[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 1071, Issue 1
Goldberg, Paul
Paul.Goldberg at nrc.gov
Thu Sep 6 12:46:16 CDT 2012
See Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Suggested State Regulations: http://www.crcpd.org/ssrcr.aspx
-----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: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: RadSafe Digest, Vol 1071, 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: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits (Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH))
2. Re: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits (Ted de Castro)
3. Re: Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation
needs careful, patient, tracking (SAF OPT)
4. Fwd: Invitation to Attend NAMP Webinar on Analytical
Chemistry of Uranium and Plutonium (Jeff Terry)
5. Re: Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation
needs careful, patient, tracking (John R Johnson)
6. Re: Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation
needs careful, patient, tracking (Brennan, Mike (DOH))
7. Re: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits (roseb at gdls.com)
8. Re: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits (Ted de Castro)
9. Re: Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation
needs careful, patient, tracking (Jerry Cohen)
10. Fwd: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage
(Chris Alston)
11. Re: Fwd: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage
(roseb at gdls.com)
12. Claim that Since 1927 genetic damage from radiation has been
known! (Roger Helbig)
13. Claim by Drolet - AUDIO: Fukushima deposited more radioactive
material than Chernobyl did (Roger Helbig)
14. Busby's Latest VIDEO trumpeted by ENENews and Nuclear-News:
Plutonium probably reached critical mass n Fukushima reactor No 3
(Roger Helbig)
15. Libel Laws in Australia (Roger Helbig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:17:20 +0000
From: "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device
Leakage Radiation Limits
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<443B252CFD74854783FFA866594EA93E175D4EB2 at EMBX-CHAM4.cdc.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Wow! That's the first time in a long time I have seen a reference to the OLD DOE (Admiral Watkins) Radcon Manual! I am not certain if this topic is addressed in newer DOE regulations. The leakage levels in question may be addressed by certain TN State regulations (series 1200***), but these would be noted as radiation boundary levels, not allowable leakage. The ANSI standard N43.3 might be best used here (it is one of many developed for homeland security applications).
For these kinds of radiation generation devices, some NCRP's might be of use. In particular, NCRP 20 (for cargo scanning systems) might be applicable. I would also try NCRP-147 or 144. Look for the same key words: exempt, shielded, or as installed facility.
I would also research the purview of the Food and Drug Administration. If you go their home page and search for ionizing radiation devices manufactures standards, you might find this leakage limit as applicable prior to the device being purchased for such uses. Non-ionizing radiation generating devices, such as commercial microwave ovens, are included under the FDA's responsibilities.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
John E. Dixon, CHP
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of roseb at gdls.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:03 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation Limits
Randy:
Reference U.S. Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual, DOE/EH-0256T, Revision 1 (1994), https://www.orau.org/PTP/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/doe_rcm.pdf .
The DOE appears to have recognized the absence of specific federal radiological health standards for certain devices in their Radcon Manual (1994), and referred management and the RCO to applicable ANSI standards.
As you are aware, in the case of devices such as electron microscopes and electron beam welders, Article 365.3 leaves the establishment of radiological controls for such devices to line management AND the Radiological Controls Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-29, pdf p. 93/220).
Given the absence of a specific federal standard for the devices under consideration, and, given that the location where the devices are operated is likely a federal enclave or exclusive federal jurisdiction with respect to state radiological health regulations (state regs might not apply), your reference to the ANSI N43.3 Exempt Shielded Installation criteria dose equivalent limit of 0.005 mSv (0.5 mrem) in any one hour at any accessible area 5 cm (2 inches) from the outside surface of the enclosure (N43.3-2008, para. 5.1.10, p.9, pdf p. 18/79) appears to be a reasonable and feasible radiological control measure that is consistent with the DOE Radiological Health and Safety Policy (DOE, p. i, pdf p. 3/220).
Henry
Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist Corporate Radiation Safety Officer General Dynamics Land Systems
38500 Mound Road
Mail Zone 436-10-75
Sterling Heights , MI 48310-3269
Tel: 586 825 4503
Fax: 586 825 4015
E-mail: roseb at gdls.com
"Redmond, Randy (RXQ)" <redmondrr at y12.doe.gov> Sent by: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
09/04/2012 07:25 AM
Please respond to
"The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
To
"radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
cc
Subject
[ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits
Does anyone know a citation for federal leakage radiation limits for
incidental radiation generating devices such as electron beam welders and
electron microscopes? I have searched and cannot find any. As a default,
I'm using ANSI N43.3 Exempt Shielded Installation criteria of 0.5 mrem at
5 cm.
Thanks,
Randy Redmond
B&W Y-12
Radiological Engineering
865.574.5640
_______________________________________________
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: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:56:17 -0700
From: Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device
Leakage Radiation Limits
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <50479241.4080403 at xrayted.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 9/5/2012 10:17 AM, Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH) wrote:
> The ANSI standard N43.3 might be best used here (it is one of many developed for homeland security applications).
>
That is a very interesting comment! I had no idea! There was most
certainly NO ONE from homeland security on the writing committee! I
would have remembered that!
I do agree that the standard would be the most applicable in this case
with the limit the same as the BRH/HEW Color TV limit.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:01:45 -0400
From: SAF OPT <safarber at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from
Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se, "The International Radiation
Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <5F9CB04E95E34914A60DA7F465286235 at PC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original
The problem seems to be that Public Health agencies [with some supposed
level of credibility ] in the US are unwilling to state or summarize info
to the general public via some media outreach program in a creative way,
about the lack of harm from some trivial source of radiation exposure.
Actions like this by regulators would be criticized as advocacy, despite
there being clear evidence of the negative effects of fear prompted by false
information. Corporations don't like to get involved in a fight like this,
preferring to keep their heads down while maintaining that someone else
should "fight the fight".
Some years ago while actively working in the nuclear power field, I had
presented a paper about this syndrome, titled: "Nuclear Power and Public
Information -- Suicide on the Installment Plan". However, I was able to get
involved in efforts like this, only because I was not on staff at some
nuclear utility at the time and I was acting as a private citizen. The
preceding talk was delivered by invitation to speak before the New England
Chapter of the ANS following a cutting satire I had written about the health
hazards of "strepdukakis anti-nucleosis" which was published widely in New
England based newspapers, and national publications like the HPS Newsletter
and the ANS "Backscatter" humor column. This satire obviously goes back a
few years to when MA Govenor Dukakis was running for President in 1988. This
satire got under the skin of key national energy advisors to Dukakis, but
that is another story. It was a lot of fun. While humorously stated, the
comments made were cutting and impactful.
The CDC's National Center for Environmental Health will generally evaluate
some potential rad risk when they get sufficient funding and pressure.
However, this action to evaluate a rad risk is often based on what I see as
situational ethics. And once a determination is made that there is no
indication of harm [but of course they would highlight that there are
uncertainties which might not exclude some small level of harm] a larger
study would be necessary.
There is also an obvious symbiotic relationship between many radiation
regulatory agencies and scaremongers, since when distorted and obviously
false claims are made [vs. the huge body of knowledge about radiation
biofects based on more than a $billion of research on environmental and
health effects] sometimes funds are authorized by legislators to carry out
some study which increases budgets and staff for the Agencies involved.
What is the incentive for regulatory groups to actively try and put out
accurate information on the absence of harm?
No Public Health agency seems willing to clearly state the absence of risk
in claims about radiation risk, and if they have such data they are
totally unwilling or inept in communicating this information to this effect
to the public in any impactful manner.
Stewart Farber, MSPH
SAFarber at optonline.net
============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:54 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se ; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
All,
I am concerned about this RADSAFE thread.
