Journal of American Physicians and
Surgeons (Vol. 16, #3, pages 71-76, 2011). I thought the paper may be of
interest to some of you.
Best wishes,
Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
*******************************************************************************
This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to the named
addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing in this
communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be construed as a
legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
herein.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:02:04 -0700
From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Geiger Counter Kits
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<C3973DA2E426594A8EC6DC90DB0540A007C1C469 at ipl-mail.ipl.isotopeproducts.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
There were dozens of Do It Yourself Geiger counter projects that came up right after the Japan reactor incident...
This company standardized one of the designs and put together kits.
Looks like it is designed to use old Soviet surplus tubes -- HV only goes up to 600 V.
Support for several common Geiger-M?ller tubes: SI-3BG, SI-1G, and SBM-20. HV supply can be adjusted from ~300-600V.
Serial data logging! Counts per second (CPS), counts per minute (CPM), and equivalent dose are reported via the serial port once a second.
MightyOhm ? Blog Archive ? Geiger Counter Kits are (finally) in stock!
http://j.mp/qMw53M
There are currently three ordering options:
You can buy the complete Geiger Counter kit with a tested, known good SBM-20 Geiger-Muller tube included (recommended).
You can buy the same kit with all parts except the Geiger tube (in case you already have one).
Or, you can purchase a bare PCB only (for experimenters).
$99, $35, $12 respectively...
---
Cary Renquist
crenquist at isotopeproducts.com or cary.renquist at ezag.com
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:33:29 -0700
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D075059B7 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Congratulations on your publication, Bobby. In the interest of full
disclosure, perhaps people should know that The Journal of American
Physicians and Surgeons is not unlike some of the publications Chris
Busby cites, in that the name does not convey the political leanings of
the publication, though unlike those Chris cites, this one leans right
rather than left.
As an example, the line from your Abstract, "Projected long-term
increase in cancer risk from low-dose exposures of down-wind populations
is purely hypothetical, since it is based on the discredited linear
no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis." Attempts to finesse a rather important
point. I, personally, have no great confidence in LNT as an accurate
model (and I have expressed that opinion a number of times in this
forum), however "discredited" is, I believe, something that has not
nearly been achieved. I personally would love to see a set of well
designed studies that would settle the matter one way or the other (and
I believe it would not be in LNT's favor), but that hasn't happened,
yet.
I took a quick look at your article, and I have a couple of comments. I
agree with your conclusion that barring an exceptional exposure event,
life threatening radiation damage to workers is very low, or "unlikely".
(I suspect there are actually a number of opportunities for exceptional
exposure events, not just being present when a hydrogen explosion
ruptured containment). I suspect that the fatal cancer rate among
workers will be well below the norm, because I expect them to be
monitored within an inch of their lives, and so any cancers will be
caught early. I reserve judgment on the effect of I-131 on people who
could not evacuate in the early days, and I also reserve judgment on
possible lung cancers from inhaled contamination, but I suspect the
numbers will not be large. I agree that the cancer due to direct gamma
exposure in the general population will be small, probably
non-detectable, and I don't discount the possibility that it will turn
out less than expected (supporting hormesis). I expect fatalities to be
less than in the unaffected population, again because of enhanced
monitoring and early detection. So, in general, I mostly agree with
your conclusions.
There are a couple of points that struck me, that you might with to muse
on for future papers.
"Dose thresholds are required for deterministic effects because large
numbers of cells must be destroyed simultaneously to produce such
effects."
I disagree with "simultaneously". I think a more accurate description
would be "much faster than they can be replaced". This actually deals
with the dose rate issue as it relates to a given tissue. Be that as it
may, if cells are being destroyed faster than they can be replaced, and
this continues long enough, then deterministic effects will occur. If I
my reasoning is wrong here, I would be interested in see in how.
"This is not likely after low radiation doses and is less likely when
high doses are delivered at a low rate than when delivered at a high
rate."
I don't disagree, but I think this is poorly worded. I would say
something like, "The required large number of destroyed cells is most
likely at a high dose and high dose-rate, less likely at a high dose and
lower dose rate, and unlikely at a low radiation dose."
