[ RadSafe ] Permissible volume of coffee Calculation by Mr.John Dunster

Wed Jul 4 03:49:29 CDT 2012

I've not found the paper by Dunster in the Radsafe archives, but there 
was, I think, one reference to his 'finding' that two half cups per day 
was beneficial ... too much uncertainty.  My first cup of coffee was 
when I was hitchhiking and there just was no traffic one extremely cold 
night -- finally went into a diner and had a great cup of hot coffee 
held between two clenched fists -- hands so cold that was the best I 
could manage -- been at it ever since when available 10 to 15 cups per 
day....
Best,
Maury&Dog [MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com]
=========================================

On 7/3/2012 11:15 PM, sbalter at aol.com wrote:
> There is actually a bit of literature about permissible doses of coffee in terms of sports drug testing. This includes differences between US and International MPC (sounds familiar)
>
> To be objective, it is best for interested readers do do their own searches
>
> have fun
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>; radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 2, 2012 7:58 am
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Permissible volume of coffee Calculation by Mr.John Dunster
>
>
> Dear Maury,
>
> I knew that Mr Dunster was no more. He came to India once. He was an eloquent
> speaker with total command over Queen's English! he was known for rapid fire
> animated talk and quick repartees.He played a significant role in drafting ICRP
> 1990 document. Listening to him, elucidating the intricacies of radiation
> protection philosophy was an overwhelming experience.
>
> I wish I could give more details on the reference in which Mr Dunster calculated
> the permissible daily volume of coffee! Incidentally, if my recollection is
> correct consumption at the recommended volume has added benefits. At that
> volume, coffee consumption is reported to reduce heart attack according to
> research published in the latest issue of CIRCULATION HEART FAILURE JOURNAL. It
> was all a matter of coincidence!
>
> Regards
> Parthasarathy
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: Maury <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Cc: Parthasararthy <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 23:07
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Permissible volume of coffee Calculation by Mr.John
> Dunster
>   
> Dear Parthasarathy
> rnal!
> Have not yet found what you wished (not finished yet) but did come
> across an interesting bit of Health Physics Society/Society for
> Radiological Protection history at:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Radiological_Protection
>
> Also, "John Dunster CB, a former President of the SRP, died in April
> 2006 at the age of 83. John had been a pioneer of modern radiation
> protection and was an acknowledged giant of the radiation protection
> profession. ..".
>
> Best,
> Maury&Dog
> ===================================
> On 7/1/2012 10:43 PM, parthasarathy k s wrote:
>> Friends,
>>
>> When Mr John Dunster from the UK was the News Editor of  The Health Physics
> Journal, he calculated the volume of coffee that may be drunk daily without
> harm. I recall that he made some very conservative assumptions to get at the
> number. Can any one who has access to old Volumes of Health Physics locate that
> page and send me a scanned copy? I believe that he was news editor of the
> journal during late 60s.
>>
>> regards
>> Parthasarathy
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>    From: parthasarathy k s <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 20:06
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [NucNews]  Which  nuclear technology has future?
>>   
>> Dear Dr Stanford,
>>
>> Who will spend money for the developmental efforts? Uranium is cheaply
> available. LWR is not certainly the best; but it is readily available. Funding
> for R & D on newer technologies will have to come from the Government. I recall
> your comments that IFR technology is more completely developed compared to the
> breeders.
>> My friends who are deeply involved in Fast Breeder Reactor development (500
> MWe capacity) tell me that they will be able to sell electricity at a cost
> comparable to that from Indian PHWRS. In India, price of power is by law
> administered  by the Central Government. In the case of nuclear power the Atomic
> Energy Act 1962 gives Central Government an enabling provision to decide power
> tariff. So talking about the cost of power in India is only an academic
> exercise!
>> Will there ever be a breakthrough in technology which may lead to power too
> cheap to meter? It happened in communication technology. In the 70s those who do
> not have a telephone in India will have to book a call at a telephone exchange
> to talk to another subscriber a few hundred miles away and wait for his turn.
> Now there is an explosive growth in mobile phone technology. Fifty years ago we
> did not think that we would be able to carry a telephone exchange in our
> pocket.Telephone service between India and USA has almost become too cheap to
> meter!
>> Can we expect similar developments in energy production?
>>
>> Regards
>> Parthasarathy
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012, 19:10
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [NucNews] Forest Service Approves Grand Canyon
> Uranium Mine Despite 26-year-old Environmental Review
>>
>>        Actually, guys, we could indeed "mine" the DU that we've already
> accumulated, as Peter suggests, and we probably will (but it will take a while
> to get going).  Using the plutonium from used LWR fuel as the essential catalyst
> to get started, fast reactors such as the IFR and its ilk (PRISM, TWR, 4S, etc)
> can power the world for centuries on the uranium that's already been mined --
> and with no more uranium enrichment needed, ever.
>>        --  George
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> At 08:17 PM 7/1/2012, Maury wrote:
>> We need also advocate the early cessation of automobile production ....
>> Best,
>> Maury&Dog
>>
>> =================================
>>
>> On 7/1/2012 8:51 PM, Peter G Cohen wrote:
>>
>> The continued mining of uranium is a symptom of the profound sickness of our
> government and the corporations it serves, well demonstrated by our preference
> for death over life. All mining should be stopped worldwide. We can mine the
> huge deposits of DU on the premises of every nuclear plant.
>> By continuing to mine, we are saying that money is more important than life,
> that we don't care about  God's Creation, that our own lives are expendable in
> the pursuit of money. We prostrate ourselves before the Golden Calf!
>> We must DO something! --Peter G Cohen
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Ellen Thomas wrote:
>>
>>     *Forest Service Approves Grand Canyon Uranium Mine Despite
>>     26-year-old Environmental Review*
>>
>>
>> June 26, 2012, by the Center for Biological Diversity
>>
>> http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/forest-service-approves-grand-canyon-uranium-mine-despite-26-year-old-environmental-review/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2180 / Virus Database: 2437/5104 - Release Date: 07/01/12
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2193 / Virus Database: 2437/5108 - Release Date: 07/03/12
>
>