At the present time, there have been NO deaths (and diseases) directly
attributable to the radiation and radioactive contamination released from
(and present at) the damaged Fukushima reactor plants. The Japanese people
have more serious matters with which to contend (e. g. 20,000 + deaths from
the tsunami). Physiological effects can also result from the very real
physical threats present, as well as from psychological stress (more from
these stressors than from the low levels of radiation/radioactivity which
are still present in the area).
Since all probabilistic deleterious effects from low dose/dose rate
radiation take TIME to manifest in humans AND it has been about 18 months
since the releases occurred, I would expect that no relevant scientific
significant "study" (especially the DATA) yet exists. At present, most of
the work done on this topic is, at best, speculation.
John E. Dixon, CHP
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lantzelot
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:11 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
If anybody is interested I have put up a scrutiny of Mangano's latest joke
on the NPYP web site:
Blog post with general comments:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/
More detailed look into the numbers:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757
/Mattias Lantz
--
Mattias Lantz - Researcher
??? ?????
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Division of Applied Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University, Box 516
SE - 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden
On 08/19/2012 05:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> Suggest that professionals make news media aware of all the
> shortcomings of Mangano's past research and claims - he has
> established himself with the help of Janette Sherman as an expert on
> Chernobyl just like Busby has -
>
> Roger Helbig
>
> Christina MacPherson posted: "[in the 12 months after Fukushima] an
> excess of 38,700 Japanese deaths, with no obvious cause. Nobody should
> yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from Fukushima
> exposure in the first year after the disaster. The final element
> nee"
>
> Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient,
> tracking
>
> by Christina MacPherson
>
> [in the 12 months after Fukushima] an excess of 38,700 Japanese
> deaths, with no obvious cause.
>
> Nobody should yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from
> Fukushima exposure in the first year after the disaster.
>
> The final element needed before conclusions are made is patience;
> vital statistics must continue to be tracked, and compared with
> radiation exposures to the Japanese people.
>
> [In 2009] A team of Russian researchers, led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov,
> published results of 5,000 reports and articles on Chernobyl - many in
> Russian languages never before made public. Yahlokov's team concluded
> that near Chernobyl, increases in disease sand deaths were observed
> for nearly every human organ system.
>
> Let the Counting Begin Fukushima's Nuclear Casualties
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/
> by JOSEPH MANGANO, 15 Aug 12 It's been nearly 18 months since the
> disastrous nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. There have been many
> reports on the huge amounts of radioactivity escaping into the air and
> water, unusually high levels in air, water, and soil - along with
> atypically high levels of toxic chemicals in food - that actually
> "passed" government inspection and wasn't banned like some other food.
>
> Conspicuously absent are reports on effects of radiation exposure on
> the health of the Japanese people. Have any health officials publicly
> announced post-March 2011 numbers on fetal deaths, infant deaths,
> premature births, birth defects, cancer, or other health conditions?
> The answer so far is an emphatic "no."
>
> The prolonged silence doesn't mean data doesn't exist. Japanese
> health officials have been busy with their usual duties of collecting
> and posting statistics on the Internet for public inspection. It's
> just that they aren't calling the public's attention to these numbers.
> Thus, it is the public who must find the information and figure out
> what it means. After locating web sites, translating from Japanese,
> adding data for each of 12 months, and making some calculations,
> mortality trends in Japan after Fukushima are emerging. Read more of
> this post
>
> Christina MacPherson | August 16, 2012 at 4:03 am | Categories:
> health, Japan, Reference | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-73G
>
> http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/16/disease-and-death-toll-from-fukushima-radiation-needs-careful-patient-tracking/
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:20:24 -0500
From: Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Invitation to Attend NAMP Webinar on
Analytical Chemistry of Uranium and Plutonium
To: "radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <0F382213-4D8C-4A72-AC9F-0272119BDCF4 at iit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
FYI,
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
>
> Subject: Invitation to Attend NAMP Webinar on Analytical Chemistry of Uranium and Plutonium
>
> Greetings,
>
> The U.S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office National Analytical Management Program (NAMP), in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and our university partners, invites you to attend the next webinar in the Actinide Chemistry Series. Please join us on Thursday, October 11, 2012, at 1:00 pm Eastern Time, 12:00 pm Central Time as Dr. Ralf Sudowe, with the University of Nevada Las Vegas, presents ?Analytical Chemistry of Uranium and Plutonium.?
>
> This webinar will provide a basic understanding of the fundamental analytical chemistry of uranium and plutonium. Particular emphasis will be placed on a variety of radioanalytical techniques for the determination of these elements and how their chemical behavior governs the separation behavior. The general principles of separations utilizing ion exchange, extraction chromatography and solvent extraction will be discussed and examples of common analytical procedures will be given.
>
> To attend, please register online at: https://foodshield.connectsolutions.com/analyticalchemistry/event/event_info.html.
>
> Please see attached or visit the NAMP website at www.inl.gov/namp for more information.
>
> Thanks,
> Berta
>
> Berta Oates
> Carlsbad Technical Assistance Contract (Portage, Inc.)
> Contractor to the Department of Energy
> 2650 North 300 East, Suite 120
> North Ogden, UT 84414
> Email: boates at portageinc.com
> Phone: (801)782-5179
> Fax: (801)782-5328
> Cell: (801)814-5082
>
> ?Instead of waiting for your ship to come in, grab a hammer and build a boat!?
> Charles Marshall
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:55:44 -0700
From: John R Johnson <idiasjrj at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from
Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAJ-ykuc-4hyz6U--Q+QwoAWHwa3KcipHhFO3BSxrTideM8SnVg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
John
I agree, and will also stress out that we have no way of "connecting" any
of the cancer that will occur in the population with the exposures.
John R J
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH) <
gyf7 at cdc.gov> wrote:
> All,
> I am concerned about this RADSAFE thread.
>
> At the present time, there have been NO deaths (and diseases) directly
> attributable to the radiation and radioactive contamination released from
> (and present at) the damaged Fukushima reactor plants. The Japanese people
> have more serious matters with which to contend (e. g. 20,000 + deaths from
> the tsunami). Physiological effects can also result from the very real
> physical threats present, as well as from psychological stress (more from
> these stressors than from the low levels of radiation/radioactivity which
> are still present in the area).
>
> Since all probabilistic deleterious effects from low dose/dose rate
> radiation take TIME to manifest in humans AND it has been about 18 months
> since the releases occurred, I would expect that no relevant scientific
> significant "study" (especially the DATA) yet exists. At present, most of
> the work done on this topic is, at best, speculation.
>
> John E. Dixon, CHP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lantzelot
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:11 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
> radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
>
> If anybody is interested I have put up a scrutiny of Mangano's latest joke
> on the NPYP web site:
> Blog post with general comments:
>
> http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/
> More detailed look into the numbers:
> http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757
>
> /Mattias Lantz
>
> --
> Mattias Lantz - Researcher
> ??? ?????
> Department of Physics and Astronomy
> Division of Applied Nuclear Physics
> Uppsala University, Box 516
> SE - 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden
>
>
>
> On 08/19/2012 05:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> > Suggest that professionals make news media aware of all the
> > shortcomings of Mangano's past research and claims - he has
> > established himself with the help of Janette Sherman as an expert on
> > Chernobyl just like Busby has -
> >
> > Roger Helbig
> >
> > Christina MacPherson posted: "[in the 12 months after Fukushima] an
> > excess of 38,700 Japanese deaths, with no obvious cause. Nobody should
> > yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from Fukushima
> > exposure in the first year after the disaster. The final element
> > nee"
> >
> > Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient,
> tracking
> >
> > by Christina MacPherson
> >
> > [in the 12 months after Fukushima] an excess of 38,700 Japanese
> > deaths, with no obvious cause.
> >
> > Nobody should yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from
> > Fukushima exposure in the first year after the disaster.