"For example, if the cell lethality probability per cell at risk (for a
specific cell type) is 0.1 (i.e., 1 in 10 cells) at a given gamma dose,
then the corresponding probability for simultaneously killing 1 million
of these cells with the same dose is 0.1E1,000,000, which is essentially
zero."
I don't understand this. I think you've left so much out of this for
the sake of brevity that it has lost its meaning. If you have
established a risk of 0.1 per cell, then the number of cells destroyed
is a function of the number of cells exposed, and I don't see that in
here. And as I mentioned above, "simultaneous" isn't necessary, just
"faster than can be fixed". To use an imperfect analogy, a neighborhood
doesn't need to catch fire all at the same moment; even if the houses
burn one at a time, if it is faster than new house are built, eventually
the neighborhood is destroyed.
All in all, an OK paper.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott, Bobby
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:05 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
Hi All:
A link to my new paper titled "A guide to radiation hazard evaluation,
applied to Fukushima recovery workers" follows:
http://www.jpands.org/vol16no3/scott.pdf
The paper was just published in the Journal of American Physicians and
Surgeons (Vol. 16, #3, pages 71-76, 2011). I thought the paper may be of
interest to some of you.
Best wishes,
Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
************************************************************************
*******
This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications
Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to
the named
addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are
not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail
to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in
error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing
in this
communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be
construed as a
legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter
herein.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:12:31 -0600
From: Rahim Ghanooni <rahim.ghanooni at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Infinite Thickness of KCl
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CANKvCSAS=Ue0wnWX2PnQD58MOXr17MugUb9qu=+Jb_k=J6QZbA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Eric:
I used Microshield to calculate the dose rate. Since I do not have enough
information I made the following assumptions.
I created a disk with 1 cm radius; consist of K-40, at density of 1.98 g/cc,
activity of 0.416 uCi/cc, and thickness of 1 cm, the dose rate was
calculated at distance of 5 cm from front center of the disk.
The calculation started at thickness of one cm, with buildup, and continues
adding to the thickness while the activity distribution kept constant (0.416
uCi/cc).
Rahim Ghanooni, CHMM
Shielding Engineer/ Health Physicist
Thickness of 1 cm exposure rate 3.27E-2 mr/hr
Thickness of 10 cm exposure rate 1.1E-1 mr/hr
Thickness of 15 cm exposure rate 1.18E-1 mr/hr
Thickness of 25 cm exposure rate 1.208E-1 mr/hr
Thickness of 30 cm exposure rate 1.22E-1 mr/hr
Thickness of 35 cm exposure rate 1.23E-1 mr/hr
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM, <Nielsen.Erik at epamail.epa.gov> wrote:
> I am trying to determine the infinite thickness of the 1460 keV gamma
> emission (10.5% abundance) of a planar source of KCl (416 pCi/g) and a
> density of 1.98 g/cc.
>
> In other words, what is the thickness of a KCl planar source where any
> additional thickness does not increase the surface dose rate?
>
> I have scoured my references but have not located the appropriate formula
> for calculating this value.
>
> I would appreciate any references or suggestions for an appropriate
> calculation.
>
> Erik C. Nielsen
> USEPA, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
> 540 South Morris Ave.
> Montgomery, AL 36115
> Phone 334-270-3475
> Fax 334-270-3454
>
> "Those who do not read are no better off than those who cannot"
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:51:33 -0700
From: Howard <howard.long at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <63D190A1-1C52-4635-B1CB-BB6903E0F436 at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Bobby has twice subjected his studies to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness questioning
(disclosure: I am on that Board, as well as that of the Assoc. of American Physicians and Surgeons). True, if "right" (below) means adhering to the US Constitution and the Hippocratic Oath to put patients before gov. or insurers, we do.
AAPS Journal also is very fussy about accuracy. I can testify to that by having a book review in the upcoming issue. Pollycove, my classmate, has presented there research with Feinenigan on experiments showing 10 to exponent 10 stimulation of biodefences in repair of ionizing radiation
damage and greater longevity (what really sells this epidemiologist) in mice. Less cancer has also been reported there in the Taiwan apt studies, Nshipyard Worker and BCohen's vast radon and lumg cancer studies - all neglected by politically correct Journals.