> >
> > The final element needed before conclusions are made is patience;
> > vital statistics must continue to be tracked, and compared with
> > radiation exposures to the Japanese people.
> >
> > [In 2009] A team of Russian researchers, led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov,
> > published results of 5,000 reports and articles on Chernobyl - many in
> > Russian languages never before made public. Yahlokov's team concluded
> > that near Chernobyl, increases in disease sand deaths were observed
> > for nearly every human organ system.
> >
> > Let the Counting Begin Fukushima's Nuclear Casualties
> > http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/
> > by JOSEPH MANGANO, 15 Aug 12 It's been nearly 18 months since the
> > disastrous nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. There have been many
> > reports on the huge amounts of radioactivity escaping into the air and
> > water, unusually high levels in air, water, and soil - along with
> > atypically high levels of toxic chemicals in food - that actually
> > "passed" government inspection and wasn't banned like some other food.
> >
> > Conspicuously absent are reports on effects of radiation exposure on
> > the health of the Japanese people. Have any health officials publicly
> > announced post-March 2011 numbers on fetal deaths, infant deaths,
> > premature births, birth defects, cancer, or other health conditions?
> > The answer so far is an emphatic "no."
> >
> > The prolonged silence doesn't mean data doesn't exist. Japanese
> > health officials have been busy with their usual duties of collecting
> > and posting statistics on the Internet for public inspection. It's
> > just that they aren't calling the public's attention to these numbers.
> > Thus, it is the public who must find the information and figure out
> > what it means. After locating web sites, translating from Japanese,
> > adding data for each of 12 months, and making some calculations,
> > mortality trends in Japan after Fukushima are emerging. Read more of
> > this post
> >
> > Christina MacPherson | August 16, 2012 at 4:03 am | Categories:
> > health, Japan, Reference | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-73G
> >
> >
> http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/16/disease-and-death-toll-from-fukushima-radiation-needs-careful-patient-tracking/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:24:36 -0700
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from
Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<37C41083D3480E4BBB478317773B845D07506122 at dohmxtum31.doh.wa.lcl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi, Stewart.
Without disagreeing with what you've said, I would point out that quite
often radiation public health organizations have several levels between
the highest level technical experts and the people who decide what the
organization says. The people in those layers may well have backgrounds
in law or media relations that color the final statements as much or
more than the technical input.
And "symbiotic relationship" isn't limited to regulators. There are
many companies, small and very, very, big, that make a lot of money on
cleaning up pollution of all kinds. I doubt many turn down the chance
to bid on a multi-million dollar contract just because they don't
believe the pollution constitutes an actual risk.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of SAF OPT
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:02 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
The problem seems to be that Public Health agencies [with some supposed
level of credibility ] in the US are unwilling to state or summarize
info to the general public via some media outreach program in a creative
way, about the lack of harm from some trivial source of radiation
exposure.
Actions like this by regulators would be criticized as advocacy, despite
there being clear evidence of the negative effects of fear prompted by
false information. Corporations don't like to get involved in a fight
like this, preferring to keep their heads down while maintaining that
someone else should "fight the fight".
Some years ago while actively working in the nuclear power field, I had
presented a paper about this syndrome, titled: "Nuclear Power and
Public Information -- Suicide on the Installment Plan". However, I was
able to get involved in efforts like this, only because I was not on
staff at some nuclear utility at the time and I was acting as a private
citizen. The preceding talk was delivered by invitation to speak before
the New England Chapter of the ANS following a cutting satire I had
written about the health
hazards of "strepdukakis anti-nucleosis" which was published widely in
New
England based newspapers, and national publications like the HPS
Newsletter and the ANS "Backscatter" humor column. This satire
obviously goes back a few years to when MA Govenor Dukakis was running
for President in 1988. This satire got under the skin of key national
energy advisors to Dukakis, but that is another story. It was a lot of
fun. While humorously stated, the comments made were cutting and
impactful.
The CDC's National Center for Environmental Health will generally
evaluate some potential rad risk when they get sufficient funding and
pressure.
However, this action to evaluate a rad risk is often based on what I see
as situational ethics. And once a determination is made that there is no
indication of harm [but of course they would highlight that there are
uncertainties which might not exclude some small level of harm] a larger
study would be necessary.
There is also an obvious symbiotic relationship between many radiation
regulatory agencies and scaremongers, since when distorted and
obviously false claims are made [vs. the huge body of knowledge about
radiation biofects based on more than a $billion of research on
environmental and
health effects] sometimes funds are authorized by legislators to carry
out
some study which increases budgets and staff for the Agencies involved.
What is the incentive for regulatory groups to actively try and put out
accurate information on the absence of harm?
No Public Health agency seems willing to clearly state the absence of
risk in claims about radiation risk, and if they have such data they
are totally unwilling or inept in communicating this information to this
effect to the public in any impactful manner.
Stewart Farber, MSPH
SAFarber at optonline.net
============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:54 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se ; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
All,
I am concerned about this RADSAFE thread.
At the present time, there have been NO deaths (and diseases) directly
attributable to the radiation and radioactive contamination released
from (and present at) the damaged Fukushima reactor plants. The Japanese
people have more serious matters with which to contend (e. g. 20,000 +
deaths from the tsunami). Physiological effects can also result from the
very real physical threats present, as well as from psychological stress
(more from these stressors than from the low levels of
radiation/radioactivity which are still present in the area).
Since all probabilistic deleterious effects from low dose/dose rate
radiation take TIME to manifest in humans AND it has been about 18
months since the releases occurred, I would expect that no relevant
scientific significant "study" (especially the DATA) yet exists. At
present, most of the work done on this topic is, at best, speculation.
John E. Dixon, CHP
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lantzelot
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:11 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
If anybody is interested I have put up a scrutiny of Mangano's latest
joke on the NPYP web site:
Blog post with general comments:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-st
ops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/
More detailed look into the numbers:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757
/Mattias Lantz
--
Mattias Lantz - Researcher
??? ?????
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Division of Applied Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University, Box 516
SE - 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden
On 08/19/2012 05:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> Suggest that professionals make news media aware of all the
> shortcomings of Mangano's past research and claims - he has
> established himself with the help of Janette Sherman as an expert on
> Chernobyl just like Busby has -
>
> Roger Helbig
>
> Christina MacPherson posted: "[in the 12 months after Fukushima] an
> excess of 38,700 Japanese deaths, with no obvious cause. Nobody should
> yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from Fukushima
> exposure in the first year after the disaster. The final element
> nee"
>
> Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation needs careful,
> patient, tracking
>
> by Christina MacPherson
>
> [in the 12 months after Fukushima] an excess of 38,700 Japanese
> deaths, with no obvious cause.
>
> Nobody should yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from
> Fukushima exposure in the first year after the disaster.
>
> The final element needed before conclusions are made is patience;
> vital statistics must continue to be tracked, and compared with
> radiation exposures to the Japanese people.
>
> [In 2009] A team of Russian researchers, led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov,
> published results of 5,000 reports and articles on Chernobyl - many in
> Russian languages never before made public. Yahlokov's team concluded
> that near Chernobyl, increases in disease sand deaths were observed
> for nearly every human organ system.
>
> Let the Counting Begin Fukushima's Nuclear Casualties
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/
> by JOSEPH MANGANO, 15 Aug 12 It's been nearly 18 months since the
> disastrous nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. There have been many
> reports on the huge amounts of radioactivity escaping into the air and
> water, unusually high levels in air, water, and soil - along with
> atypically high levels of toxic chemicals in food - that actually
> "passed" government inspection and wasn't banned like some other food.
>
> Conspicuously absent are reports on effects of radiation exposure on
> the health of the Japanese people. Have any health officials publicly
> announced post-March 2011 numbers on fetal deaths, infant deaths,
> premature births, birth defects, cancer, or other health conditions?
> The answer so far is an emphatic "no."
>
> The prolonged silence doesn't mean data doesn't exist. Japanese
> health officials have been busy with their usual duties of collecting
> and posting statistics on the Internet for public inspection. It's
> just that they aren't calling the public's attention to these numbers.
> Thus, it is the public who must find the information and figure out
> what it means. After locating web sites, translating from Japanese,
> adding data for each of 12 months, and making some calculations,
> mortality trends in Japan after Fukushima are emerging. Read more of
> this post
>
> Christina MacPherson | August 16, 2012 at 4:03 am | Categories:
> health, Japan, Reference | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-73G
>
> http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/16/disease-and-death-toll-from-fukushi
> ma-radiation-needs-careful-patient-tracking/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:33:59 -0400
From: roseb at gdls.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device
Leakage Radiation Limits
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<OFCF4FBC0C.BB6456A7-ON85257A70.0062FCBF-85257A70.00767825 at gdls.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
John:
I am pleased to have wowed you!
I referenced the OLD DOE manual because I was not able to readily find the
most recent manual online yesterday. After a bit more digging, I was able
to locate the following:
DOE STANDARD: RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL (DOE-STD-1098-99), July 1999
http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/Radiological_Control_Standard.pdf
DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities (2011)
https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0420.2-BOrder-c/view
Article 365.3 in the 1999 DOE Radcon manual is the same as in the 1994 DOE
Radcon manual, that article leaves the establishment of radiological
controls for such devices to line management AND the Radiological Controls
Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-24, pdf p. 75/189). The policy also remains
substantially the same.
The DOE order O 420.2C (2011) defines what constitutes and accelerator. An
electron beam welder would fall under the definition of an accelerator.
This order appears to still leave determination of the device exposure
limits to management and the RCO.
FDA purview:
Compliance Guide for Cabinet X-Ray Systems
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094358.htm
The FDA does not appear in the above guide or 21CFR Subcahapter J to
provide any specific or general guidance regarding leakage radiation
limits for devices such as electron microscopes or electron beam welders.
Applicability of State regulations to the B&W Y-12 or other DOE site -
State radiological health regulations, though possibly useful as a guide,
might not be applicable at DOE sites or operations. Such sites are often
considered federal enclaves or exclusive federal jurisdictions. Assuming
the device is actually located in Tennessee at a DOE site or operation,
and that the device is an electron beam welder, the following Tennessee
rule could be applicable or used as guidance, since an electron beam
welder appears to meet the definition of an accelerator in the rule
CHAPTER 0400-20-09, REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCELERATORS
http://www.tn.gov/sos/rules/0400/0400-20/0400-20.htm
The above rule does not provide any specific or general guidance regarding
leakage radiation limits for an accelerator device. The guidance or
requirements provided as to permissible radiation levels in the
accelerator facility appear to be less stringent (2 mrem or 10 mrem, 0.02
mSv or 0.10 mSv) in any one hour) than those in ANSI N43.3 for an Exempt
Shielded Installation (0.5 mrem or 0.005 mSv in any one hour). The ANSI
N43.3 radiation level criteria for an Exempt Shielded Installation appears
to be a reasonable and feasible leakage radiation control limit for
devices such as electron microscopes and electron beam welders, especially
if the available data for these devices (i.e. manufacturer's data, site
survey data, etc.) indicate reasonable entitlement for this control limit.
Henry
Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist
Corporate Radiation Safety Officer
General Dynamics Land Systems
38500 Mound Road
Mail Zone 436-10-75
Sterling Heights , MI 48310-3269
Tel: 586 825 4503
Fax: 586 825 4015
E-mail: roseb at gdls.com
"Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
Sent by: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
09/05/2012 01:17 PM
Please respond to
"The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
To
"The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
cc
Subject
Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits
Wow! That's the first time in a long time I have seen a reference to the
OLD DOE (Admiral Watkins) Radcon Manual! I am not certain if this topic is
addressed in newer DOE regulations. The leakage levels in question may be
addressed by certain TN State regulations (series 1200***), but these
would be noted as radiation boundary levels, not allowable leakage. The
ANSI standard N43.3 might be best used here (it is one of many developed
for homeland security applications).
For these kinds of radiation generation devices, some NCRP's might be of
use. In particular, NCRP 20 (for cargo scanning systems) might be
applicable. I would also try NCRP-147 or 144. Look for the same key words:
exempt, shielded, or as installed facility.
I would also research the purview of the Food and Drug Administration. If
you go their home page and search for ionizing radiation devices
manufactures standards, you might find this leakage limit as applicable
prior to the device being purchased for such uses. Non-ionizing radiation
generating devices, such as commercial microwave ovens, are included under
the FDA's responsibilities.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
John E. Dixon, CHP
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [
mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of roseb at gdls.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:03 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage
Radiation Limits
Randy:
Reference U.S. Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual,
DOE/EH-0256T, Revision 1 (1994),
https://www.orau.org/PTP/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/doe_rcm.pdf .
The DOE appears to have recognized the absence of specific federal
radiological health standards for certain devices in their Radcon Manual
(1994), and referred management and the RCO to applicable ANSI standards.
As you are aware, in the case of devices such as electron microscopes and
electron beam welders, Article 365.3 leaves the establishment of
radiological controls for such devices to line management AND the
Radiological Controls Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-29, pdf p. 93/220).
Given the absence of a specific federal standard for the devices under
consideration, and, given that the location where the devices are operated
is likely a federal enclave or exclusive federal jurisdiction with respect
to state radiological health regulations (state regs might not apply),
your reference to the ANSI N43.3 Exempt Shielded Installation criteria
dose equivalent limit of 0.005 mSv (0.5 mrem) in any one hour at any
accessible area 5 cm (2 inches) from the outside surface of the enclosure
(N43.3-2008, para. 5.1.10, p.9, pdf p. 18/79) appears to be a reasonable
and feasible radiological control measure that is consistent with the DOE
Radiological Health and Safety Policy (DOE, p. i, pdf p. 3/220).
Henry
Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist Corporate Radiation
Safety Officer General Dynamics Land Systems
38500 Mound Road
Mail Zone 436-10-75
Sterling Heights , MI 48310-3269
Tel: 586 825 4503
Fax: 586 825 4015
E-mail: roseb at gdls.com
"Redmond, Randy (RXQ)" <redmondrr at y12.doe.gov> Sent by:
radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
09/04/2012 07:25 AM
Please respond to
"The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
To
"radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
cc
Subject
[ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
Limits
Does anyone know a citation for federal leakage radiation limits for
incidental radiation generating devices such as electron beam welders and
electron microscopes? I have searched and cannot find any. As a default,
I'm using ANSI N43.3 Exempt Shielded Installation criteria of 0.5 mrem at
5 cm.
Thanks,
Randy Redmond
B&W Y-12
Radiological Engineering
865.574.5640
_______________________________________________
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, 05 Sep 2012 15:08:40 -0700
From: Ted de Castro <tdc at xrayted.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device
Leakage Radiation Limits
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <5047CD68.3040202 at xrayted.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I remember having to deal with that particularly poor definition of an
accelerator!! A shunt regulator tube in an old color TV set would
qualify as an accelerator by that definition! Along with SO many other
things that clearly aren't accelerators!
On 9/5/2012 2:33 PM, roseb at gdls.com wrote:
> John:
>
> I am pleased to have wowed you!
>
> I referenced the OLD DOE manual because I was not able to readily find the
> most recent manual online yesterday. After a bit more digging, I was able
> to locate the following:
>
> DOE STANDARD: RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL (DOE-STD-1098-99), July 1999
> http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/Radiological_Control_Standard.pdf
>
> DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities (2011)
> https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0420.2-BOrder-c/view
>
> Article 365.3 in the 1999 DOE Radcon manual is the same as in the 1994 DOE
> Radcon manual, that article leaves the establishment of radiological
> controls for such devices to line management AND the Radiological Controls
> Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-24, pdf p. 75/189). The policy also remains
> substantially the same.