Viva vitamin R and sunshine (both, more than most Americans get but not enough to burn).
Howard Long
On Sep 6, 2011, at 4:33 PM, "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:
> Congratulations on your publication, Bobby. In the interest of full
> disclosure, perhaps people should know that The Journal of American
> Physicians and Surgeons is not unlike some of the publications Chris
> Busby cites, in that the name does not convey the political leanings of
> the publication, though unlike those Chris cites, this one leans right
> rather than left.
>
> As an example, the line from your Abstract, "Projected long-term
> increase in cancer risk from low-dose exposures of down-wind populations
> is purely hypothetical, since it is based on the discredited linear
> no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis." Attempts to finesse a rather important
> point. I, personally, have no great confidence in LNT as an accurate
> model (and I have expressed that opinion a number of times in this
> forum), however "discredited" is, I believe, something that has not
> nearly been achieved. I personally would love to see a set of well
> designed studies that would settle the matter one way or the other (and
> I believe it would not be in LNT's favor), but that hasn't happened,
> yet.
>
> I took a quick look at your article, and I have a couple of comments. I
> agree with your conclusion that barring an exceptional exposure event,
> life threatening radiation damage to workers is very low, or "unlikely".
> (I suspect there are actually a number of opportunities for exceptional
> exposure events, not just being present when a hydrogen explosion
> ruptured containment). I suspect that the fatal cancer rate among
> workers will be well below the norm, because I expect them to be
> monitored within an inch of their lives, and so any cancers will be
> caught early. I reserve judgment on the effect of I-131 on people who
> could not evacuate in the early days, and I also reserve judgment on
> possible lung cancers from inhaled contamination, but I suspect the
> numbers will not be large. I agree that the cancer due to direct gamma
> exposure in the general population will be small, probably
> non-detectable, and I don't discount the possibility that it will turn
> out less than expected (supporting hormesis). I expect fatalities to be
> less than in the unaffected population, again because of enhanced
> monitoring and early detection. So, in general, I mostly agree with
> your conclusions.
>
> There are a couple of points that struck me, that you might with to muse
> on for future papers.
>
> "Dose thresholds are required for deterministic effects because large
> numbers of cells must be destroyed simultaneously to produce such
> effects."
> I disagree with "simultaneously". I think a more accurate description
> would be "much faster than they can be replaced". This actually deals
> with the dose rate issue as it relates to a given tissue. Be that as it
> may, if cells are being destroyed faster than they can be replaced, and
> this continues long enough, then deterministic effects will occur. If I
> my reasoning is wrong here, I would be interested in see in how.
>
> "This is not likely after low radiation doses and is less likely when
> high doses are delivered at a low rate than when delivered at a high
> rate."
> I don't disagree, but I think this is poorly worded. I would say
> something like, "The required large number of destroyed cells is most
> likely at a high dose and high dose-rate, less likely at a high dose and
> lower dose rate, and unlikely at a low radiation dose."
>
> "For example, if the cell lethality probability per cell at risk (for a
> specific cell type) is 0.1 (i.e., 1 in 10 cells) at a given gamma dose,
> then the corresponding probability for simultaneously killing 1 million
> of these cells with the same dose is 0.1E1,000,000, which is essentially
> zero."
> I don't understand this. I think you've left so much out of this for
> the sake of brevity that it has lost its meaning. If you have
> established a risk of 0.1 per cell, then the number of cells destroyed
> is a function of the number of cells exposed, and I don't see that in
> here. And as I mentioned above, "simultaneous" isn't necessary, just
> "faster than can be fixed". To use an imperfect analogy, a neighborhood
> doesn't need to catch fire all at the same moment; even if the houses
> burn one at a time, if it is faster than new house are built, eventually
> the neighborhood is destroyed.
>
> All in all, an OK paper.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott, Bobby
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:05 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
>
>
> Hi All:
>
> A link to my new paper titled "A guide to radiation hazard evaluation,
> applied to Fukushima recovery workers" follows:
>
> http://www.jpands.org/vol16no3/scott.pdf
>
> The paper was just published in the Journal of American Physicians and
> Surgeons (Vol. 16, #3, pages 71-76, 2011). I thought the paper may be of
> interest to some of you.