>
> The DOE order O 420.2C (2011) defines what constitutes and accelerator. An
> electron beam welder would fall under the definition of an accelerator.
> This order appears to still leave determination of the device exposure
> limits to management and the RCO.
>
> FDA purview:
>
> Compliance Guide for Cabinet X-Ray Systems
> http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094358.htm
>
> The FDA does not appear in the above guide or 21CFR Subcahapter J to
> provide any specific or general guidance regarding leakage radiation
> limits for devices such as electron microscopes or electron beam welders.
>
> Applicability of State regulations to the B&W Y-12 or other DOE site -
> State radiological health regulations, though possibly useful as a guide,
> might not be applicable at DOE sites or operations. Such sites are often
> considered federal enclaves or exclusive federal jurisdictions. Assuming
> the device is actually located in Tennessee at a DOE site or operation,
> and that the device is an electron beam welder, the following Tennessee
> rule could be applicable or used as guidance, since an electron beam
> welder appears to meet the definition of an accelerator in the rule
>
> CHAPTER 0400-20-09, REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCELERATORS
> http://www.tn.gov/sos/rules/0400/0400-20/0400-20.htm
>
> The above rule does not provide any specific or general guidance regarding
> leakage radiation limits for an accelerator device. The guidance or
> requirements provided as to permissible radiation levels in the
> accelerator facility appear to be less stringent (2 mrem or 10 mrem, 0.02
> mSv or 0.10 mSv) in any one hour) than those in ANSI N43.3 for an Exempt
> Shielded Installation (0.5 mrem or 0.005 mSv in any one hour). The ANSI
> N43.3 radiation level criteria for an Exempt Shielded Installation appears
> to be a reasonable and feasible leakage radiation control limit for
> devices such as electron microscopes and electron beam welders, especially
> if the available data for these devices (i.e. manufacturer's data, site
> survey data, etc.) indicate reasonable entitlement for this control limit.
>
> Henry
>
> Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
> Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist
> Corporate Radiation Safety Officer
> General Dynamics Land Systems
> 38500 Mound Road
> Mail Zone 436-10-75
> Sterling Heights , MI 48310-3269
> Tel: 586 825 4503
> Fax: 586 825 4015
> E-mail: roseb at gdls.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
> Sent by: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
> 09/05/2012 01:17 PM
> Please respond to
> "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
>
>
> To
> "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
> Limits
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow! That's the first time in a long time I have seen a reference to the
> OLD DOE (Admiral Watkins) Radcon Manual! I am not certain if this topic is
> addressed in newer DOE regulations. The leakage levels in question may be
> addressed by certain TN State regulations (series 1200***), but these
> would be noted as radiation boundary levels, not allowable leakage. The
> ANSI standard N43.3 might be best used here (it is one of many developed
> for homeland security applications).
>
> For these kinds of radiation generation devices, some NCRP's might be of
> use. In particular, NCRP 20 (for cargo scanning systems) might be
> applicable. I would also try NCRP-147 or 144. Look for the same key words:
> exempt, shielded, or as installed facility.
>
> I would also research the purview of the Food and Drug Administration. If
> you go their home page and search for ionizing radiation devices
> manufactures standards, you might find this leakage limit as applicable
> prior to the device being purchased for such uses. Non-ionizing radiation
> generating devices, such as commercial microwave ovens, are included under
> the FDA's responsibilities.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Regards,
> John E. Dixon, CHP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [
> mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of roseb at gdls.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:03 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage
> Radiation Limits
>
> Randy:
>
> Reference U.S. Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual,
> DOE/EH-0256T, Revision 1 (1994),
> https://www.orau.org/PTP/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/doe_rcm.pdf .
>
> The DOE appears to have recognized the absence of specific federal
> radiological health standards for certain devices in their Radcon Manual
> (1994), and referred management and the RCO to applicable ANSI standards.
> As you are aware, in the case of devices such as electron microscopes and
> electron beam welders, Article 365.3 leaves the establishment of
> radiological controls for such devices to line management AND the
> Radiological Controls Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-29, pdf p. 93/220).
>
> Given the absence of a specific federal standard for the devices under
> consideration, and, given that the location where the devices are operated
> is likely a federal enclave or exclusive federal jurisdiction with respect
> to state radiological health regulations (state regs might not apply),
> your reference to the ANSI N43.3 Exempt Shielded Installation criteria
> dose equivalent limit of 0.005 mSv (0.5 mrem) in any one hour at any
> accessible area 5 cm (2 inches) from the outside surface of the enclosure
> (N43.3-2008, para. 5.1.10, p.9, pdf p. 18/79) appears to be a reasonable
> and feasible radiological control measure that is consistent with the DOE
> Radiological Health and Safety Policy (DOE, p. i, pdf p. 3/220).
>
> Henry
>
> Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
> Sr. Safety and Environmental Engineering Specialist Corporate Radiation
> Safety Officer General Dynamics Land Systems
> 38500 Mound Road
> Mail Zone 436-10-75
> Sterling Heights , MI 48310-3269
> Tel: 586 825 4503
> Fax: 586 825 4015
> E-mail: roseb at gdls.com
>
>
>
>
>
> "Redmond, Randy (RXQ)" <redmondrr at y12.doe.gov> Sent by:
> radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
> 09/04/2012 07:25 AM
> Please respond to
> "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
>
>
> To
> "radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage Radiation
> Limits
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone know a citation for federal leakage radiation limits for
> incidental radiation generating devices such as electron beam welders and
> electron microscopes? I have searched and cannot find any. As a default,
> I'm using ANSI N43.3 Exempt Shielded Installation criteria of 0.5 mrem at
> 5 cm.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Randy Redmond
> B&W Y-12
> Radiological Engineering
> 865.574.5640
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from
Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID: <1346885643.17374.YahooMailRC at web82706.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
It is axiomatic that you can't get research funding to solve non-problems
..
?
________________________________
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed, September 5, 2012 1:25:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
Hi, Stewart.
Without disagreeing with what you've said, I would point out that quite
often radiation public health organizations have several levels between
the highest level technical experts and the people who decide what the
organization says.? The people in those layers may well have backgrounds
in law or media relations that color the final statements as much or
more than the technical input.?
And "symbiotic relationship" isn't limited to regulators.? There are
many companies, small and very, very, big, that make a lot of money on
cleaning up pollution of all kinds.? I doubt many turn down the chance
to bid on a multi-million dollar contract just because they don't
believe the pollution constitutes an actual risk.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of SAF OPT
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:02 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
The problem seems to be that Public Health agencies [with some supposed
level of credibility ] in the US are unwilling to state or summarize
info to the general public via some media outreach program in a creative
way, about the lack of harm from some trivial source of radiation
exposure.
Actions like this by regulators would be criticized as advocacy, despite
there being clear evidence of the negative effects of fear prompted by
false information.? Corporations don't like to get involved in a fight
like this, preferring to keep their heads down while maintaining that
someone else should "fight the fight".
Some years ago while actively working in the nuclear power field, I had
presented a paper about this syndrome,? titled: "Nuclear Power and
Public Information -- Suicide on the Installment Plan".? However, I was
able to get involved in efforts like this, only because I was? not on
staff at some nuclear utility at the time and I was acting as a private
citizen. The preceding talk was delivered by? invitation to speak before
the New England Chapter of the ANS following a cutting satire I had
written about the health
hazards of "strepdukakis anti-nucleosis"? which was published widely in
New
England based newspapers, and national publications like the HPS
Newsletter and the ANS "Backscatter" humor column.? This satire
obviously goes back a few years to when MA Govenor Dukakis was running
for President in 1988. This satire got under the skin of key national
energy advisors to Dukakis, but that is another story. It was a lot of
fun. While humorously stated, the comments made were cutting and
impactful.
The CDC's National Center for Environmental Health will generally
evaluate some potential rad risk when they get sufficient funding and
pressure.
However, this action to evaluate a rad risk is often based on what I see
as situational ethics. And once a determination is made that there is no
indication of harm [but of course they would highlight that there are
uncertainties which might not exclude some small level of harm] a larger
study would be necessary.
There is also an obvious symbiotic relationship between many radiation
regulatory agencies and scaremongers,? since when distorted and
obviously false claims are made [vs.? the huge body of knowledge about
radiation biofects based on more than a $billion of research on
environmental and
health effects]? sometimes funds are authorized by legislators to carry
out
some study which increases budgets and staff for the Agencies involved.
What is the incentive for regulatory groups to actively try and put out
accurate information on the absence of harm?
No Public Health agency seems willing to clearly state the absence of
risk in claims about radiation risk, and if? they have such data? they
are totally unwilling or inept in communicating this information to this
effect to the public in any impactful manner.
Stewart Farber, MSPH
SAFarber at optonline.net
============================
-----Original Message-----
From: Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:54 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se ; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
All,
I am concerned about this RADSAFE thread.
At the present time, there have been NO deaths (and diseases) directly
attributable to the radiation and radioactive contamination released
from (and present at) the damaged Fukushima reactor plants. The Japanese
people have more serious matters with which to contend (e. g. 20,000 +
deaths from the tsunami). Physiological effects can also result from the
very real physical threats present, as well as from psychological stress
(more from these stressors than from the low levels of
radiation/radioactivity which are still present in the area).
Since all probabilistic deleterious effects from low dose/dose rate
radiation take TIME to manifest in humans AND it has been about 18
months since the releases occurred, I would expect that no relevant
scientific significant "study" (especially the DATA) yet exists. At
present, most of the work done on this topic is, at best, speculation.
John E. Dixon, CHP
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lantzelot
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:11 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking
If anybody is interested I have put up a scrutiny of Mangano's latest
joke on the NPYP web site:
Blog post with general comments:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-st
ops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/
More detailed look into the numbers:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757
/Mattias Lantz
--
Mattias Lantz - Researcher
??? ?????
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Division of Applied Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University, Box 516
SE - 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden
On 08/19/2012 05:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> Suggest that professionals make news media aware of all the
> shortcomings of Mangano's past research and claims - he has
> established himself with the help of Janette Sherman as an expert on
> Chernobyl just like Busby has -
>
> Roger Helbig
>
> Christina MacPherson posted: "[in the 12 months after Fukushima]? an
> excess of 38,700 Japanese deaths, with no obvious cause. Nobody should
> yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from Fukushima
> exposure in the first year after the disaster.? The final element
> nee"
>
> Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation needs careful,
> patient, tracking
>
> by Christina MacPherson
>
> [in the 12 months after Fukushima]? an excess of 38,700 Japanese
> deaths, with no obvious cause.
>
> Nobody should yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from
> Fukushima exposure in the first year after the disaster.
>
> The final element needed before conclusions are made is patience;
> vital statistics must continue to be tracked, and compared with
> radiation exposures to the Japanese people.
>
> [In 2009] A team of Russian researchers, led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov,
> published results of 5,000 reports and articles on Chernobyl - many in
> Russian languages never before made public. Yahlokov's team concluded
> that near Chernobyl, increases in disease sand deaths were observed
> for nearly every human organ system.
>
> Let the Counting Begin Fukushima's Nuclear Casualties
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/
> by JOSEPH MANGANO, 15 Aug 12 It's been nearly 18 months since the
> disastrous nuclear meltdown at Fukushima.? There have been many
> reports on the huge amounts of radioactivity escaping into the air and
> water, unusually high levels in air, water, and soil - along with
> atypically high levels of toxic chemicals in food - that actually
> "passed" government inspection and wasn't banned like some other food.
>
> Conspicuously absent are reports on effects of radiation exposure on
> the health of the Japanese people.? Have any health officials publicly
> announced post-March 2011 numbers on fetal deaths, infant deaths,
> premature births, birth defects, cancer, or other health conditions?
> The answer so far is an emphatic "no."
>
> The prolonged silence doesn't mean data doesn't exist.? Japanese
> health officials have been busy with their usual duties of collecting
> and posting statistics on the Internet for public inspection.? It's
> just that they aren't calling the public's attention to these numbers.
> Thus, it is the public who must find the information and figure out
> what it means.? After locating web sites, translating from Japanese,
> adding data for each of 12 months, and making some calculations,
> mortality trends in Japan after Fukushima are emerging. Read more of
> this post
>
> Christina MacPherson | August 16, 2012 at 4:03 am | Categories:
> health, Japan, Reference | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-73G
>
> http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/16/disease-and-death-toll-from-fukushi
> ma-radiation-needs-careful-patient-tracking/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:08:41 -0400
From: Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Incidental Radiation Generating Device
Leakage
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CAADHP=PROXy7xzOLj_8bf=aeR2BRCe1ADUr5ZsdjG6ycu+vUqw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Folks
Is it just me, or is there something quite strange about the Tennessee
definition of "accelerator":
?Accelerator? means any device used to impart kinetic energy to
electrically charged particles
including but not limited to electrons, protons, deuterons, and helium
ions. For the purpose
of this chapter ?accelerator? includes equipment designed for and used
only for the
production of x-rays of 0.9 MeV or greater and equipment capable of
discharging nuclear
particles into a medium external to the accelerating device. ?
So, they use 0.9 MeV as a threshold, where the regs I remember use
1.0, but that is not a big deal. The second phrase though, refers
only to nuclear particles. Do they intend to exclude electrons from
that secondary definition, and why, pray tell?
TIA and
Cheers
cja
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <roseb at gdls.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating
Device Leakage Radiation Limits
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
John:
I am pleased to have wowed you!
I referenced the OLD DOE manual because I was not able to readily find the
most recent manual online yesterday. After a bit more digging, I was able
to locate the following:
DOE STANDARD: RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL (DOE-STD-1098-99), July 1999
http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/Radiological_Control_Standard.pdf
DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities (2011)
https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0420.2-BOrder-c/view
Article 365.3 in the 1999 DOE Radcon manual is the same as in the 1994 DOE
Radcon manual, that article leaves the establishment of radiological
controls for such devices to line management AND the Radiological Controls
Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-24, pdf p. 75/189). The policy also remains
substantially the same.
The DOE order O 420.2C (2011) defines what constitutes and accelerator. An
electron beam welder would fall under the definition of an accelerator.
This order appears to still leave determination of the device exposure
limits to management and the RCO.
FDA purview:
Compliance Guide for Cabinet X-Ray Systems
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094358.htm
The FDA does not appear in the above guide or 21CFR Subcahapter J to
provide any specific or general guidance regarding leakage radiation
limits for devices such as electron microscopes or electron beam welders.