>
> Best wishes,
> Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
> Senior Scientist
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> *******
>
> This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to
> the named
> addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are
> not the
> intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail
> to the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in
> error and
> that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
> e-mail is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
> sender
> by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing
> in this
> communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be
> construed as a
> legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the
> subject matter
> herein.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 8
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:31:16 +0200
From: "Ludwig E. Feinendegen" <feinendegen at gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <0CC643948E2442C68696612A2EAF2BAC at imenb163>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sorry, Bobby!! You joist sent to me what I had asked for a minute ago. I have the paper! Ludwig
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott, Bobby" <BScott at lrri.org>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:05 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
>
> Hi All:
>
> A link to my new paper titled "A guide to radiation hazard evaluation,
> applied to Fukushima recovery workers" follows:
>
> http://www.jpands.org/vol16no3/scott.pdf
>
> The paper was just published in the Journal of American Physicians and
> Surgeons (Vol. 16, #3, pages 71-76, 2011). I thought the paper may be of
> interest to some of you.
>
> Best wishes,
> Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
> Senior Scientist
> Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
> 2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
> Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
>
>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
>
> This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to the named
> addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are not the
> intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
> that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing in this
> communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be construed as a
> legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
> herein.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:15:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: radbloom at comcast.net
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<1266563405.1049319.1315404905024.JavaMail.root at sz0034a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Bobby,
?
Thanks for sharing your paper.? I have a question about a statement you made:
?
"For example, if the
cell lethality probability per cell at risk (for a specific cell type) is
0.1 (i.e., 1 in 10 cells) at a given gamma dose, then the
corresponding probability for simultaneously killing 1 million of
these cells with the same dose is 0.1 , which is essentially
zero."
?
My sense tells me that if the probability of death per cell at risk is 0.1, this is based on someone's observation that 10% of the cells were killed?at?a given gamma dose.? The (likely) number of cells killed (I'm not sure how "simultaneously" fits in - and I don't see that in the paper), then would be 0.1 multiplied by the number of cells irradiated.? Perhaps the paper is missing the number of cells irradiated...? I think what you calculated is the likelihood that for 1 million irradiated cells, the likelihood that they all would [simultaneously] die.? For irradiation of 1 million cells, you would expect 100,000 cell deaths... As I read your words multiple times, I'm not sure that they are untrue, but they seem misleading.
"For example, if the
cell lethality probability per cell at risk (for a specific cell type) is
0.1 (i.e., 1 in 10 cells) at a given gamma dose, then the
corresponding probability for simultaneously killing 1 million of
these cells with the same dose is 0.1 , which is essentially
zero."
?
My sense tells me that if the probability of death per cell at risk is 0.1, this is based on someone's observation that 10% of the cells were killed?at?a given gamma dose.? The (likely) number of cells killed (I'm not sure how "simultaneously" fits in - and I don't see that in the paper), then would be 0.1 multiplied by the number of cells irradiated.? Perhaps the paper is missing the number of cells irradiated...? I think what you calculated is the likelihood that for 1 million irradiated cells, the likelihood that they all would [simultaneously] die.? For irradiation of 1 million cells, you would expect 100,000 cell deaths... As I read your words multiple times, I'm not sure that they are untrue, but they seem misleading.
Thanks for provoking my thoughts,
?
Cindy (Bloom)
?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Scott" <BScott at lrri.org>
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 5:05:04 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] New Fukushima-related paper
Hi All:
A link to my new paper titled "A guide to radiation hazard evaluation,
applied to Fukushima recovery workers" follows:
http://www.jpands.org/vol16no3/scott.pdf
The paper was just published in the Journal of American Physicians and
Surgeons (Vol. 16, #3, pages 71-76, 2011). I thought the paper may be of
interest to some of you.
Best wishes,
Bobby R. Scott, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
2425 Ridgecrest Drive SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108 USA
*******************************************************************************
This e-mail and any files are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. Its intended to be delivered only to the named
addressee(s) and its content is confidential and privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. Nothing in this
communication, either written or implied, constitutes or should be construed as a
legally binding agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
herein.
_______________________________________________
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 736, Issue 1
***************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list