Applicability of State regulations to the B&W Y-12 or other DOE site -
State radiological health regulations, though possibly useful as a guide,
might not be applicable at DOE sites or operations. Such sites are often
considered federal enclaves or exclusive federal jurisdictions. Assuming
the device is actually located in Tennessee at a DOE site or operation,
and that the device is an electron beam welder, the following Tennessee
rule could be applicable or used as guidance, since an electron beam
welder appears to meet the definition of an accelerator in the rule
CHAPTER 0400-20-09, REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCELERATORS
http://www.tn.gov/sos/rules/0400/0400-20/0400-20.htm
The above rule does not provide any specific or general guidance regarding
leakage radiation limits for an accelerator device. The guidance or
requirements provided as to permissible radiation levels in the
accelerator facility appear to be less stringent (2 mrem or 10 mrem, 0.02
mSv or 0.10 mSv) in any one hour) than those in ANSI N43.3 for an Exempt
Shielded Installation (0.5 mrem or 0.005 mSv in any one hour). The ANSI
N43.3 radiation level criteria for an Exempt Shielded Installation appears
to be a reasonable and feasible leakage radiation control limit for
devices such as electron microscopes and electron beam welders, especially
if the available data for these devices (i.e. manufacturer's data, site
survey data, etc.) indicate reasonable entitlement for this control limit.
Henry
Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:22:50 -0400
From: roseb at gdls.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Incidental Radiation Generating Device
Leakage
To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<OFAEB51100.1ED730B3-ON85257A70.00800B1B-85257A70.008070B4 at gdls.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Chris:
Take a look at the definition of Accelerator in:
DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities (2011)
https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0420.2-BOrder-c/view
That definition is similar to the Tennessee definition but it includes
subatomic particles.
Henry
Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
Sent by: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu
09/05/2012 07:08 PM
Please respond to
"The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
To
"The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
cc
Subject
[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Incidental Radiation Generating Device Leakage
Folks
Is it just me, or is there something quite strange about the Tennessee
definition of "accelerator":
?Accelerator? means any device used to impart kinetic energy to
electrically charged particles
including but not limited to electrons, protons, deuterons, and helium
ions. For the purpose
of this chapter ?accelerator? includes equipment designed for and used
only for the
production of x-rays of 0.9 MeV or greater and equipment capable of
discharging nuclear
particles into a medium external to the accelerating device. ?
So, they use 0.9 MeV as a threshold, where the regs I remember use
1.0, but that is not a big deal. The second phrase though, refers
only to nuclear particles. Do they intend to exclude electrons from
that secondary definition, and why, pray tell?
TIA and
Cheers
cja
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <roseb at gdls.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Incidental Radiation Generating
Device Leakage Radiation Limits
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
John:
I am pleased to have wowed you!
I referenced the OLD DOE manual because I was not able to readily find the
most recent manual online yesterday. After a bit more digging, I was able
to locate the following:
DOE STANDARD: RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL (DOE-STD-1098-99), July 1999
http://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/Misc/Radiological_Control_Standard.pdf
DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities (2011)
https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/0420.2-BOrder-c/view
Article 365.3 in the 1999 DOE Radcon manual is the same as in the 1994 DOE
Radcon manual, that article leaves the establishment of radiological
controls for such devices to line management AND the Radiological Controls
Organization (RCO) (DOE, p. 3-24, pdf p. 75/189). The policy also remains
substantially the same.
The DOE order O 420.2C (2011) defines what constitutes and accelerator. An
electron beam welder would fall under the definition of an accelerator.
This order appears to still leave determination of the device exposure
limits to management and the RCO.
FDA purview:
Compliance Guide for Cabinet X-Ray Systems
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm094358.htm
The FDA does not appear in the above guide or 21CFR Subcahapter J to
provide any specific or general guidance regarding leakage radiation
limits for devices such as electron microscopes or electron beam welders.
Applicability of State regulations to the B&W Y-12 or other DOE site -
State radiological health regulations, though possibly useful as a guide,
might not be applicable at DOE sites or operations. Such sites are often
considered federal enclaves or exclusive federal jurisdictions. Assuming
the device is actually located in Tennessee at a DOE site or operation,
and that the device is an electron beam welder, the following Tennessee
rule could be applicable or used as guidance, since an electron beam
welder appears to meet the definition of an accelerator in the rule
CHAPTER 0400-20-09, REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCELERATORS
http://www.tn.gov/sos/rules/0400/0400-20/0400-20.htm
The above rule does not provide any specific or general guidance regarding
leakage radiation limits for an accelerator device. The guidance or
requirements provided as to permissible radiation levels in the
accelerator facility appear to be less stringent (2 mrem or 10 mrem, 0.02
mSv or 0.10 mSv) in any one hour) than those in ANSI N43.3 for an Exempt
Shielded Installation (0.5 mrem or 0.005 mSv in any one hour). The ANSI
N43.3 radiation level criteria for an Exempt Shielded Installation appears
to be a reasonable and feasible leakage radiation control limit for
devices such as electron microscopes and electron beam welders, especially
if the available data for these devices (i.e. manufacturer's data, site
survey data, etc.) indicate reasonable entitlement for this control limit.
Henry
Boyd H. Rose, CM, CIH, CHMM, EI
_______________________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 04:26:58 -0700
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Claim that Since 1927 genetic damage from
radiation has been known!
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CALZ0NqWz52WkXxw8djhjibrcrNdfL4yBYZZB_bd-5mpe4CQ5Sg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Latest claim from MacPherson's Nuclear-News screed - lots of claims in
this one to be examined and dissected; number of interesting
personalities claiming to be experts as well.
Roger Helbig
Christina MacPherson posted: "Fukushima?s Butterflies ? known since
1927 technorg, blogs by Jan Hemmer August 17, 2012 by Mikkai ignored
by IAEA, WHO, USCEAR, BEIR, ICRP Quote: ?The collapse of the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant caused a massive release of radioac"
Respond to this post by replying above this line
Since 1927 genetic damage from radiation has been known!
by Christina MacPherson
Fukushima?s Butterflies ? known since 1927 technorg, blogs by Jan Hemmer
August 17, 2012 by Mikkai ignored by IAEA, WHO, USCEAR, BEIR, ICRP
Quote: ?The collapse of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
caused a massive release of radioactive materials to the environment.
A prompt and reliable system for evaluating the biological impacts of
this accident on animals has not been available. Here we show that the
accident caused physiological and genetic damage to the pale grass
blue Zizeeria maha, a common lycaenid butterfly in Japan. We collected
the first-voltine adults in the Fukushima area in May 2011, some of
which showed relatively mild abnormalities. The F1 offspring from the
first-voltine females showed more severe abnormalities, which were
inherited by the F2 generation. Adult butterflies collected in
September 2011 showed more severe abnormalities than those collected
in May. ***Similar abnormalities were experimentally reproduced in
individuals from a non-contaminated area by external and internal
low-dose exposures.**
?We conclude that artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Nuclear
Power Plant caused physiological and genetic damage to this species.?
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00570.html
TO ALL: The Butterflies of Fukushima are known since 1927! One of the
best hidden secrets of the Atomic Military Industrial Complex.
EVIDENCE: Herman J Mueller discovered in 1927 (!) the following:
ARTIFICIAL TRANSMUTATION OF THE GENE by radiation ?
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/m/hjm-1927a.pdf
He used X-Rays on fruit fly Drosophila! 1927!
Emmy Stein generated 1921 with Radium hereditary carcinomas
inAntirrhinum plants:
http://books.google.de/books?id=gPrtE4K0WC8C&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Antirrhinum+radium+Emmy+Stein+1922&source=bl&ots=8EDd9LgkVF&sig=SqeLMTtx98h7aD5LLc_qAtJN3nY&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Antirrhinum%20radium%20Emmy%20Stein%201922&f=false
If Fukushima?s and Chernobyl?s radionuclides mimic X-rays and their
mutagenic effect, then this is transferable to the effect of X-rays /
Fukushima on the human fetus:
http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/wobblysciencepage.htm
ONE radiograph during pregnancy: 20 % increase for cancer probability
before the child is 10 years old. Two radiographs during pregnancy: 28
%. Three: 70 %. FOUR:?. 100 PERCENT. There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF
RADIATION EXPOSURE:
http://books.google.de/books?id=aAoAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=cancer+stewart+xray+1970+radiographs&source=bl&ots=UGZYt0TZGo&sig=ENE9wYZjjNs3Rh2XyptdZwP3Ucw&hl=de&ei=7545Tu6iF8aAOsLrvbMG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsefrom:
http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/safe-radiation-levels-never-get-your-facts-here/
ICRP President ?Karl Morgan was a friend of Hermann M?ller and he
remembers the geneticist?s warning about undermining the health of a
nation and its children?:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE14.html
Karl Morgan ?There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose
of radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero?:
http://books.google.de/books?id=9-8EkIhxeK0C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=%E2%80%9CThere+is+no+safe+level+of+exposure+and+there+is+no+dose+of+radiation+so+low+that+the+risk+of+a+malignancy+is+zero%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=GZXG5ZVK0i&sig=vVvf-pFUOPAPISPaBR5IWmVzlV8&sa=X&ei=AnUyUIq4L6Ss0QWtzoDgDA&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThere%20is%20no%20safe%20level%20of%20exposure%20and%20there%20is%20no%20dose%20of%20radiation%20so%20low%20that%20the%20risk%20of%20a%20malignancy%20is%20zero%E2%80%9D&f=false
http://www.nuclearreader.info/chapter3.html
Butterflies of Fukushima! 2011!
Herman J Mueller got the The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in
1946 for THIS!
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-bio.html
WE KNOW IT SINCE 1927!
An he believed in
EUGENICS!:http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1927_Muller.php
Chernobyl ?compressed several thousand years of evolution into a
decade? ? New York Times
1996http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/science/chernobyl-s-voles-live-but-mutations-surge.html
X-Rays are also used on larger animals, with horrific effects: ?The
Monster Maker? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862623,00.html
Irradiated Fruit Fly (the antenna grows from the eye):........
http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/fukushimas-butterflies-known-since-1927/
Christina MacPherson | September 5, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Categories: 2
WORLD, history, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties | URL:
http://wp.me/phgse-7v2
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/09/05/since-1927-genetic-damage-from-radiation-has-been-known/
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 04:36:20 -0700
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Claim by Drolet - AUDIO: Fukushima deposited more
radioactive material than Chernobyl did
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CALZ0NqU0Lk9HUuUNA7XoEd+HwQavKwsUBFsOi3UbLb2Ou6Yhtw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
What is known about Thomas Drolet? Is he really a nuclear "expert" or
just a cheerleader for the doomsday crowd?
Roger Helbig
Christina MacPherson posted: "Nuclear Expert Back From Japan:
Fukushima deposited a lot more radioactive material than Chernobyl,
except for immediate area around reactors (AUDIO)
http://enenews.com/listen-expert-back-from-japan-fukushima-deposited-a-lot-more-radioactive-material-t"
AUDIO: Fukushima deposited more radioactive material than Chernobyl did
by Christina MacPherson
Nuclear Expert Back From Japan: Fukushima deposited a lot more
radioactive material than Chernobyl, except for immediate area around
reactors (AUDIO)
http://enenews.com/listen-expert-back-from-japan-fukushima-deposited-a-lot-more-radioactive-material-than-chernobyl-except-for-immediate-area-around-reactors-audio
September 5th, 2012 Title: Clean Energy View: Fukushima?s History,
Recovery & Future Source: The Organic View
Date: June 19, 2012
Energy expert, Thomas S. Drolet, President of Drolet and Associates
Energy Services, Inc. recently visited Fukushima and was also at the
site shortly after the disaster occurred to assist with the recovery
process. Mr. Drolet has also been to Chernobyl and is a highly sought
after speaker on the subject of nuclear energy. Drolet: The land to
the northwest of Chernobyl Unit 4 was severely contaminated in
comparison to anything that happened at Fukushima Daiichi, and then
was less and less.
The only good news I can say about Chernobyl is the initial blast was
so strong and so powerful that a lot of it went up into the air, into
the stratosphere almost, and got carried by the jet stream around the
globe.
So the dispersion was far greater in distance, and the amount
deposited ? except for the immediate area, say a 20 mile area around
Chernobyl ? was a lot less.
So its just the way the vagaries of the explosion and the wind were at the time.
Christina MacPherson | September 6, 2012 at 11:31 am | Categories:
Resources -audiovicual | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-7vg
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/09/06/audio-fukushima-deposited-more-radioactive-material-than-chernobyl-did/
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:02:07 -0700
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Busby's Latest VIDEO trumpeted by ENENews and
Nuclear-News: Plutonium probably reached critical mass n Fukushima
reactor No 3
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CALZ0NqWNm7Rsr1A4mbA8-YgvXpSHCvWFk4Y3V1LqzsFcqDY7sQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Plutonium is the evil of evils, just ask Busby who claims that
critical mass was reached - he should be banned from YouTube along
with his MsMilkyTheClown and other accolytes or stooges - this
spreading of pseudoscience should be grounds for the University of
Ulster to terminate Busby's academic relationship with that
institution if they are indeed a legitimate institution of higher
learning and not one that trades on the hype spread by people like
Christopher Charles Busby, PhD, Chemical Physics (does anyone on this
list know anyone near the University of Kent who can obtain the actual
thesis? - if they do, please, ask them to contact me and I will
provide the thesis title and library location. It is time that the
world knows that the subject of the thesis has nothing to do with
nuclear power or radiation and that Busby has been trading on lies for
decades.
Roger Helbig
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Christina MacPherson posted: "Busby: I think plutonium probably
reached critical mass at Reactor 3 which caused explosion (VIDEO)
September 6th, 2012 By ENENews Nuked Radio Special: Busby Speaks
September 4, 2012 Dr. Chris Busby: I think what happened originally
was it got hot e"
Respond to this post by replying above this line
VIDEO: Plutonium probably reached critical mass n Fukushima reactor No 3
by Christina MacPherson
Busby: I think plutonium probably reached critical mass at Reactor 3
which caused explosion (VIDEO) September 6th, 2012 By ENENews Nuked
Radio Special: Busby Speaks September 4, 2012
Dr. Chris Busby: I think what happened originally was it got hot
enough to volatilize the plutonium. See, in these reactors there?s
always plutonium. In Reactor 3, there was plutonium they put in there
in the first place.
And plutonium has a lower boiling point than uranium.
So in principal if you heat the thing high enough, the plutonium comes
off first, like the fractional distillation of oil.
So as the plutonium comes off, it will then condense in the cooler
part of whatever it is coming off into, the pressure vessel I guess?
and you only need about 9 kg of plutonium to have critical mass, so
that could then explode and blow everything up in the air.
I think that is probably what happened at Reactor 3......
http://enenews.com/busby-plutonium-reached-critical-mass-reactor-3-caused-explosion-video
Christina MacPherson | September 6, 2012 at 11:33 am | Categories:
Resources -audiovicual | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-7vi
http://nuclear-news.net/2012/09/06/video-plutonium-probably-reached-critical-mass-n-fukushima-reactor-no-3/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:22:32 -0700
From: Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Libel Laws in Australia
To: RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
<CALZ0NqXHMHEJ9RHsw6Xt3P5p-bTucs8CHf4qjoW-Awr9OQ49Cw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
Does free speech really pertain to continuous misinformation and lies
being spread by Australian Christina MacPherson and her so-called
Nuclear-News? Very little of what has been posted recently has been
factual and she spreads the lies for profit of charlatans like Arnold
Gundersen (who has announced TEPCO is incapable of cleaning up the
Fukushima reactor complex) or Christopher Charles Busby who asserts as
a "knowledgeable" scientific professional that the Plutonium in
Reactor #3 reached a critical mass and detonated. This is an
intolerable level of misinformation that is poisoning the minds of the
world.
Roger Helbig
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 1071, Issue 1
****************************************
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list